Photography Ban in Public Places

BarryWilkinson · Feb 17, 2007

I'm afraid Cate that this government only comes out with 'vague' statements to see what response they get. They then make a decision, or at least Blair does, and will implement it regardless.

I'm impressed with the French attitude to government. If they don't like a law they will demonstrate loudly and if necessary will riot until its scrapped. British people could learn a lot from them.

Barry

catem · Feb 17, 2007

BarryWilkinson said:
I'm impressed with the French attitude to government. If they don't like a law they will demonstrate loudly and if necessary will riot until its scrapped. British people could learn a lot from them.

Barry

We got rid of the Poll Tax.

Andy K · Feb 17, 2007

catem said:
We got rid of the Poll Tax.

No we didn't. They just renamed it to Council Tax.

BarryWilkinson · Feb 17, 2007

catem said:
We got rid of the Poll Tax.

Exactly Cate, a small riot was needed to stop it. Unfortunately it seems this is the only way to make anyone listen here.

Barry

catem · Feb 17, 2007

Andy K said:
No we didn't. They just renamed it to Council Tax.

The Council Tax is based it on property bands, like the old Rates system, thus much fairer than the original Poll Tax.

BarryWilkinson · Feb 17, 2007

catem said:
The Council Tax is based it on property bands, like the old Rates system, thus much fairer than the original Poll Tax.

Actually I have never seen the reasoning behind why you should pay more local tax simply because you live in a larger property? Larger does not mean you are richer.

Surely each individual that uses local services should be taxed accordingly? I appreciate that some people have difficulty in paying anything but I'm sure a fair system could be worked out? I believe we should take the politics out of local services. Controversial I know!

Barry
(Streatham)

Jean Noire · Feb 17, 2007

BarryWilkinson said:
Actually I have never seen the reasoning behind why you should pay more local tax simply because you live in a larger property? Larger does not mean you are richer.

Surely each individual that uses local services should be taxed accordingly? I appreciate that some people have difficulty in paying anything but I'm sure a fair system could be worked out? I believe we should take the politics out of local services. Controversial I know!

Barry
(Streatham)

Well the poll tax was introduced as a "fairer" system but look what happened to that.
I think that what maybe in the wind here is possibly a tax on photography in public places(?) rather than a ban on it. This would make more sense but equally as contentious.
Regards
John

sepiareverb · Feb 17, 2007

Thus far in the US we are still allowed to photography anything from a public sidewalk or road, excepting of course any government facility, even if said facility is a tourist attraction- I was picked up & questioned for photographing a fence at the USS Constitution boat tour. I had declined to let my high speed film be x-rayed, and they do not hand inspect anything, so I let the rest of my family go on the boat without me and made a few images. The fence was off limits, even though there no signs alerting anyone to this fact. The questioning was polite, if time-consuming, and they let me go without taking my film. A scary thought that we are getting prevented from making images anywhere.

Andy K · Feb 17, 2007

jonjonho said:
Well the poll tax was introduced as a "fairer" system but look what happened to that.
I think that what maybe in the wind here is possibly a tax on photography in public places(?) rather than a ban on it. This would make more sense but equally as contentious.
Regards
John

The problem with the Poll Tax is it was proposed that everyone in the country would pay the same amount. When it began it turned out some were paying £500 £600 £700 while others were paying next to nothing.If it is 'fair' why does a person living alone only get a 25% reduction on their bill when compared to a couple living in the exact same conditions? It never was, and still is not, 'fair'.

A tax on photography in public places? How on Earth could that be policed? They would have to watch for anyone taking a photograph. And what criteria would they use to determine who is and who is not a 'photographer'?

Jean Noire · Feb 17, 2007

Andy K said:
The problem with the Poll Tax is it was proposed that everyone in the country would pay the same amount. When it began it turned out some were paying £500 £600 £700 while others were paying next to nothing.If it is 'fair' why does a person living alone only get a 25% reduction on their bill when compared to a couple living in the exact same conditions? It never was, and still is not, 'fair'.

A tax on photography in public places? How on Earth could that be policed? They would have to watch for anyone taking a photograph. And what criteria would they use to determine who is and who is not a 'photographer'?

Exactly, and the same applies to a ban. How can you tell if someone is making a phone call or taking a photograph?

In response to the poll tax issue I did not claim that any system was "fair", only that it had failed for any number of reasons.

