My fellow criminals...

bmattock said:
The concern I have is to not let our rights as photographers be eroded by the zeitgeist.
Click to expand...

Bill, if this is truly your concern, then we have no disagreement. You make the observation that Roger is being contrarian about this, but I would suggest, with respect that your position on this is exactly that.

You do not live in the UK so therefore I don't expect you to have the granular understanding of conditions in the average English market town on a Saturday afternoon, any more than I have experience of where you live. I similarly do not expect you to have first hand experience of our methods of policing, or of our politicians.

What this campaign does is seeks to criminalise by implication *in the minds of the populace* an innocent pastime. It's as simple as that.

Regards,

Bill
 
BillP said:
Bill, if this is truly your concern, then we have no disagreement. You make the observation that Roger is being contrarian about this, but I would suggest, with respect that your position on this is exactly that.

You do not live in the UK so therefore I don't expect you to have the granular understanding of conditions in the average English market town on a Saturday afternoon, any more than I have experience of where you live. I similarly do not expect you to have first hand experience of our methods of policing, or of our politicians.

What this campaign does is seeks to criminalise by implication *in the minds of the populace* an innocent pastime. It's as simple as that.

Regards,

Bill
Click to expand...

Again, fair enough. Perhaps I simply do not understand what is being said.

But I am currently reading over news reports from the explosion in Times Square this morning.

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=8&aid=79144

The police commissioner says a witness saw a man riding a bicycle "in a suspicious manner" just before the explosion. The man was wearing a hood and dark colored clothing and had a backpack. The witness did not see the man's face, nor did the witness see the man throw anything.
Click to expand...

Make the 'bicyclist' a 'photographer' and ask yourself the same question. Should the man who saw a 'suspicious photographer' (actually bicyclist) have called the police when he saw the man? Everyone, Roger included, seems to be saying 'no'.
 
Hey, I'm a suspicious bicyclist and I resent the implication that I'm suspicious... really... and I'm sick and tired of being told that ordinary decent people in this country are fed up with being sick and tired... I certainly am.

OK, that's my Monty Python rant for the day.
 
Last edited:
giovatony said:
...silly liberal fools who are just as dangerous because they refuse to believe it and would indeed think because they have a camera that it comes with certain unalienable rights.
Click to expand...
Do you really think someone who wishes to use their camera without harrassment is as dangerous as someone who wants to blow up the Tower of London?
 
bmattock said:
I have to suspect you're simply being a contrarian, Roger, but let's go with it.

First of all, loonies and assorted members of the Tinfoil Hat Brigade call the police day and night with their fevered imaginings anyway. They hardly need encouragement.
Click to expand...
Dear Bill,

Para 1. No, I'm not. Honest.

Para 2. Yes, but when does the moderately nervous citizen get tipped over into tinfoil-hat territory? And how? Precisely, I suggest, by the endless drip-drip of 'Be afraid. Be very afraid.'

Cheers,

R.
 
I know - it's all bonkers really. I don't know why the UK just don't make cameras illegal - it would save us all the grief of worrying about being nabbed for taking an innocent picture.
 
(rant on)

I am concerned that there are people in this country with a strong vested interest - financial as well as political - in trying to keep everyone very afraid.

And there are plenty of knee-jerk conservative fascist ditto-heads in this country all too ready and willing to be whipped into a terrorized frenzy by the overwhelmingly conservative media that now dominate our airwaves, print media and internet (and their corporate media masters).

BUT - I agree with Bill that everyone has the right to call the cops when they see something "suspicious" - whatever that means to the individual. I also support our intelligence community in their efforts to gather the information necessary to protect our property and wealth - oh, uh, yes... and our lives, too.

Most of all I assert my right to live my life free of these fears. I do have the right to carry my camera anywhere that cameras are not specifically banned, and to photograph anything - ANYTHING - that my government cannot hide. Here in the USA our citizens have fought and died for, among other things, the principle that we are innocent until proven guilty. To assert that "we are under a new paradigm" where innocent activity is unlawful if anyone thinks it looks suspicious, is un-patriotic and un-American.

(rant over)
 
There are many things that are orders of magnitude more dangerous than terrorism.
Smoking
Eating fast food
Crossing the street
Driving
Personally, I'm willing to live with a little less vigilance, hype and mass hysteria re the "terrorist threat".
 
BillP said:
I have been trying to find something to illustrate to those not in the UK just how paranoid our society has become.

I can do no better than this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/06/nsmiley106.xml

It is this type of mentality that is fed by the police adverts.

Regards,

Bill
Click to expand...

Now I can't decide whether that is just plain silly, or downright idiotic.

I'm sure I'll see something similar here in the USA Real Soon Now...
 
foto_fool said:
(rant on)

I am concerned that there are people in this country with a strong vested interest - financial as well as political - in trying to keep everyone very afraid.

And there are plenty of knee-jerk conservative fascist ditto-heads in this country all too ready and willing to be whipped into a terrorized frenzy by the overwhelmingly conservative media that now dominate our airwaves, print media and internet (and their corporate media masters).

BUT - I agree with Bill that everyone has the right to call the cops when they see something "suspicious" - whatever that means to the individual. I also support our intelligence community in their efforts to gather the information necessary to protect our property and wealth - oh, uh, yes... and our lives, too.

Most of all I assert my right to live my life free of these fears. I do have the right to carry my camera anywhere that cameras are not specifically banned, and to photograph anything - ANYTHING - that my government cannot hide. Here in the USA our citizens have fought and died for, among other things, the principle that we are innocent until proven guilty. To assert that "we are under a new paradigm" where innocent activity is unlawful if anyone thinks it looks suspicious, is un-patriotic and un-American.

(rant over)
Click to expand...

And when the Liberals are in charge, all will be sweetness and light?

Bullsh*t...

Whoever is in power will use fear and the media to get their agenda across.
 
As I said on the Leica users thread we should be organising a protest about this. A mass photography session outside parliament or something. We could get all the press photographers to join in and get some good coverage, and photos. Anyone know who to contact to try and pull this off?
 
Interesting . . .

An average photograph is standing Aunty in front of the statue/fountain/museum and making a picture with your digital point-and-shoot or mobile-phone. (I don't make pictures like that, or with those tools)

An average person might have one mobile-phone in their pocket. (I have two phones, one personal and one call-out phone from work).

An average person will not have strange chemicals in their house. (My ID11 is in brown plastic bottles).

That is at least three non-average things . . . maybe I should turn myself in ?

EDIT: I almost forgot to say, I left the UK, so maybe I don't need to worry yet....
 
bmattock said:
Make the 'bicyclist' a 'photographer' and ask yourself the same question. Should the man who saw a 'suspicious photographer' (actually bicyclist) have called the police when he saw the man? Everyone, Roger included, seems to be saying 'no'.
Click to expand...

Dear Bill,

Be fair!

This is 100% hindsight, and quite possibly 99% paranoia.

WITH HINDSIGHT, anything can appear 'suspicious'.

Which again goes to prove my point, I suggest.

I'm not saying that the bicyclist wasn't suspicious; I didn't see him. But equally, I am suggesting that he may only have been 'suspicious' because people are being assuduously trained to fear everything, and because there was a minor bomb incident afterwards; the kind of thing that the IRA would have regarded as very small beer indeed.

Cheers,

Roger
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom