| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ravenmoon
Validated Poster
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 410
Location: Sheffield
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 6:50 pm Post subject: freedom to photograph? |
 |
|
Do you want to be able to take holiday snaps in public places in the UK? Well your right to do so in the UK may be removed in future.
Please sign the petition at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Photography/#detail.
_________________
"The people will believe what the media tells them they believe." George Orwell |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ravenmoon
Validated Poster
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 410
Location: Sheffield
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is the website of the guy who started the petition
http://phooto.co.uk/rights.shtml
If you read what he has to say you'll see that there's no actual new legislation being proposed .
| Quote: | | I have been been inundated with requests for details regarding the petition I have started at the Number 10 e-petition site. Linked here - http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Photography/. I have NOT said that a bill is in preparation, or that legislation is being prepared, but am referring to the ID cards proposed by various bodies which will serve to create an 'uber class' of photographer, and restrict the use of cameras by normal citizens. These cards will only further the suspicion and misunderstandings that many photographers already suffer. |
_________________
"The people will believe what the media tells them they believe." George Orwell |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just a question;
Do you think that a parent would be justified in confronting a known paedophile who starting photographing or taking video of their child?
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wepmob2000
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 03 Aug 2006
Posts: 431
Location: North East England
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As a keen amateur photographer myself, I'd say a parent or guardian has every right to be suspicious of a strange man who arrives unannounced and starts photographing children under their care.
Common courtesy alone would suggest the person in question would at least introduce himself and ask first (and that goes for photographing all people whom couldn't be considered to be in the public domain). The example thats used in the weblink is a particularly poorly chosen one. Common sense alone would suggest if you wanted to photograph a rugby match, you would chose an adult game and still ask permission first (unless it was a game which you had paid admission to see). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Busker
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Jun 2006
Posts: 374
Location: North East
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wepmob2000 wrote: | | The example thats used in the weblink is a particularly poorly chosen one. Common sense alone would suggest if you wanted to photograph a rugby match, you would chose an adult game and still ask permission first (unless it was a game which you had paid admission to see). |
If you had paid an admission fee it would not be a public place, therefore you would require permission to photograph. (The example cited was a game played in a public park.) Also I didn't see any context as to whether the photgrapher was on their own or not, or indeed male or female.
I'd recommend any budding photographers to get hold of the latest copy of McNae's Essential Law for Journalists. Chapter 35 in the 19th edition covers the Photographer and the Law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wepmob2000
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 03 Aug 2006
Posts: 431
Location: North East England
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alasdair wrote: | | wepmob2000 wrote: | | The example thats used in the weblink is a particularly poorly chosen one. Common sense alone would suggest if you wanted to photograph a rugby match, you would chose an adult game and still ask permission first (unless it was a game which you had paid admission to see). |
If you had paid an admission fee it would not be a public place, therefore you would require permission to photograph. (The example cited was a game played in a public park.) Also I didn't see any context as to whether the photgrapher was on their own or not, or indeed male or female.
I'd recommend any budding photographers to get hold of the latest copy of McNae's Essential Law for Journalists. Chapter 35 in the 19th edition covers the Photographer and the Law. |
Putting the pointless and irritating pedantry to one side, common sense alone suggests the photographer, be they male or female, alone or accompanied, was in the wrong here. Particularly with regard to children you ask permission first, if nothing else then through common courtesy. Any subsequent challenge caused by failure to observe this most basic courtesy is to be expected, and quite reasonably so.
Whilst in principle the law is clearly on the photographers side in this instance, such behaviour will lead to paranoia, and eventually a possible change in the law. There are thousands of beautiful and amazing things to photograph, why choose such a potentially touchy subject?????
P.S. One of my main areas is photographing aircraft, which is developing into a nice little source of extra income. Again this can be a touchy area, particularly near Airports or RAF bases. Asking first where I can has meant I've never been challenged and never been refused, even in the case of military aircraft. In fact as a rule policemen, etc, are quite interested. If all photographers followed this basic reasoning, this non-issue would remain a non-issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flamesong
Major Poster
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | Just a question;
Do you think that a parent would be justified in confronting a known paedophile who starting photographing or taking video of their child? |
Do you think that a parent would be justified in confronting a known paedophile who starting photographing or taking video of their child?
This is the equivalent of asking a WWII pacifist what he would do if he caught a German soldier raping his sister! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| flamesong wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: | Just a question;
Do you think that a parent would be justified in confronting a known paedophile who starting photographing or taking video of their child? |
Do you think that a parent would be justified in confronting a known paedophile who starting photographing or taking video of their child?
This is the equivalent of asking a WWII pacifist what he would do if he caught a German soldier raping his sister! |
Excellent point, yes it is. Many parents' would indeed view this in a similar way, it isn't often we agree. Stonking.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So when do we draft the petition to ask Tony Bliar to explain how witness statements were obtained from passengers on a train that did not run on 7/7?
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Busker
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Jun 2006
Posts: 374
Location: North East
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wepmob2000 wrote: | | Putting the pointless and irritating pedantry to one side |
Me? A pedant? I don't think so. It is the difference between right and wrong. Spout forth if you wish, but the law is the law.
| wepmob2000 wrote: | | ...common sense alone suggests the photographer, be they male or female, alone or accompanied, was in the wrong here. |
The status of the photographer is important just it doesn't fit your argument. A lone female is much less likely to be challenged than a lone male, as is a couple.
| wepmob2000 wrote: | | Particularly with regard to children you ask permission first, if nothing else then through common courtesy. Any subsequent challenge caused by failure to observe this most basic courtesy is to be expected, and quite reasonably so. |
It depends upon the circumstances. The example cited had more to do with someone's livelyhood being perceived as being under threat rather than the children being under threat.
| wepmob2000 wrote: | | Whilst in principle the law is clearly on the photographers side in this instance, such behaviour will lead to paranoia, |
There is no "in principle". The law is on the photographer's side. Paranoia is just that. People threatening photographers through ignorance is no defence for assault or threatening behaviour.
| wepmob2000 wrote: | | There are thousands of beautiful and amazing things to photograph, why choose such a potentially touchy subject????? |
The logical extension to that is you would never see photographic coverage of a demonstration. You stifle civil liberties and infringe on individual rights.
| wepmob2000 wrote: | | P.S. One of my main areas is photographing aircraft, which is developing into a nice little source of extra income. Again this can be a touchy area, particularly near Airports or RAF bases. Asking first where I can has meant I've never been challenged and never been refused, even in the case of military aircraft. In fact as a rule policemen, etc, are quite interested. If all photographers followed this basic reasoning, this non-issue would remain a non-issue. |
The fact is, if you are informed about your rights, you don't need to ask permission. If you ask permission you are fuelling the police's attitude they are doing you a favour allowing you to photograph. Despite everything Blair has tried to do, we do still have certain rights enshrined in law. I have been challenged by police photographing in Parliament Square, Horse Guards Parade and in my local town whilst recording security camera installations that record people in public areas. A polite explanation, when challenged, has been sufficient in all circumstances to satisfy any authority that has tried to interfere with what I was doing. As a rule I do avoid children like the plague, because it isn't worth the hassle, but I will not let ignorance go unchallenged and if approach by an over zealous CPO under similar circumstances to the original example. I would have gone through her like a dose of salts. Like any other situation, educate yourself, know your rights and exercise them. If challenged, be prepared to explain politely that you know what you are doing. (Of course my press card makes most 'authorities' back off without too much grief.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wepmob2000
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 03 Aug 2006
Posts: 431
Location: North East England
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alasdair wrote: | | wepmob2000 wrote: | | Putting the pointless and irritating pedantry to one side |
Me? A pedant? I don't think so. It is the difference between right and wrong. Spout forth if you wish, but the law is the law.
| wepmob2000 wrote: | | ...common sense alone suggests the photographer, be they male or female, alone or accompanied, was in the wrong here. |
The status of the photographer is important just it doesn't fit your argument. A lone female is much less likely to be challenged than a lone male, as is a couple.
