Photography Ban in Public Places

CarlRadford · Feb 16, 2007

Guys and Girls

I know no more than is copied below!

I think that it is in everyone's interest to sign up to this. Looks like Government are trying to stop us taking any images in public places according to this!!! There's a petition on the Downing St website against the Government's proposals to restrict the use of photography in public areas. Sign up to the petition now......

Dead Link Removed

Cheers, Carl

Steve Roberts · Feb 16, 2007

CarlRadford said:
Guys and Girls

I know no more than is copied below!

I think that it is in everyone's interest to sign up to this. Looks like Government are trying to stop us taking any images in public places according to this!!! There's a petition on the Downing St website against the Government's proposals to restrict the use of photography in public areas. Sign up to the petition now......

Dead Link Removed

Cheers, Carl

On the face of it another Loony Labour plan.
Personally, I'd want to know more details than appear on the government website before getting too excited one way or the other, ie what constitutes a public place - Dartmoor? my street?. Also, what constitutes a "photographer" - someone with a camera-phone, a disposable snappy or might you need to be using something costing a hundred quid or more to be a true photographer in the eyes of Blair and Co.? Sounds as ill-conceived and full of holes as the hunting ban, smoking ban and, no doubt many other bans that are flouted on a daily basis.
And I said I wasn't going to get too excited....
Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Carl.

Best wishes,

Steve

Steve Smith · Feb 16, 2007

Steve Roberts said:
Sounds as ill-conceived and full of holes as the hunting ban, smoking ban and, no doubt many other bans that are flouted on a daily basis.

I wouldn't call the smoking ban ill-conceived. I have a friend who sings in local pubs who went to see her doctor with a throat problem. After an examination he asked "what do you smoke? about twenty a day?" She is a non-smoker so any damage that has been done was by passive smoking.

The effects on bar staff will be greater still as they are working longer hours in smoke filled bars than the musicians do.

Whilst I see the ban as a good thing. I am sure the drive behind it is more to do with eliminating possible legal action, i.e. staff claiming against their employers on health grounds rather than being for the general good of the public's health.

Steve.

FrankB · Feb 16, 2007

There have been quite a few rumblings about restrictions being placed on photographers with either pedophilia or terrorism being used as an excuse (depending on which way the wind was blowing at the time).

It seems a trifle ironic that photography by the public should be under fire when there's such a proliferation of CCTV cameras for surveillance of the public.

I'm not sure what proposals the government have put forward with regard to restricting photography, and the petition doesn't state them explicitly, but I've signed because of the general trend to regard any individual with a camera as suspicious.

BarryWilkinson · Feb 16, 2007

Well said Frank, I have also signed. Thanks Carl for bringing this to our attention.

Barry

Leon · Feb 16, 2007

Steve Roberts said:
ie what constitutes a public place
Steve

well - if the precedent is set by the understanding under s136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 - then a public place is anywhere to which the public have access. simple as that

PS - I cant wait for my public air to be smoke free. the sooner the better.

zinzin · Feb 16, 2007

Leon said:
....... then a public place is anywhere to which the public have access. simple as that

.

starting to feel sorry for all those tourists in London that won't be able any more to take photos of each other with Big Ben, Buck. Palace, Westmnster, SwissRe building, Oxford St. etc........

Helen B · Feb 16, 2007

zinzin said:
starting to feel sorry for all those tourists in London that won't be able any more to take photos of each other with Big Ben, Buck. Palace, Westmnster, SwissRe building, Oxford St. etc........

I see another sure-fire business opportunity here. You go round wearing a huge black coat, capable of hiding someone, open it up when you see a tourist and say "Psst - wanna take a picture?"

catem · Feb 16, 2007

Is this about fears of paedophillia or terrorism or what?

Sounds like trying to stop water flooding out of a leaky bucket & over the top by plugging the holes in the bucket rather than turning off the tap....(Laurel and Hardy come to mind)...

Pinholemaster · Feb 16, 2007

Sound like you need a "Boston Film Party!"

All British photographers should stage a mass "Public Space" photography shoo-in to demonstrate. Then at the end throw your film into the harbor (harbour).

Next the "authorities" will march their "troops" against you to Lexington and Concord.

You have nothing to fear but fear itself.

Politicians really need to find real work. Your Labour Party sounds a lot iike our Loony Republican Party. Which is an observation worth laughing about. Liberals and Conservatives united will always be defeated. Ha ha ha ha.

catem · Feb 16, 2007

It would be interesting to have a few more facts about the govt.'s intentions, though, which I'd personally want before signing anything. I can't believe it translates simply to a ban on all photography in public places. I realise it has something to do with photogs having ID cards. (So is that always or only in certain circumstances?) Much as I'm against any sort of ID card I can see the point of it in certain circumstances - no different from carrying a press card, for example?...Not enough yet to come to an informed opinion....

simulatordan · Feb 16, 2007

Not all of us are 'press' and would not qualify for a press card. I've never understood the objection to an ID Card; having carried one as a child just after the war.

Andy K · Feb 16, 2007

Pinholemaster said:
Next the "authorities" will march their "troops" against you to Lexington and Concord.

Truer than you think. The British government (of either colour) has a proven track record of using force against legitimate protest. They did it to the miners, they did it to the Poll Tax protesters, (I was there for that one, still have the baton scars to prove it) they regularly do it to G8 protests. They have also installed a 'no protest' zone within a half mile radius of Westminster, so Ministers won't have to see the unwashed disagreeing with them.

