London Metropolitan Police loose the plot.

[TPPhotog]

Thinking about it I've yet to see any ban succeed. Bans are only accepted by those that are law abiding in the first place, to the criminals it's just something else to ignore.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

That's because you fit their mental image/archetype of an excentric, inoffensive hobbyst/professor/scientist. Go out with a small, silver P&S type camera, and report on the experiences.?

I know what will happen already - people will be annoyed! We just have to face the fact that Joe Public does not want to be photographed on the street - for a number of reasons, epitomized by the death of Princess Diana. This rings down the curtain on a major era of candid photographic work which began roughly with the introduction of the Leica. This is sad for anyone who would like to emulate Cartier-Bresson, but I see no way of changing things!

I belive you are confusing security with intrusive regulations pour le galerie.

You bet that most post-9/11 security activity is window-dressing to re-assure the public, or "pour la galerie" if you wish. I find this, too, unremarkable!

Stockholm syndrome?

I presume you mean abduction victims coming to identify with their captors. Certainly not applicable to me, I simply like law and order, and I have never found a law whose observance limits me in what I want to do. Given current world population levels and the concomitant environmental situation, it is the case that we are required today to follow more rules and regulations than ever before. This, too, I find inevitable!

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Thinking about it I've yet to see any ban succeed. Bans are only accepted by those that are law abiding in the first place, to the criminals it's just something else to ignore.

Yes, quite.

Criminals are surprisingly flexible. After all, criminality is essentially an alternative life strategy and will always be tailored to the 'host society'. Suitably parasitic terminology?

Banning things simply imposes constraints upon the main poulation but is simply factored in and circumnavigated (or ignored) by the criminal fraternity as part of the pain/gain assessment.

In the UK we have for some time had a 'ban it' culture and post Diana, photographers already became akin to vermin. I have had experiences like David where passing people have been interested. Equally I have had people aggressively demanding to know what I am doing and challenging me to make sure I did not take a picture of them (when doing general street scenes with no person in particularr being of interest). The problem to me seems to be that we keep going for the easy options and swallowing the political lures all the way. To tackle the underlying cuases of crime would neccessitate considering the possibility that the social engineering of the liberal elite (UK reference) may in some way be flawed, which is of course beyond consideration. Therefore instead the current political view appears to be that there has not been enough social meddling and that we need a bigger dose.

It first hit me a while back when I was not allowed to take a photo during my sons birthday when we were at a swimming pool. I was so mad, especially as this was not a public pool but on a military base! I could understand no cameras in changing rooms, but a snap of kids in a pool (wearing swimwear) delivers far less,'flesh' than images from a department stores swimwear for kids section. No doubt their days are numbered and we will soon see swimming trunks on little manequins. I am certain this will happen within a decade or so.


I get doubly upset when I see the future victims of these curtailments on our liberty scrabbling to support yet another ban on something that does not affect them, whilst later whinging about something that does. The sooner people realise that we need to take an unselfish holistic view to these assaults on our liberty and offer mutual support to those who enjoy activities alien to ours, the sooner we will make our voices heard.


Too young to be bitter and twisted,


Tom

 

[Dave Miller]

Succinctly put Tom.
Living is, and always has been subject to dangers. If we are seriously worried about dangers to children, as was the original thread here, then we should ban travel, and particularly the use of cars which cost so many lives.

 

[Dave Miller]

On further reflection, I think we should simply ban everything, and be done with it.

 

[Andy K]

Succinctly put Tom.
Living is, and always has been subject to dangers. If we are seriously worried about dangers to children, as was the original thread here, then we should ban travel, and particularly the use of cars which cost so many lives.

Not so far away as you think Dave. Our 'Darling' Transport Minister wants to put satellite tracking boxes in every car in Britain, and then charge us up to £1.30 per mile travelled. He claims it is to reduce congestion, no mention of improved or cheaper Public Transport, just a massive penalty for anyone wishing to use a car, a penalty which only penalises the poorer sections of society. Also no mention of the massive Government intrusion into our lives whereby they will be following your every move.

 

[Dave Miller]

Not so far away as you think Dave. Our 'Darling' Transport Minister wants to put satellite tracking boxes in every car in Britain, and then charge us up to £1.30 per mile travelled. He claims it is to reduce congestion, no mention of improved or cheaper Public Transport, just a massive penalty for anyone wishing to use a car, a penalty which only penalises the poorer sections of society. Also no mention of the massive Government intrusion into our lives whereby they will be following your every move.

Yes, Andy, I just read that on the BBC page. Wonderful idea which I support wholeheartedly. It may stop my employer making me commute 1000 miles a week, at least when they get the first bill.

