hawkeye
steve
Sparrow
Is Boris causing some of this new attitude in London by the police?
Hawkeye
Is Boris causing some of this new attitude in London by the police?
Hawkeye
Sparrow
Veteran
That would require planing and organisation.......so let's think
PS just to keep things in proportion the police contains normal people with the same flaws is the rest of us, their officers are more responsible.
PPS what is unusual are the anti terrorist arrests in the north of england earlier today, i can't believe the timing is to distract the media attention, coincidence i imagine
Last edited:
Druid
Member
I think the video that appeared yesterday showing the officer assaulting the late Mr Tomlinson minutes before his death is a really vivid illustration of why the law discussed in the OP is a bad one.
That whole area of central London is lousy with CCTV cameras and the police had their own FIT teams all over the place as well, but it took a member of the public videoing the incident and sharing it with a newspaper to prevent the police involvement in the poor guys death from being swept under the rug by the 'investigation'.
Now they're re-doing the post-mortem, responsibility for the investigation is being taken away from the City police (they're the ones with red cap markings standing there smirking while the assault by their masked colleague from the Metropolitan force on the late Mr Tomlinson happens) and given to someone more notionally independent.
The officer will still be exonerated of course, because if he wasn't it would undermine police morale and any serious attempt to prosecute him would draw unwelcome attention to the fact that thousands of his fellow officers were doing exactly the same sort of thing all day, and on every other similar demonstration, but were lucky enough not to kill anyone in the process.
If it hadn't been for the video though, it'd have been hushed up completely. At least this way, worrying about being caught on camera killing someone might in future act as some slight deterrent to other officers. Although obviously, it's also going to make them keen to start using their new powers to prevent such inconveniences.
Edited to add: link to the details known so far. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson
That whole area of central London is lousy with CCTV cameras and the police had their own FIT teams all over the place as well, but it took a member of the public videoing the incident and sharing it with a newspaper to prevent the police involvement in the poor guys death from being swept under the rug by the 'investigation'.
Now they're re-doing the post-mortem, responsibility for the investigation is being taken away from the City police (they're the ones with red cap markings standing there smirking while the assault by their masked colleague from the Metropolitan force on the late Mr Tomlinson happens) and given to someone more notionally independent.
The officer will still be exonerated of course, because if he wasn't it would undermine police morale and any serious attempt to prosecute him would draw unwelcome attention to the fact that thousands of his fellow officers were doing exactly the same sort of thing all day, and on every other similar demonstration, but were lucky enough not to kill anyone in the process.
If it hadn't been for the video though, it'd have been hushed up completely. At least this way, worrying about being caught on camera killing someone might in future act as some slight deterrent to other officers. Although obviously, it's also going to make them keen to start using their new powers to prevent such inconveniences.
Edited to add: link to the details known so far. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
Druid, care for a little wager? I would doubt very much there is any cctv of this encounter
dwaoka
emmigrant
I (Peter Adamski) commented on Mike's article few weeks ago after reading about this law on RFF
Chuck Albertson
Well-known
I'm sure they'll find a way to blame the photogs for this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7990719.stm
The D-notices are already flying.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7990719.stm
The D-notices are already flying.
Druid
Member
It appears that those anti-terror raids were brought forward in order to knock the death of Mr Tomlinson off the front page. I don't think it'll work though. There's a huge amount of anger in the UK due to the incontrovertible video evidence of the police attack.
AgentX
Well-known
As a guy who was photographer before becoming a security professional, I understand frustration with such rules and regulations. However, the idea that terrorists do not photograph targets is patently false. Target selection and pre-attack surveillance, whether visual or photographic, are in fact typically the only signatures of the attack planning cycle which are visible to the target. No, the 9/11 terrorists didn't need to do it (edit: extensively, that is...they certainly did a thorough reconnaissance of their possible flight paths to their target in order to avoid obstacles...), and not every plan will involve surveillance. But surveillance occurred on the 1993 WTC attack and on the Kenya and Tanzania attacks on US embassies; in fact, the efforts of the surveillance detection teams at one of these embassies meant security was tighter on the attack day and the bomb's effect was severely lessened, as it could not be placed close to the building. Pre-attack surveillance was noted before the Kobar Towers bombing. It's standard practice, straight out of A-Q manuals easily found on the web and elsewhere.
Tactics aside, the point is that the people making these rules are not part of some grand conspiracy to take away rights--they're well-meaning people with a job to do. I applaud people for standing up for rights, and note along with many of you that Google Earth and the like are providing better pre-attack planning info than most of us could make through photography and a free rein. Nor does surveillance always involve photography.
If the overall effect of regulations on society's liberties is more detrimental than the risks, take action and talk to your legal representatives. But the guys pushing your representatives to make these rules won't see your viewpoint, as they have a job to do and are trying to do it as well as they can...no matter...and understand that your viewpoint as a photographer is only one among many others.
However, at least in the US, it's pretty well established that newsworthy public scenes can be photographed, whoever is in them. But if you start taking pictures of a military base gate and its security features, stand by to be hassled and/or worse.
I don't work in the US, though, and the local police here treat this stuff pretty harshly. Great for my security, personally. They tend to detain, and I get to talk to, everyone who takes photos--normally, I'm acting apologetic and embarrassed for the police "over-enthusiasm", and we sometimes have a laugh once it's determined that there's no ill intent. But we also make them delete any photos of the facility (never had a film photog come by...).
Word gets around, and anyone watching the facility knows we're keeping a sharp eye out. (And not just on photographers...I've tracked down many a car owner by his license plate and said hello...) Again, great for my security to have a reputation for this. No need to be a jerk about it on my part, but again--our reputation as paranoid and eagle-eyed means we're not likely to be selected as a target for the terrorist groups known to be targeting my facilities and the homes of my employees.
That's my reality...I know it doesn't jive with many of yours.
Tactics aside, the point is that the people making these rules are not part of some grand conspiracy to take away rights--they're well-meaning people with a job to do. I applaud people for standing up for rights, and note along with many of you that Google Earth and the like are providing better pre-attack planning info than most of us could make through photography and a free rein. Nor does surveillance always involve photography.
If the overall effect of regulations on society's liberties is more detrimental than the risks, take action and talk to your legal representatives. But the guys pushing your representatives to make these rules won't see your viewpoint, as they have a job to do and are trying to do it as well as they can...no matter...and understand that your viewpoint as a photographer is only one among many others.
However, at least in the US, it's pretty well established that newsworthy public scenes can be photographed, whoever is in them. But if you start taking pictures of a military base gate and its security features, stand by to be hassled and/or worse.
I don't work in the US, though, and the local police here treat this stuff pretty harshly. Great for my security, personally. They tend to detain, and I get to talk to, everyone who takes photos--normally, I'm acting apologetic and embarrassed for the police "over-enthusiasm", and we sometimes have a laugh once it's determined that there's no ill intent. But we also make them delete any photos of the facility (never had a film photog come by...).
Word gets around, and anyone watching the facility knows we're keeping a sharp eye out. (And not just on photographers...I've tracked down many a car owner by his license plate and said hello...) Again, great for my security to have a reputation for this. No need to be a jerk about it on my part, but again--our reputation as paranoid and eagle-eyed means we're not likely to be selected as a target for the terrorist groups known to be targeting my facilities and the homes of my employees.
That's my reality...I know it doesn't jive with many of yours.
Last edited:
larmarv916
Well-known
Well I see that our friend G. Orwell's vision of the future is a developing reality. Also both in side the US and the UK there is a agressive legal efforts to attack photography on many levels. You see today a minster who got out of his car in front of "number 10" for a meeting as photographed with a secret terriorism memo "exposed" for public veiw. this photo made the front page of the NY Times !! The minister in questions was how you guy's say "sacked".
Again it is the governmental "pros" who know what is best for "us" the little people that make up these insane rules. The greatest threat to photography of recent is trial lawyers who are using the law to protect trademark infringement via photogrpahy. As they are afraid of a negative image being attached to "their" brand or business. So "rental cops" in the USA are often charged with enforcing or detering photograpy in what are public spaces.
To say artistic freedom is under attack is an understatement. In may places in the world you can not even photograph the landscape without paying a Fee and being registered as being authorized and must carry the permit on your person....as if you were a hunter !!
Yet we see not noble member of a public rights groups fighting for photographic freedom. And lastly do not forget that ALL and I do mean all of the Hollywood Stars are playing the role of vicitims for photo intrusion. Yet do not forget to shell out the 10 or 12 dollars to see their new movie !!
WE need help and or soon well all be photographicing each other !
All the Best.....Laurance
Again it is the governmental "pros" who know what is best for "us" the little people that make up these insane rules. The greatest threat to photography of recent is trial lawyers who are using the law to protect trademark infringement via photogrpahy. As they are afraid of a negative image being attached to "their" brand or business. So "rental cops" in the USA are often charged with enforcing or detering photograpy in what are public spaces.
To say artistic freedom is under attack is an understatement. In may places in the world you can not even photograph the landscape without paying a Fee and being registered as being authorized and must carry the permit on your person....as if you were a hunter !!
Yet we see not noble member of a public rights groups fighting for photographic freedom. And lastly do not forget that ALL and I do mean all of the Hollywood Stars are playing the role of vicitims for photo intrusion. Yet do not forget to shell out the 10 or 12 dollars to see their new movie !!
WE need help and or soon well all be photographicing each other !
All the Best.....Laurance
Jason Sprenger
Well-known
Treat people like an enemies and you'll have them. Turn the innocent into criminals and find outlaws everywhere you that you look.
Druid
Member
Issue in the UK right now is that the cops are either on their own initiative of more likely at the behest of the government trying to use violence and intimidation to prevent people from protesting.
Hence they really don't like it when they're videoed killing someone, like the unfortunate Mr Tomlinson, or beating up obviously peaceful middle class eco-hippies. So the probability is that they're going to be vigorously abusing their new powers to prevent photography.
Hence they really don't like it when they're videoed killing someone, like the unfortunate Mr Tomlinson, or beating up obviously peaceful middle class eco-hippies. So the probability is that they're going to be vigorously abusing their new powers to prevent photography.