Does anyone know/recognise the man in the photo on my book cover?

[Linnet]

Well I shall just have to live with your patronising thoughts, don't worry it will not keep me awake at night.

[Frederick1]

The fact that it was taken circa 1935 I would hardly think he is still alive.

 

Steady on Linnet! I was only born the following year and can assure you I'm very much "still alive" lol!!!

 

:)

[*Belle*]

Steady on Linnet! I was only born the following year and can assure you I'm very much "still alive" lol!!!

 

:)

 

And may you have many more years to come

 

However it is unlikely that a middle aged chap of the same era is. He would be at least 120 by now, which is a bit of a long shot.

[Linnet]

Thank you Belle for that! I did laugh when I read it, don't worry Frederick1 we are all rooting for you.

 

Yes my parents in the pic are early 20's, and would now be 104 and the gentleman in question behind them looks around 40+ so if he is out there at the moment I would be thrilled to shake his hand.

 

---------- Post added 14-03-2015 at 20:12 ----------

 

Trastrick - yes think we have established it was Blackpool and one of the many holiday photos that was taken ad hoc and you didn't know about it until the photographer gave you the slip. As for being middle class, my father was working class all his life now the guy who is the subject of the search definitely looks middle class - will we ever know?

[Tommo68]

What 'you believe' is frankly, irrelevant. In this country, photographs (even of people) taken in public places can be taken for fun or for commercial gain, no ones permission is required. The only exceptions being some central London sites, where professional photographers using the sites as a location, are required to pay a fee. Other than this you are talking tosh.

 

 

There is now and has always been a great deal of difference between what the state and some people consider to be legal and what a lot of decent people consider to be right.

 

There is little point in trying to find decency and respect for others from the former or people like yourself. Though I did think you were better than that Belle.

 

I hope one day you find yourselves in a position where someone is exploiting your image without your consent.

.

.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Tommo68

[me-and-pippo]

There is now and has always been a great deal of difference between what the state and some people consider to be legal and what a lot of decent people consider to be right.

 

There is little point in trying to find decency and respect for others from the former or people like yourself. Though I did think you were better than that Belle.

 

I hope one day you find yourselves in a position where someone is exploiting your image without your consent.

.

.

 

And you should stop trolling!

[Linnet]

Absolutely right 'Me & Pippo'

 

To Tommo - just take your pendantic way of looking at things in another direction, this is my family I am talking about and in no way would I wish to take benefit of their existence. Being immensely proud of them is enough - you must live in a very sad world go and pontificate to someone else.

[*Belle*]

 

I hope one day you find yourselves in a position where someone is exploiting your image.

 

.

 

At my age, I should be so lucky.

[Linnet]

Me too Belle.

[BarryRiley]

I only find it offensive, very much so, that you and some others like you think its alright to grant yourself permission to publish a photograph of a person, without having either their consent or that of their next of kin.

 

You said you owned the photographs do you also own the copyright on them as well you never said, copyright can be a very sensitive issue.

.

.

 

That's ridiculous. If you had to search for, identify and get permission from the next of kin of everyone ever filmed, photographed or recorded for media we would have no archive footage of anything. No Queen's Coronation, no World at War, no documentaries, no news footage.