farnz Posted August 16, 2008 Share #401 Posted August 16, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) ... As an aside, I was stopped in the street last weekend by some very nice people raising a petition against national identity cards. I asked them what they would do with my name and address. "Put them on a database" said the nice lady... Hmm ... 1. Select on of one's feet. 2. Load gun. 3. Aim gun at foot. 4. Fire gun. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 Hi farnz, Take a look here Advice to photographers in Uk. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ChrisC Posted August 16, 2008 Share #402 Posted August 16, 2008 .... I do think that the threat from terrorism is worth being subjected to the level of inconvinience that the guy in Andy's photo (A photographer taking pictures of tower bridge, stopped by 2 police officers) was subjected to. I guess we should adapt, and carry a buisness card, with our name, "Amateur Photographer", website, email and mobile number, and hand it out when questioned. If we are carrying a mobile, they could ring as verification....... Joe - Is that your name? I see you use a pseudonym rather than sign, or reveal, your full name and location; as is your right. You might argue that your identity on this forum is nobody's business, yet you suggest acquiescence and what amounts to full identity disclosure to those who question us when we are going about our entirely lawful activity in public. On a public forum concerned with photography you link photographing to terrorism. Your post scares me. Political Executives always gravitate towards wanting more powers. Police always want more powers. Holding those Executives and the police to account is a full time job because citizens rights are hard fought for and hard won; rights are not kindly presents generously handed to citizens by benevolent ruling elites. This thread highlights that rights we as citizens may well have taken for granted are under threat; acquiescing is the last thing we should be doing. You may think that revealing one's name, address, e-mail, mobile phone number etc. someone stopping someone making pictures is OK but I do not. I considered it an affront when I was followed and stopped by two lazy police officers a couple of weeks ago. Apparently, as I reported earlier in the thread, I looked 'suspicious'. I felt insulted by them and told them so, I have had to analyze exactly what it was that made me 'suspicious' when thousands of others at the same event who were photographing and videoing were not 'suspicious'. The only thing that would have made me stand out to them is that after lining up my shot; I kept still while photographing. Look out mate, if the fashionistas get their way and tie a link between terrorism and wearing socks with sandals; maybe if you keep still, you too will be 'suspicious'. That would be no less crass than what happened to me when I was photographing. Good policing is only possible with a population's consent and police respect for citizens rights. Making sure that the fine balance of state power against citizens rights does not swing to our disadvantage takes the vigilance of all of us. The process, for those of us lucky to have it; is democracy. .................. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted August 16, 2008 Author Share #403 Posted August 16, 2008 Sorry Bill - that group just splintered into Federation for a Free Frimley (2 members)and the racier Forza Frimley! party - 1 member. ...and don't forget the tree-hugging Frimley Greens... Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted August 16, 2008 Share #404 Posted August 16, 2008 People's Popular Front of Frimley? Splitters! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted August 16, 2008 Author Share #405 Posted August 16, 2008 People's Popular Front of Frimley? Splitters! Henceforth, I shall also answer to my nom de revolucion, "Wolfie"... Regards, Bill (Power to the Photographers!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_murray Posted August 16, 2008 Share #406 Posted August 16, 2008 Originally Posted by Bill - Henceforth, I shall also answer to my nom de revolucion, "Wolfie"... Or how about Linsey Woolsey...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted August 16, 2008 Share #407 Posted August 16, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Henceforth, I shall also answer to my nom de revolucion, "Wolfie"... Regards, Bill (Power to the Photographers!) I was thinking more along the lines of: REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the f-ing Judean People's Front. P.F.J.: Yeah... JUDITH: Splitters. P.F.J.: Splitters... FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People's Front. P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters... LORETTA: And the People's Front of Judea. P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters... REG: What? LORETTA: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters. REG: We're the People's Front of Judea! LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front. REG: People's Front! C-huh. FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg? REG: He's over there. P.F.J.: Splitter! (From Life of Brian: Scene 7) Funniest film ever made IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted August 16, 2008 Share #408 Posted August 16, 2008 REG:Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the f-ing Judean People's Front. P.F.J.: Yeah... JUDITH: Splitters. P.F.J.: Splitters... FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People's Front. P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters... LORETTA: And the People's Front of Judea. P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters... REG: What? LORETTA: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters. REG: We're the People's Front of Judea! LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front. REG: People's Front! C-huh. FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg? REG: He's over there. P.F.J.: Splitter! BASTARD How can seriousness compete with that? .................... Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted August 16, 2008 Share #409 Posted August 16, 2008 I was thinking more along the lines of: ... Me too. Splitter! Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted August 16, 2008 Share #410 Posted August 16, 2008 Interestingly, I was mooching around Tower Bridge today and there were more photographers acting suspiciously (therefore potential terrorists by association) than I could reasonably report to the police. What should I have done?? Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe 90 Posted August 17, 2008 Share #411 Posted August 17, 2008 Mr C (is that your real name?), you are right, Joe 90 is not my real name. I've left the UK now, but spent time in Tower Hamlets, many an hour stuck in a traffic jam on Tower Bridge. I did my thing, voting against various quangos at election time, reporting crimes in progress, etc. It all seemed futile. The Police were totally unresponsive, and so overworked that they didn't have time to watch residents video's of cars being broken into. Last time I called 999 was to report a car theft in progress, after being placed on hold for some time, I was told to get off the line and stop wasting Police time. Was it my car? How did I know the owner hadn't simply lost his keys? After 7/7, things improved significantly resource wise, but stop searches, vehicle checks and questionings need to be logged and checked for ethnic/cultural/religious/gender/weight/appearance bias. Overall though, the extra policing appears to have improved things a little. So if you are questioned about your hobby, you don't necessarily look suspicious, you probably look like the most sane, rational, considerate person holding a camera, which is why you are picked out. The Police just need to balance their stop and check statistics, and then they can continue their shift without worry of being branded biased against a particular group of criminals. Help them stamp out crime by being a tick in a box. Populations change, the UK is a democracy, if the masses now share different values to yourself on a permanent basis, what is going to change? Cooperate on the ground with the Police. By all means protest to your MP, vote for change, fight to change public opinion. Just don't make the Police less effective by turning into an obstruction. I chose to simply move on, and take up a hobbly with my spare time. For me it was photography. For anyone actually wanting to photograph Tower Bridge, my advice is to take a commuter ferry (Thames Clippers), and photograph the bridge from the water. Last time I went there were Police on board, so take a business card, and some fast film! It gets a bit choppy out there sometimes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted August 17, 2008 Share #412 Posted August 17, 2008 ... I am also concerned about terrorism in London, and I do think that the threat from terrorism is worth being subjected to the level of inconvinience that the guy in Andy's photo (A photographer taking pictures of tower bridge, stopped by 2 police officers) was subjected to. I guess we should adapt, and carry a buisness card, with our name, "Amateur Photographer", website, email and mobile number, and hand it out when questioned. If we are carrying a mobile, they could ring as verification. ... ... I've left the UK now, .... Oh so you really mean that the threat from terrorism is worth US (the people who are still living in the UK) being subjected to the "level of inconvenience"? What you're actually talking about is an intrusion on personal rights for typically very dubious reasons and from someone to whom this has actually happened I can tell you that it is unpleasant because you're unreasonably made to feel as though you're a criminal, and it has lasting repercussions. For example, I now find myself thinking twice about street photography and being self-conscious about what I'm doing despite being fully within my rights and acting within the law. You see, it's an easy thing to say it's a good idea to stop and interrogate people neo-randomly (ie with a modicum of an excuse at best) in the name of preventing acts of terrorism because it's happening to someone else and you're not affected. But if it happens to you, it's a little different. Just think: in the UK we managed to survive through the IRA's terrorist campaign without this witch-hunt of photographers. Pete. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
magd0328 Posted August 17, 2008 Share #413 Posted August 17, 2008 Am currently shooting in Beijing in the middle of the Olympics and have so far been able to photograph completely freely, at least on the street as a 'tourist'. You can photograph stood right underneath the nose of a policeman or soldier and they don't bat an eyelid. Actually, you pretty much have to photograph under the nose of a policeman or soldier, there are so many of them. As someone has already pointed out the best way to thwart the ridiculous campaign in the UK (which I believe has now been withdrawn) is to stand in a phone box in Traflagar Square and dial the number every time you see someone lift a camera to their face. In other words, without cease. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted August 17, 2008 Share #414 Posted August 17, 2008 ....What you're actually talking about is an intrusion on personal rights for typically very dubious reasons and from someone to whom this has actually happened I can tell you that it is unpleasant because you're unreasonably made to feel as though you're a criminal, and it has lasting repercussions... Pete - I agree with your entire post. My photography has already changed because I have other people's irrational fears about photography on my horizon and I resent the self censorship effect it is having on my lawful, honourable activity. For the first time in my life I am watchful for police watching me; I am wondering if they too are as stupid, lazy, and irrational about my photography as the two police who followed me. One thing did amuse me about my police incident however; as a parting shot one officer looked at my stealth-mode M8 and said 'that's a nice old camera'. .................... Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted August 17, 2008 Share #415 Posted August 17, 2008 ... As someone has already pointed out the best way to thwart the ridiculous campaign in the UK (which I believe has now been withdrawn) ... Has it?? I certainly hope so but please tell us what makes you to think so. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted August 17, 2008 Author Share #416 Posted August 17, 2008 Would you mind explaining to us why you were annoyed? Did I miss the answer? Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amoment Posted August 17, 2008 Share #417 Posted August 17, 2008 Did I miss the answer? Regards, Bill I don't think you missed it Bill, I too have been waiting for the answer from Joe 90 to quite a legitimate question, and I am far from happy about his other suggestions regarding recording crime. Enough photographers are being killed in war zones, without them becoming a target on the streets. Stuart Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cocker Posted August 17, 2008 Share #418 Posted August 17, 2008 Did I miss the answer? Regards, Bill If you did I did! My breath is baited :D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted August 17, 2008 Share #419 Posted August 17, 2008 Even journalists are being harassed more than in the recent past. NUJ - National Union of Journalists The Hoo peninsula was the subject of an order under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice Act which appears to give the police considerably extended powers of stop and search etc.which they used to "police" both journalists and photographers as well as protesters. No doubt the whole country could be designated under Section 60 should the "need' arise. See also this blog (second item down) Aug 17th. >Re: PHOTO and this one with video Jason N. Parkinson: Video & Print Journalist: Kent Climate Camp: Police Interest Turns To Journalists Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe 90 Posted August 18, 2008 Share #420 Posted August 18, 2008 I got annoyed recently when someone took pictures of my kid, in a public shopping centre, without asking. It can be worrying for parents. I have been asked to explain the above. An instinctive, perhaps irrational fear gripped me almost instantly. Probably pumped up by newspaper reports, I agree. I did think of child abductions. Then I rememberd I like photography and backed off. In the past a Japanese tourist had asked if she could take a picture. Her husband then took a shot too. That was very non threatening in comparison. Parents have always been protective in the face of photography. My parents were out in London in the late 50s, my father with his M3 tried to take a picture of an African woman with 3 small children. The mother got upset and covered the childrens faces and shouted at him to go away. This had the desired effect, and upset my mother who recalls the story to this day. People have been camera shy since way back. When I lived in Tower Hamlets, I had to live with random Police security vehicle checks. I would get pulled over, and have the car searched. Sometimes I would change my route/time to reduce the chance of being stopped, always make sure I had my driving license with me, proof of ID, and a concise answer to where have you been, where are you going, etc to minimise disruption of an extended search. I would remove certain things from the boot, as they attracted strange questions. Being stopped is an inconvenience, it costs time, but you live with it, and your life is 'better' for the increased security. Crime does go down. If you lived within walking distance of a former bomb target, where people have been killed, where neighbours that were in tell you of the effects of the blast, even if it is only of how the glass in the double glazed windows momentarily curved right in and appeared to almost break, then you realise the threat is real, and for me personally, worth inconvenience of security. If you live 100 miles away, the inconvenience for you is unlikely to outweigh the personal benefit. My view is that past political mistakes made these security measures necessary. As a street photographer, I think it is of benefit to have a thick skin, but also good interpersonal skills, as this will get you a more natural shot. If you give up street photography the first time someone says boo, or you become more self concious, you will be the worse as a photographer for it. Recognise your weakness, and tackle it head on. It is a tough old world, and I have no sympathy for a street photographer who complains of being emotionally intimidated at the thought of potentially being stopped and questioned. People have died from IRA terrorist actions in walking distance from where I lived, and to complain of being slightly intimidated at the potential of being asked a direct question by someone employed to protect property and the citizens that you intend to photograph is a bit rich. As a former local living in that environment, as a resident, Police checks made me feel better. Checks as described would not stop a good street photographer or journalist. You can choose whether or not to carry a camera. Talk about not being intimidated by IRA terrorism in the absence of adequate security is easy if you are not living in the target zone. Without effective Police checks and security, I would not consider going back, and the terrorists would have won. The increased security has actually improved the area since I left in my view. Perhaps the place is just better off without me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.