TheFlyingCamera · Feb 16, 2007

The G8 protestors are a different animal. Whilst most of them are legit and genuinely want to creatively express their opposition to G8 policies, there is a dedicated cadre within that group (who also come to protest IMF and World Bank meetings) whose sole purpose is to wreak mayhem and destruction. There's a huge difference between hanging banners on the fence at Parliament and ripping out street signs to batter public (and private) property.

Sirius Glass · Feb 16, 2007

TheFlyingCamera said:
... There's a huge difference between hanging banners on the fence at Parliament and ripping out street signs to batter public (and private) property.

And how, are you saying, does this differ from photography? :confused:

Steve
Warning: Some of these posts may be infected by ironic and sarcastic remarks!

Bob F. · Feb 16, 2007

Have to say, it sounds like a load of hot air to me. There is no reference to anything except some vague "identity card" requirement and I have heard nothing elsewhere, and nor as far as I can see, has anyone else.

Besides which, since when did lame-duck Blair listen to anything anyone tells him? The recent poll on the Downing Street website with, at last count, 1.4 million votes against Road Pricing has already been dismissed by the Govt. and they say they are going ahead with trials regardless. And they wonder why people feel disconnected from politics and do not vote anymore...

Cheers, Bob.

Shawn Dougherty · Feb 16, 2007

This from the country with the highest security camera to citizen ratio in the world...

BarryWilkinson · Feb 16, 2007

Bob F. said:
Besides which, since when did lame-duck Blair listen to anything anyone tells him?

Cheers, Bob.

As you say Bob he hasn't listened to anyone yet. However as long as there is a list he cannot say nobody had opposed the idea.

Barry

copake_ham · Feb 16, 2007

Obviously this is your fight in the UK - not mine.

But can I ask a question?

I see on the link that this is a e-petition to the government on a topic of obvious interest to all of us here.

But I did not see any link to the proposed legislation that the petition opposes; just a general statement that "there are a number of proposals to restrict...."

Did I miss something?

bjorke · Feb 17, 2007

zinzin said:
starting to feel sorry for all those tourists in London that won't be able any more to take photos of each other with Big Ben, Buck. Palace, Westmnster, SwissRe building, Oxford St. etc........

They will just be forced to buy postcards of "official, licensed" views.Feel more sorry for the locals who are no longer able to photograph their own kids' graduations, weddings, football matches, days on the pier, police corruption, PMs with their mistresses, military funerals, etc.

dsullivan · Feb 17, 2007

copake_ham said:
Obviously this is your fight in the UK - not mine.

But can I ask a question?

I see on the link that this is a e-petition to the government on a topic of obvious interest to all of us here.

But I did not see any link to the proposed legislation that the petition opposes; just a general statement that "there are a number of proposals to restrict...."

Did I miss something?

Possibly not, this could just be someone who heard from a friend of a friend or wants people to agree with his rant.

That's not to say some places do seem to be saying "If you have a 'pro' camera" you need a permit" such as The London Eye or some council run winter festival (anyone who reads Amateur Photographer should be familiar with this story) but that's not legislation.

[edit]
Here's the story on the London Eye
London Eye Restrictions

Andy K · Feb 17, 2007

I remember reading a while back that Red Ken was planning to put up signs warning parents to watch out for photographers in London's parks. Don't know what happened to that proposal though.

firecracker · Feb 17, 2007

Well, this is clearly a sign of the rise of new feudalism and privatization of public space.

Tokyo seems pretty similar to London in this matter; some people with or without cameras have experienced being detained by police for no reasons/charges for a couple of weeks. Protest is another thing that when you have 150 protesters with a permit, you get confronted by twice as many riot police and you get silenced by the end of the day.

There's usually no big media coverage, so the rest of the country will never learn what's actually going on. Now the "enermy is you" slogan is going around everwhere and it's just amazing to see where we've gotten.

firecracker · Feb 17, 2007

FrankB said:
There have been quite a few rumblings about restrictions being placed on photographers with either pedophilia or terrorism being used as an excuse (depending on which way the wind was blowing at the time).

It seems a trifle ironic that photography by the public should be under fire when there's such a proliferation of CCTV cameras for surveillance of the public.

Isn't this what we regard as a "police state"? And that has been and can be pretty brutal and violent.

catem · Feb 17, 2007

"Isn't this what we regard as a 'police state' ? And that has been and can be pretty brutal and violent."

It's interesting what's going on in my area at the moment, S/ SW.London. 'South/ South West London' btw covers the whole gamut of class and race from the very very rich to the very very poor, within a stone's throw (I live in neither of these extremes ).

There have been suggestions recently to use CCTV surveillance which goes 'beneath' peoples' clothes, NOT showing any private bits, you understand, but being able to locate guns, bombs etc. Lots of distaste about it. I didn't like the idea either.

Over the past fortnight, shockingly, three teenagers (early-mid teens) have been shot dead in particular parts of S.London. One of them about a mile away from where I live. This is very worrying and NOT usual, though it may be commonplace in parts of the world. Suddenly everyone seems to think maybe the special surveillance may not such a bad thing after all.....Who knows, that kind of thing might spread to 'us'...

A police state is about control over protection. Believe me I'm certainly interested in civil liberties but it seems to me surveillance in this country is solely about protection (and it has resulted in many more criminals being correctly convicted, i.e. it has not only helped catch the guilty but helps pretect the innocent from false accusation). We may not like being observed wherever we go - I don't, but I feel it's ultimately for good reasons.

As for the idea of some kind of 'license' or ID for photographers, I agree - let's get the facts before we jump to conclusions....

Photography Ban in Public Places

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency