|
There are a number of moves promoting the requirement of 'ID' cards to allow photographers to operate in a public place.
No, there is no such proposal in the pipeline at all.
Posted 64 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
There are a number of moves promoting the requirement of 'ID' cards to allow photographers to operate in a public place.
Where abouts are these moves?
Posted 64 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Please read the previous threads before posting - from this group 5 days ago.
Posted 64 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
There are a number of moves promoting the requirement of signing petitions against ficticious proposals concerning the use of 'ID' cards to allow photographers to operate in a public place all over flickr!
Posted 64 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Sign this one instead... Much more worthy!
Posted 64 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
These moves have developed from paranoia and only promote suspicion towards genuine people following their hobby or profession.
The paranoia is the condition of the people who start and perpetuate this nonsense.
Posted 64 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Do you mean these moves?
Originally posted 64 months ago.
(permalink)
Sparticus edited this topic 64 months ago.
|
|
thems some moves...
Posted 64 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Sparticus got da moves!
Posted 64 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
Felicity Fatale [deleted] says:
I even had this "information" to sign the petition in my email this morning thanks to the London Photographic Association.
I couldn't even be bothered to email them back and ask them to check their info before emailing so many people.
Posted 64 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Aaaaaargh! Is there no end to this bo!!ocks?
Posted 64 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I started a new photography evening class last week and one of the first things the lecturer did was to tell everyone that the Government was trying to ban photography...
I couldn't stay quiet and had to interject and say "It's nonsense!".
I don't think they believed me (and now probably think I'm an idiot to boot).
I have emailed the lecturer since to explain the full story, will see if he mentions it tomorrow.
Posted 64 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Good luck Boncey - makes you wonder if his photographic teaching is also based on rumour.
Posted 64 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I got stopped by a police officer tonight as I was taking photographs of a tree by my house (none very good). He asked what I was doing, and I said "taking photos of this tree, it looks pretty" and he went "fair enough". Lovely.
Originally posted 64 months ago.
(permalink)
Sparticus edited this topic 64 months ago.
|
|
|
Back in May 2006 I was in Whitehall, a stone's throw from the Prime Minister's residence at 10 Downing Street, photographing a ceremony honouring UN Peacekeepers who had died in the course of their duties.The event was officially sanctioned and there were quite a few police on duty, some to control the traffic, others in case of trouble. The latter were armed. I noticed that a few tourists were being photographed with the armed police and asked one of the policemen if they were happy about that. He replied "Yes, as long as they ask first". Which seems a fair reply. So even photographing armed police can be in order.
Posted 64 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
3 years ago, I went to take a series of industrial landscapes in a place called Seal Sands on Teeside. It's full of chemical works.
After a while, I noticed a security car was following me. He pulled me over and asked what I was doing. He said it was private property and I had no permission. I'd been driving for miles around the place and there were no signs suggesting it was private land.
He told me my car registration was now on their database and would be forwarded to the police and if I returned, I'd get a visit from them.
I once saw an exhibition of photographs that had resulted in the photographer being arrested in the US alongside freely available, almost identical shots from the internet. There's a lot of unnecessary paranoia about.
Posted 64 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The reality on the street is this: an individual officer, not liking someone filming or photographing something dodgy - a so-called 'public order situation' - will usually, in my experience, say that "You can't film here, mate" or "move on you're obstructing/interfering" (i.e. "I can't beat the fuck out of this guy with you here!") And then you say "I have a right to film. This is a public place." At which point the old bill looks dismayed. Like he knows he's met "The Awkward Squad". He could pursue the matter further by asking for a press card. Which you either have or not. Either way, your assertiveness will usually more than adequately warn them off. But being polite and well brought up, you would have probably unconciously stepped back a little anyway. Making life a touch easier for the plod. But, get this. The entire interaction in itself has meant that you have probably taken your eye off the job and missed some crucial action.
Whether or not all this discussion about 'plans' has been a lot of paranoid bollocks. To me the heartening thing here is that people seem to be paying attention to the potential for another erosion of our civil liberties. Some of us were sadly not surprised that such a move could become likely - especially post SOCPA 2005, and having that despot Reid in the Home Office. But the core thing to me is this - when or if the state attempts this kind of shit - people will actively oppose it. Not by petitioning Downing Street, but by civil disobedience and solidarity.