 

[arigram]

Right Dave.
Or atleast ban cars. And telephones. And paper. And pens. After all, aren't they used for kidnapping? Or lets ban the whole Internet so those criminals have no way to communicate their evil deeds.
Or better yet, let's cut off everybody's head, put it in a glass jar and connect it to machines. But then, one can see a pretty head and think evil sexual thoughts. Let's then put the heads in different rooms or just take the eyes out, as we won't be needing them anyway.
If that sounds too extreme, then just lobotomise everyone.
Or ok, maybe people would complain.
So, let's just ban child birth, and grow the children in labs with the appropriate tweeking of their genes to remove the offending ones.
Or ok, if its too science fiction for you, just put cops on every corner (just make half the population a cop) so if someone does an abuse let it be a cop. Abusing people in uniform a lot more pleasant than abusing people in civilian clothes.

 

[André E.C.]

One pertinent question!
Isn`t Great Britain becoming more and more an Americanized society?
Are the Brits blind?
Blair? Ohohohoh, give me a break!

Cheers

André

 

[arigram]

I wonder why there is not a movement unlike the weapon one in the US for cameras? If one has a right to bear arms, why can't they bear cameras? But ofcourse cameras are far more dangerous than weapons. After all, "guns don't kill people, people kill people", but cameras, well, cameras can kill and abuse and destroy people, most definately. And stores should stop carrying film and start carrying only shells and bullets.
Better to shoot with a rifle than with a camera, is it not?
It makes for a safer society when people have only rifles and pistols and no cameras!
Soon you will need a permission by the police to carry a camera.
I have one actually, it is my journalist's ID. Helps when the "authority" pesters you.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

One pertinent question!
Isn`t Great Britain becoming more and more an Americanized society?
Are the Brits blind?
Blair? Ohohohoh, give me a break!

Cheers

André

Personally, I do not think it is pertinent.

Tom

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Not so far away as you think Dave. Our 'Darling' Transport Minister wants to put satellite tracking boxes in every car in Britain, and then charge us up to £1.30 per mile travelled. He claims it is to reduce congestion, no mention of improved or cheaper Public Transport, just a massive penalty for anyone wishing to use a car, a penalty which only penalises the poorer sections of society. Also no mention of the massive Government intrusion into our lives whereby they will be following your every move.

And this will have lot more to do with also slipping in speed monitoring, tracking etc for other purposes than fair taxation. Since when has a government ever passed up a cash cow in the name of fairness, except when the 'fairness' is in fact a cunning disguise for a gigantic cash super-cow that also allows it to tighten its ability to control? Because of course stamp-duty and inheritance tax are ethical?

Tom

 

[Ed Sukach]

Must be some sort of "pre-destination" (?) here (note 1). I just downloaded this:

"Freedom has become security
And language weeps

Truth has become security
And language weeps

Thought has become perversity
And language weeps

Private has become secretive
And language weeps

Personal has become national
And language weeps

Rights have become suspicions
And language ceases."


Note 1: I'm not sure about the semantics. I'm recovering after nine hours of Gallery "sitting" yesterday, and I'm still moderately "foggy". I'm committed to a repeat of that schedule today.

 

[127]

So it is okay for London officials to photograph everyone but not everyone else?

A security guard down here in Bournemouth was recently jailed for using the towns secrurity cameras to zoom in on children on the beach.

It was the front page of the local paper, so I presume his family have had their house petrol bombed by now.

Ian

 

[leeturner]

One interesting thing I noticed recently whilst being filmed for a TV documentary was that people on the street went out of their way to get on camera and then make a point of asking what program it was being filmed for. How many times do you watch a TV report with kids jumping up and down for the benefit of the cameras. It seems to be a sad reflection on peoples infatuation with celebrity and TV. On the one hand perfectly acceptable to have oneself and your children filmed and broadcast nationwide but not photographed as a documentary still. Would this proposed ban extend to video and TV cameras, will they ban the sales of digital cameras/phones/film within this exclusion zone? Will they hell as like as then they'd have to take on commercial interests instead of individuals.

OT - this place is getting ridiculous. Now a panel of doctors is recommending that certain types of kitchen knives be banned as they are of the type that is used in a high percentage of domestic incidents. Hell, I could poke someones eye out with a carrot but if I did I would probably find that in future only sliced carrots can be purchased.

 

[Bob F.]

OT - this place is getting ridiculous. Now a panel of doctors is recommending that certain types of kitchen knives be banned as they are of the type that is used in a high percentage of domestic incidents. Hell, I could poke someones eye out with a carrot but if I did I would probably find that in future only slices carrots can be purchased.