Let us hope that the matter fades away quietly.
Regards
John

Leon · Feb 17, 2007

this thread is wandering into soapbox territory

FrankB · Feb 17, 2007

In an attempt to drag it back...

I've done a look around the web for the proposals addressed by this petition and found nada. I find no reference on BBC News, The Times, The Guardian, or Ananova. Alta Vista and Google both come up dry. Ken Livingston's attempt to ban photography in London (or ask people to "be vigilant"?!) was way back in '05. A trawl through the last six months on Amateur Photographer news archives also comes up blank (and they're usually all over this sort of thing like a cheap suit).

Regardless, I've signed. Why? Because I honestly believe that the right to make photographs in public is being attacked by -

a) Any jobsworth in a peaked cap who thinks "possession of a tripod" is a criminal offense.
b) Any passing paranoid who thinks possession of a camera equates to a prediliction for pedophilia / terrorism.

I'll shout out for the rights of photographers at any chance I get. It may not do any good, but I can't see it doing any harm.

catem · Feb 17, 2007

There's a thread on this over on photo-net where someone quotes the following statement from the proposer's website (Stephen Taylor, www. phooto.co.uk)

and although there is no bill in the offing, it is vitally important that politicians such as Mr Livingston are fully aware of the basic rights UK citizens have, and that changes to restrict our use of cameras would require very fundamental changes in UK law.

It seems as if the petition is based on views expressed by Ken Livingstone some time ago and not based on govt. views (which are generally opposed to Ken's views anyway) or any proposed legislation.

It doesn't seem as if there is any proposed ban by anyone on any kind of photography in any sort of public place (if I'm wrong someone please advise otherwise).

I'm personally not signing as I think creating this much hot air can easily become counterproductive is not the best a way to promote dialogue, or increase public trust. I'm also just irritated at the lack of information from the petition proposer around reasons for putting up the petition in the first place.

We are ready to accuse the public of paranoia, but - sorry, I think this is a case of photographers sounding a drum in an empty room.

Steve Roberts · Feb 19, 2007

Steve Smith said:
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.

Must be in Lounge territory now!

I have no problem with the government establishing smoking free zones, just that it's all rather Draconian, heavy-handed and probably impossible to enforce. (I speak as a life-long non-smoker). This is another example of the right to choose being denied.

Of course, I'm sorry to hear of your friend's problems, but the issue of passive smoking has been known of for many years and cannot have come as a total surprise. This was surely a risk she chose to take when embarking on that career, as I risk falling down a hole when I choose (most weekends) to go around photographing disused mine sites. I'd extend this "right to choose" to pub staff - pubs are smokey places, so don't work in one if you don't like it, in the same way that someone who doesn't approve of alcohol probably wouldn't rush to get a job in a pub, or a vegetarian apply for a job in a butcher's shop.

The solution? My local has had it for years - a non-smoking lounge/restaurant and a separate smoke-filled bar. To get back to my original phrase "ill-conceived", I'm not doubting the wisdom of discouraging smoking, but let's give those who choose to follow a perfectly legal activity somewhere to do it. This government more than any other seems intent on banning things as a cure-all solution to life's problems.

Anyway, I hope your friend is recovering well and continues to persue her singing!

Best wishes,

Steve

David Henderson · Feb 19, 2007

Given what's been uncovered here and elsewhere over the last few days it seems to me that this petition is ill-conceived and potentially damaging to photographers. Not only will it help convince Blair that he should ignore all these petitions, but it makes photographers look paranoid. If the originator is concerned about the attitudes and potential actions of Ken Livingstone ( which may be understandable) then he should have expended his energies to secure a voice in that arena rather than speculatively jumping on whatever communications vehicle he could find, and he should in any case have been much more open and honest about his petition instead of trying to railroad people into supporting it by inference and exaggeration. Not a good day's work from Mr Taylor, for his own credibility or that of Photographers.

jmailand · Feb 19, 2007

Seems like you could get the tourism industry behind this fight. I always wanted to go to England but if I can't take pictures it sure would make me ,and many other people I'm sure, think twice about going there. It would have a definite affect on tourism income.

James,

BarryWilkinson · Feb 19, 2007

David Henderson said:
Given what's been uncovered here and elsewhere over the last few days it seems to me that this petition is ill-conceived and potentially damaging to photographers....

I'm sorry David but whatever was in the mind of the petitioner is now irrelevant. If we don't sign, Blair will say we are not interested. If we do sign we are to be classed as paranoid!

This is a 'no win' situation which I suspect is the reason why the website was set up in the first place.