SNAPPERS! - SNAP THE DICTATOR'S NECK
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I was chatting to a Polish artist the other day who had been in England for 3 months. I asked him what he thought of the place. His reply ? " It's OK, but it's a police state...you just don't realise it because you spend all of your time in the pub ............"
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Not to be funny, but read briefly yesterday over someones shoulder in the tube, that a tourist was stopped from taking photos of Kings Cross Station because he was viewed as a terrorist threat.
Now, I don't know about anyone else, but it wold appear that some of us in here have our heads so far up our own rear ends telling everyone to sop panicing and talking bollocks, when indeed if you just opened your eyes, you would see that it is not a whole lot of propaganda but a very real threat to amateurs and proffesionals alike.
Even if it goes against your credo or your morals or whatever excuse or reasoning you might have, we might (hardly likely) be able to do something about it. You never know unless you try. So, if there is a petition, a march or a whatever, swallow it and sign it for heavens sakes.
Oh, and whether it is tripe or not, sign it, because in a few months time it probably will have turned from tripe into truth and you want have to eat your words.
As for mentions of wannabee photographers, maybe a lot of people should remember where they started....
Originally posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
[kerry pringle] edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
Patrick Hoff [deleted] says:
@little tramp: I do not think people will oppose.. most people will obey unfortunately. Think about the 'not bringing any bottles of water on a plane' thing. That's B*LLSH*T, but people don't think - just do what they are told.
And it's not just in your country..I got the same last time on the airport; some security punk told me I couldn't take pics in the arrival hall; I asked 'em if he had it black on white somewhere, and he started all this tough talk...bleeeh. Is this the "free west" or some country at war?
Originally posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
Patrick Hoff edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
@Kerry pringle: Wow, how do you decide which imaginary threat to civil liberties to prioritise? Am trying to follow your advice, but am having trouble signing the petition now I have swallowed it.
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Heh, considering what has happened on July 7th, 2005 with the tube, its not really surprising that the stations are a bit more cautious now about people taking photographs.
I think with most situations where photographers are stopped and questioned what they are taking a picture of - if you just answer honestly the situation is normally resolved and you are left alone (unless the person asking is an arsehole)
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Joe, I fight whatever anybody tries to take away from me that is my right or what I perceive to be wrong.
I also stand up and speak up when some on the tube or bus is playing music, crap music at that, from their mobile phone, challenge anyone not giving up a designated seat for OAP, pregnant or those with small children, to mention but a few.
I do this, A) Because I am a pain in the ARSE, B) Because it is what is right and people just don't have any respect or common sense and C) Because if one other person just decides to do the same thing, hopefully it spurs another to do it and another to do it and before you know it, a problem that seemed insurmountable has been kind of solved because people just decided enough was enough. And plenty of more reasons I won't bore you with. It goes the same for taking photos, if enough people bitch about it being taken away from us, maybe something will come out of it, or we will have a scrap heap of cameras or a jail system full of photogrpahers instead of murderers or rapists, and a flickr group bitching about our rights been taken away, instead of bitching and so far up their own arses to believe it won't happen.
Hence, my rant earlier and now, stop whinging and do something about it. And yes, if it is a load of bollocks, some day at the rate everything else is going it won't be, and the petitions would have been signed already, it is known as preventitive maintenance, you never know.
To add to my rant, I have had the following:
- Liverpool Street Station - Transport Police and Police been told to stop taking photographs
- Oxford Street - Taking photographs of Vintage Posters (?! Why they are deemed to be part of a terrorist threat I have no idea) had the station manager send security staff to ask me to stop and if not to take me upstairs
- Regent Street - Police officers not to take photos
Originally posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
[kerry pringle] edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
|
My problem is not that people are opposed or that they are trying to do something (even if the threat that they are doing something about is spurious and the petition is based on some guy trying to promote his busines [iirc...that might be a different petition]), but that this appears about once a week at the moment in this group (and numerous other times in other groups). People aren't in general researching to see if this is real and are just going along with a mob - it may be a mob on the "right" side, but it's people just accepting what they are told without checking.
And signing a petition against something that isn't happening yet but might do in the future, based on a false premise as to what the petition is about? That's not preventitive maintenance, it's just stupid.
And my pet peeve about this particular petition posting glut - most of the initial posters comment on how weird it is that it wasn't already posted, where each time it has been, with a comment on how weird it is that is that it wasn't already posted.
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@ - Kemaha -
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
These little jobsworths don't know the law they're trying to enforce.
Do you think a little recce by a wannabe terrorist would be any different if they used an SLR or a 3.2 Megapixel phone camera? Or anything's being prevented by you having your shoes X-rayed? Or shampoo confiscated at the airport? Or being banned from demonstrating near the houses of parliament?
They're winning.
I've been threatened with arrest at Camden Town tube by a jumped up little transport policeman and if I'd have had more time and energy I would have taken his bullshit further.
I'm also with cowfish though. I shamefully got caught by this petition thing. Sure there's something in it but not what what's needed now.
Originally posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
davehodg edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
There are already a lot of people being (imho) harrassed by police for taking photos in public places, see links to Flickr pages below:
Paddington Station
East Croydon Station
Battersea Power Station
King's Cross Station newspaper article - as mentioned above
Anti-Terrorism advert in newspaper
Personally, I think this is both pointless and out of order.
Originally posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
TimS edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
i was done this weekend....you cannot use a tripod in whitehall.. this also applies to the whithall side of the london eye... as its private land
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
see also www.flickr.com/groups/airstripone/
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
arcane gravy [deleted] says:
what i don't understand is why photography is perceived to be a terrorist threat in the first place. or any kind of threat for that matter. perhaps all customers of public transport should be blindfolded before entering stations.
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I was about to post the page on TFL that says that you may take photos on the underground, but it now looks like they have changed the rules.
It now appears that you must apply for a permit and that the minimum cost is up to £300 per hour.
www.tfl.gov.uk/tube/arts/filming/filming-faqs.asp
I'm astonished
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Paulo Rodrigues 2006 -
It looks to me like they've tried to write that in plain English and yet it's still open to interpretation. They talk of three classes of photography and then towards the end mention "Individual" as a fourth.
And as for banning the capturing of Graffiti. WTF? That makes criminals a load of people on flickr who took pictures of Camden Town station after it was vandalised at Christmas.
Bah.
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The so called War against terrorism (or tourism - as Bush would say) is completely open ended, and allows the State to write a blank cheque to authoritarianism.
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Incidently, does this sound familiar?
"And in the general hardening of outlook that set in ... practices which had been long abandoned ... -- imprisonment without trial, the use of war prisoners as slaves, public executions, torture to extract confessions, the use of hostages and the deportation of whole populations -- not only became common again, but were tolerated and even defended by people who considered themselves enlightened and progressive."
George Orwell '1984'
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
As for that rumour of a ban -
"A few agents of the thought Police moved always among them, spreading false rumours and marking down and eliminating the few individuals who were judged capable of becoming dangerous..."
George Orwell '1984'
Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not after YOU!
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
There was a thread about the Tube stuff a few months ago. Upshot is, tourist snaps won't be a problem, but if you're going to hang around a station for a while, then you can apply for a free amateur permit.
@Dave: Just because they don't allow pix of graffiti doesn't mean it's a criminal offence. Worst that they can do is make you leave the station, I think. It's kind of understandable that they're not going to allow commercial shoots to promote graffiti, since wide exposure is what the taggers seek.
I think the George Orwell fans should read about Dave Gorman's encounter with police in the Battersea Power Station link above to learn the full horror of police state UK.
More Orwell: "At any rate, spring is here, even in London N.1, and they can't stop you enjoying it. This is a satisfying reflection. ...
"The atom bombs are piling up in the factories, the police are prowling through the cities, the lies are streaming from the loudspeakers, but the earth is still going round the sun, and neither the dictators nor the bureaucrats, deeply as they disapprove of the process, are able to prevent it."
Originally posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
Joe Lee edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
@TimS/Joe Lee... one of the photos you link to as evidence of people being harassed is mine. Joe, you seem to think it's evidence of a 'police state'... really? Maybe you should read it again.
I don't think that the incident involved harrassment at all and I'm still surprised by how many people have read the story and assumed it was.
Basically two police officers asked me what I was doing. I explained. They explained why they had asked me and then they left me to carry on. Hardly harassment.
And really, if you're in a dark corner with your back to the main road doing who-knows-what, isn't it entirely reasonable for a policeman to ask you what you're up to?
I've been stopped taking photographs four times. Twice by the police. On each of those occasions the police didn't stop me because I was taking photos, they stopped to ask what I was doing, had a polite chat and then left me to it.
On the other two occasions it was security guards in NYC who told me that I was on private property and that use of a tripod was banned. On both occasions they were polite and did nothing to stop me from moving two or three yards away on to public property to take an almost identical shot.
The petition is nonsense because there are no proposed moves. Stories of people being stopped don't add any evidence of proposed moves.
Police wonder what you're up to.
Police ask what you're up to.
Police go away
... is not a story of harassment and I'd really rather you didn't try to co-opt it as one.
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
In a moment of sillyness, and boredom, having not really read around about it, i signed that petition and for those who've joined in the discussions about this, i thought i'd post the email that was just sent out to all that signed up...
Thank you for signing the petition on the Downing Street website calling for the Prime Minister to stop proposed restrictions on photography in public places.
This petition has already attracted over 60,000 signatures from people who obviously share your concern. Not surprisingly, the idea that the Government might be poised to restrict your ability to take photos has caused some puzzlement and even alarm.
We have therefore decided to respond to this petition before its closing date of August, in order to reassure people.
The Government appreciates that millions of people in this country enjoy photography. So we have checked carefully to see if any Government department was considering any proposal that might possibly lead to the sort of restrictions suggested by this petition. We have been assured this is not the case.
There may be cases where individual schools or other bodies believe it is necessary to have some restrictions on photography, for instance to protect children, but that would be a matter for local decisions.
In fact, Simon Taylor, who started the petition, has since made clear that he was not really referring to Government action or legislation. His main concern appears to be that photographic societies and other organisations may introduce voluntary ID cards for members to help them explain why they are taking photographs. Again, any such scheme would not involve the Government.
We hope this re-assures you and clears up the confusion.
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
That's that cleared up then.
(For the record: I never thought DG's story shows that the UK is a police state, I think anyone who uses it as an example of police harrassment is being silly and I should learn not to try to be ironic on the internet. Sorry for any confusion.)
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Sorry I didn't pick up on the irony Joe. It's hard to spot irony when someone is quoting George Orwell.
For what it's worth, the point still stands as TimS was pretty definitely using the story as supposed 'evidence of harassment' in his post here and it really is evidence of no such thing.
(The third of his links is to one of my pictures.)
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I had a similar experience recently. In Hammersmith, photographing nothing in particular, a policeman cam up to me and said you can't photograph here. I said ' yes I can, unless you have a very good reason and can let me know what it is'. He looked a bit fazed and then insisted that I gave him my name and address. I said I could see no reason for me to do that. He insisted and said it was the law. I told him that the only way I was going to give him my name or stop taking photos was if he arrested me. I also explained that, given that he was completely wrong, he would look like a complete tosser back at te station when it was established he had made an unlawful arrest. Up to you, pal. He just mumbled something and walked off. Bottom line, they have no idea what they are doing.
Originally posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
LightsCameraAction edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
|
Well done for standing up for your rights!
If more of us did that then we'd be better off for it I think.
I've never had such a run-in but I wouldn't delete a photo off my camera (or let anyone else even touch it) unless I thought I was in physical danger if I refused.
Scary that the police either don't know a citizen's rights or just don't care and resort to outright intimidation instead.
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
As far as I am aware one local council considered bringing in a ban and then decided it was over-reaction. The other week a football (soccer) referee threatened to abandon a kids game if spectators didn't stop taking photos. In both cases the problem started with people photographing minors. Also in both cases the problem is that a child may be a Ward of Court and one or both parents might be being kept in the dark about the child's whereabouts for safety reasons. If someone posts a photo on the internet and either says where it was taken or it is pretty obvious from the surroundings that can cause a problem. I suspect that in the football match one child was a Ward of Court and the referee knew about it.
I am quite happy to use that as an excuse not to photograph kids' sports when parents ask me to because that sort of thing doesn't interest me anyway.
Phil.
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
you know the biggest conspiracy theory I've heard about those Government petitions? That the Govt. is allowed to send out 3 emails to everyone who signs a petition, and as long as it loosely applies to the petition it's ok. So if you're one of the (many, many, in pretty much every group i inhabit) people who's signed it, expect to receive at least 2 emails promoting the Government - and you can't complain, you handed over your email address without checking why!
(not that that's necessarily a problem, just that people should check what they electronically sign!)
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@knautia: If the Govt dept isn't allowed to send out the 3 e-mails then you don't need to worry about them but if they can then they know your e-mail address already and don't need the authorisation!
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I heard they are planning to ban petitions.
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I say ban everything and be done with it.
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
London /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to London discussion threads