| wepmob2000 wrote: | | Particularly with regard to children you ask permission first, if nothing else then through common courtesy. Any subsequent challenge caused by failure to observe this most basic courtesy is to be expected, and quite reasonably so. |
It depends upon the circumstances. The example cited had more to do with someone's livelyhood being perceived as being under threat rather than the children being under threat.
| wepmob2000 wrote: | | Whilst in principle the law is clearly on the photographers side in this instance, such behaviour will lead to paranoia, |
There is no "in principle". The law is on the photographer's side. Paranoia is just that. People threatening photographers through ignorance is no defence for assault or threatening behaviour.
| wepmob2000 wrote: | | There are thousands of beautiful and amazing things to photograph, why choose such a potentially touchy subject????? |
The logical extension to that is you would never see photographic coverage of a demonstration. You stifle civil liberties and infringe on individual rights.
| wepmob2000 wrote: | | P.S. One of my main areas is photographing aircraft, which is developing into a nice little source of extra income. Again this can be a touchy area, particularly near Airports or RAF bases. Asking first where I can has meant I've never been challenged and never been refused, even in the case of military aircraft. In fact as a rule policemen, etc, are quite interested. If all photographers followed this basic reasoning, this non-issue would remain a non-issue. |
The fact is, if you are informed about your rights, you don't need to ask permission. If you ask permission you are fuelling the police's attitude they are doing you a favour allowing you to photograph. Despite everything Blair has tried to do, we do still have certain rights enshrined in law. I have been challenged by police photographing in Parliament Square, Horse Guards Parade and in my local town whilst recording security camera installations that record people in public areas. A polite explanation, when challenged, has been sufficient in all circumstances to satisfy any authority that has tried to interfere with what I was doing. As a rule I do avoid children like the plague, because it isn't worth the hassle, but I will not let ignorance go unchallenged and if approach by an over zealous CPO under similar circumstances to the original example. I would have gone through her like a dose of salts. Like any other situation, educate yourself, know your rights and exercise them. If challenged, be prepared to explain politely that you know what you are doing. (Of course my press card makes most 'authorities' back off without too much grief.) |
Sigh, it seems pointless arguing with you, but my point is very simple. Yes you may do things that are fully within the bounds of the law, but if you ignore certain common sense boundaries even while within the bounds of the law, then you fuel paranoia. The instance of the children is one of them, as you yourself then say, 'it wouldn't be worth the hassle', and I do think a parent or guardian in such circumstances has every right to be suspicious. Exercising your rights in such inconsiderate ways is just giving the PTB more ammunition. As regards the rest (i.e. aircraft, I don't know about government surveillance equipment), I find asking first (if possible) does two things....
a) Prevents any challenges from occurring, which are legitimate in a touchy area, I am after in effect 'lurking' near military or civilian airports and.....
b) often gives you useful pointers in advance of the best things to shoot! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Busker
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Jun 2006
Posts: 374
Location: North East
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wepmob2000 wrote: | | Sigh, it seems pointless arguing with you, but my point is very simple. Yes you may do things that are fully within the bounds of the law, but if you ignore certain common sense boundaries even while within the bounds of the law, then you fuel paranoia. |
Maybe I'm just a little stroppier than yourself when it comes to exercising personal freedom? (Parents have a right to be cautious, indeed I would be, but not over-step the line and in the example cited the people did indeed over-step the mark)
I suppose the main counter point I am trying to make is if we go around asking permission to do things we are already entitled to do, eventually you will not be allowed to do them without asking permission.
I believe the state should be working for us, not the other way round.
If I can stay on your aviation theme, if I was overseas I would take your approach. (Thinking back to places like Greece, plus I would not be so informed about my rights under the host country's law.) In the UK I wouldn't think twice about turning up near Newcastle, Teesside, Boulmer, Catterick, Dishforth etc. without mentioning it to anyone.
I have had people try and use the "Ways and Means Act" on me and once they realise it isn't going to work they have been reasonable. Keeping it polite and jovial is essential however.
I've got a feeling we're just going to have to agree to differ on this one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