The point when I realised we are all doomed is when schools started preventing children from playing conkers in the playground unless they wear eye protection goggles first... Sigh....

With all the "dangers" that have suddenly been identified, I am amazed so many of us made it through school to become adults...


Bob.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

OT - this place is getting ridiculous. Now a panel of doctors is recommending that certain types of kitchen knives be banned as they are of the type that is used in a high percentage of domestic incidents. Hell, I could poke someones eye out with a carrot but if I did I would probably find that in future only slices carrots can be purchased.

To be fair, what they were suggesting was that kitchen knives should be made without points. It probably won't happen anyway, but it would in fact be little hardship to use this type of utensil (when did you last need to stab a carrot?) and might just save the odd life or two.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

........ recommending that certain types of kitchen knives be banned as they are of the type that is used in a high percentage of domestic incidents. Hell, I could poke someones eye out with a carrot but if I did I would probably find that in future only slices carrots can be purchased.

If I had my way only tinned squishy carrots would be available.....but then again those metal tins fill me with concern.

I find it hilarious that during wartime and shortly aterwards, combat, guns and such things were in the forefront of every little boy's mind. Guns and even explosives were easily acquired. I am so glad we started banning things, as things are so much safer now.

IMO the biggest threat we have to our liberty is not the actual acts which curtail our liberty per se, but the stifling of the debate of such initiatives by the astonishingly ruthless and remorselss breed of politicians we now have. Anyone with contrary views is immediately branded an anarchic anti-establishment, xenophobic, right-wing sociopath with an agression problem. We seem to have politicians who use such public 'shamings' in the same way as Putin's Navy nurses used that syringe of sedative when the Kursk went down.

 

[Dimitri]

Anyone with contrary views is immediately branded an anarchic anti-establishment, xenophobic, right-wing sociopath with an agression problem.

Yes, but things have progressed from the past where people were branded "left-wing" and "pinkos"

Ahhh, the insanity of it all. You got to love it. (If you don't you are a prime candidate for the nice white jacket with the designer long sleeves and the fashionable buckle in the past. :rolleyes:

Somehow I think that if Karl was alive today he would have paraphrased his saying about the opiate of the people being TV and not religion.

Oh, well back to my nice padded room. It's soooo quiet in there.

 

[gareth harper]

Now't wrong with bring anarchic or anti-establishment!

Anyway there's more in AP this week, but they have yet to update their web site at http://www.amateurphotographer.com

Sorry but that's all I've time for at the mo, things are getting busy for me with the G8 coming up. 1195 posts since my last visit. I give in for now.

Catch you all later,

Gareth.

 

[bjorke]

Anyone with contrary views is immediately branded an anarchic anti-establishment, xenophobic, right-wing sociopath with an agression problem.

I thought the term was "member of the liberal elite"

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I thought the term was "member of the liberal elite"

The liberal elite are those doing the branding of dissenters...

 

[Uncle Bill]

While Kiddie porn is evil to the core and those caught making the stuff should have full weight of the law come down on them. I will not be packing a camera to London if I travel there because of Red Ken's (the mayor of London and part of the loony left of the Labour Party) idea clamp down on photographers and the problem will go a away. The real problem is parents are not being parents to their children and that is why the sickos can take advantage of them.

 

[Bob F.]

The liberal elite are those doing the branding of dissenters...

That's very illiberal of them...

 

[Tom Stanworth]

While Kiddie porn is evil to the core and those caught making the stuff should have full weight of the law come down on them. I will not be packing a camera to London if I travel there because of Red Ken's (the mayor of London and part of the loony left of the Labour Party) idea clamp down on photographers and the problem will go a away. The real problem is parents are not being parents to their children and that is why the sickos can take advantage of them.

I am sorry. I cannot accept the notion that we should be responsible for anything. The government should take care of all such matters and relegate we indiviuals to unthinking sheep. Under their powerful, inspirational leadership and exhaustive all-encompassing legislation we shall find peace and prosperity.....

Most probs society has now , we have because government has assumed responsibility for personal/family issues and tasks. Just like it is the role of schools to teach children morality now I believe. Some elements within society are happy to sit back and blame governments for inaction on everything as if there should be detailed laws on everything. The more we do this the more we are prevented being able to undertake independent action when we want to.

Just like the anti-have-a-go hero attitude that crept in some time back. IMO if a person steps in and tries to prevent (rather than just allow the police to furnish the victims (if still alive) with a crime number) a crime and gets hurt, they are a hero , not an careless foolish vigilante as the police frequently suggest on the news.....Same idea, we are supposed to stand there and takes whats coming, looking t the all powerful authorities for solutions (which there rarely are).