Barry

catem · Feb 19, 2007

BarryWilkinson said:
I'm sorry David but whatever was in the mind of the petitioner is now irrelevant. If we don't sign, Blair will say we are not interested. If we do sign we are to be classed as paranoid!
Barry

In theory, the e-petitions are a good idea, democracy in action etc.

In practice, I think they're ill-conceived (thought I'd get that phrase in, everyone else is using it ). Any crackpot (no reference to current discussion) can put up a petition about ANYTHING and urge people to sign it. There is usually very little information indeed, and even blatant misinformation.

Frankly I think Blair would be a crackpot himself if he took much notice of them, and I don't think he does.

This is a pity because it could be a very clear avenue for thought-out public expression of opinion. But it isn't.

markbb · Feb 19, 2007

It's a storm in a tea cup. The whole E-petition thing is a joke and rightly ignored by most in government. The one that has attracted the most publicity can't even scrap together 2% of the population to get involved

pentaxuser · Feb 19, 2007

jmailand said:
Seems like you could get the tourism industry behind this fight. I always wanted to go to England but if I can't take pictures it sure would make me ,and many other people I'm sure, think twice about going there. It would have a definite affect on tourism income.

James,

Try the Isle of Man, Scotland or The Republic of Ireland. I have been to all three in the last 9 months or so and found no such nonsense about no photography in any of those places. I wandered around the Guinness brewery in Dublin, snapping away and you can get few places the Irish would guard more preciously.

Yes we are getting a little paranoid in London but elsewhere in England things are less frenetic and a photographing tourist is unlikely to cause a stir. Around our Stately Homes and places like Stratford upon Avon, you'll look suspicious as a tourist if you don't have a camera.

pentaxuser

pentaxuser · Feb 19, 2007

A propos this thread, those of you with access to the Amateur Photographer magazine may like to look at this week's Roger Hicks' article on ideas for a Photographer's Protest.

Entertaining and thought provoking, I thought.

pentaxuser

FrankB · Feb 19, 2007

Here's a link to AP's online coverage of the story - http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Thousands_sign_photo_rights_petition_news_110170.html

firecracker · Feb 20, 2007

I'm quoting from the AP article: 'During the incident a member of the rugby club apparently asked them to delete their pictures which they agreed to do.'

How could they 'delete' something on film?

firecracker · Feb 20, 2007

The real irony is that the public seems helplessly determinded to lose rights as the authorities are always trying to gain more, even by breaking the law.

Take a look at the court case of NYPD's illegal surveillance/videotaping of the protesters during RNC 2004 in NYC:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/19/1545225

The content of the story above is, in NYC, police cannot videotape any public event without an issued warrant, but in this particular case they did with hundreds of videotapes without any warrant, and that's illegal. But I'm assuming this is a small fraction of what they actually do, and I'm glad this is becoming a news.

It seems this kind of unlawful conduct is spreading out all over the place. I thought it was some kind of a common practice in the former communist totalitalian states, but no one seems to really queston about that.

And it really seems like the west is becoming a big quasi totalitalian state now.

catem · Feb 20, 2007

So what was so very very hard about asking permission first - or at least explaining who they were? Sounds like they were a group of camera club members with more than likely flashy pro-looking cameras, taking pics at the side of the youngsters' rugby pitch. With no connection to the group at all.

Sorry, more than likely if it was my son in the group I'd want to at least know who they were, and why they didn't have the good manners to ask first.

Sounds like if they'd done so, the whole incident (and petition) may well have been avoided.

Isn't it time photographers grew up?

Adding more (then I've said enough!)..... I don't do much 'documentary' photography as such, but I am often out and about with my camera in London, and I have never, ever experienced any problem or paranoia. Most often people, if they notice me at all, are interested in my camera and more interested that their children - if they are around mine - are getting in my way, rather than that their children may be included. Sometimes I find myself worrying about other people worrying what I'm doing but can honestly say I've never had any evidence of this, (so paranoia - photographers' paranoia that is - must be catching!)

It's surprisingly easy to make some sort of contact with people if you want to photograph near them, you don't even have to have a full conversation.

It wouldn't cross my mind, though, to photograph youngsters in this sort of group situation without talking about it first - when I was studying photography full time and had to do the 'documentary' module getting permission if at all possible & reasonable (it isn't always) was drummed into us as good practice. That's regardless of who it is you're photographing.

Photography Ban in Public Places

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency