Sparrow
Mentor
Dictatorship rule no. 1 = control the media(Only joking Gordon in case you're looking !)
You really think they could be that efficient?? Na something’s wrong with that story somebody’s trying to manipulate us.
Of Prime Ministers and Mice.
Of Prime Ministers and Mice.
Peter Jones (in UK) wrote: " And our prime minister was not elected and refused to call an election !"
( This in not an endorsement for Gordon Brown. ) That is the way parliamentary democracy works. The governing party chooses its leader; that person becomes prime minister. In Canada, too, many citizens seem to feel we have US-style republican system and become indignant, as if the constitution is not being respected, when a prime minister is not elected directly by citizens' votes. T'was ever thus.
Of Prime Ministers and Mice.
Peter Jones (in UK) wrote: " And our prime minister was not elected and refused to call an election !"
( This in not an endorsement for Gordon Brown. ) That is the way parliamentary democracy works. The governing party chooses its leader; that person becomes prime minister. In Canada, too, many citizens seem to feel we have US-style republican system and become indignant, as if the constitution is not being respected, when a prime minister is not elected directly by citizens' votes. T'was ever thus.
historicist
Well-known
That's a pretty crazy story - getting hassled a bit for taking photos is one thing, but held for two days and having your home searched on what sounds like incredibly flimsy grounds is really bad.
In fairness, this is in line with the consitutional arrangements in the UK, in which the electorate do not vote for the prime minister directly but rather indirectly via political parties. Since the prime minister is not voted for directly but rather someone who commands the majority in the commons, when they resign no election need be called. It has happened a number of times - John Major in 1990, Winston Churchill in 1940, etc. and is normal practice.
While in the case of Brown, the reluctance to call an election is likely becuase he would probably lose it, when prime ministers resign and dissolve parliament (to force an election) it has equally been undertaken for political considerations rather than idealistic commitments. Usually prime ministers with weak majorities call an election with the aim of gaining more seats and a stronger hand in parliament: Heath in 1974, Wilson in 1966.
In fairness, this is in line with the consitutional arrangements in the UK, in which the electorate do not vote for the prime minister directly but rather indirectly via political parties. Since the prime minister is not voted for directly but rather someone who commands the majority in the commons, when they resign no election need be called. It has happened a number of times - John Major in 1990, Winston Churchill in 1940, etc. and is normal practice.
While in the case of Brown, the reluctance to call an election is likely becuase he would probably lose it, when prime ministers resign and dissolve parliament (to force an election) it has equally been undertaken for political considerations rather than idealistic commitments. Usually prime ministers with weak majorities call an election with the aim of gaining more seats and a stronger hand in parliament: Heath in 1974, Wilson in 1966.
Avotius
Some guy
BillBingham2
Registered User
I am. Freedom comes at a price. If it's giving up my RFs and a lot more, count me in. It's worth it.
B2
B2
mich8261
Well-known
Thanks for sharing this film nextreme. I think it is more relevant in the context of the thread that mabelsound started (it has since been removed) about individuals' rights, but very interesting nonetheless. It would be great if it was available with subtitles for non-francophones.
R
rpsawin
Guest
The title made me wonder if the authorities had finnaly snapped and begun arresting fish.
Bob
Bob
Sparrow
Mentor
Only red snappers
cam
the need for speed
yes. thank you. i am....
StefanJozef
Well-known
I was travelling through London a few days ago. I thought about taking some shots at St Pancras International train station but must admit the amount of security cameras put me off taking out my rangefinder. I felt intimidated. When I was travelling back through Reigate train station in South London there was an announcement over the tannoy to "report any suspicious activity". I was about to take a shot of a pigeon on a roof but put my camera away. Maybe I'm being paranoid. I can't believe we've reached this state in the UK. It's frightening.
tritiated
Well-known
It is a grave news story indeed. However it is interesting, because it brings phone cameras into the spotlight, not full camera kit. In this country (UK) I expect the vast majority of people would not care/know about the recent changes to laws. Some may even cite the aforementioned phrase "If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear"... (and hence re-open up the entire DNA database debate if you feel brave).
However the vast majority of people own camera phones, and use them for their own 'personal surveillance', otherwise known as taking pictures of day to day things in their life they think are interesting or want to record, whatever.
This story highlights the fact that freedoms are being constricted, regardless of whether you are a pro/am photographer or not - have a large 'kit', camera phone, lomo LCA etc.. This is important to everyone and the apathy and fear surrounding us is truly sad.
It is sad, because it is an indication that terrorism has fulfilled it's objective. Putting it simply, I would rather be scared of the 'bad guys' than scared of the 'good guys'.
However the vast majority of people own camera phones, and use them for their own 'personal surveillance', otherwise known as taking pictures of day to day things in their life they think are interesting or want to record, whatever.
This story highlights the fact that freedoms are being constricted, regardless of whether you are a pro/am photographer or not - have a large 'kit', camera phone, lomo LCA etc.. This is important to everyone and the apathy and fear surrounding us is truly sad.
It is sad, because it is an indication that terrorism has fulfilled it's objective. Putting it simply, I would rather be scared of the 'bad guys' than scared of the 'good guys'.
cam
the need for speed
what i would like somebody to explain is what exactly he was doing that was suspicious or unlawful?
i do take photos of sewers and grates if the lighting is right, sometimes, just to please my sense of geometry.... this is against the law? please explain this to me.
i do take photos of sewers and grates if the lighting is right, sometimes, just to please my sense of geometry.... this is against the law? please explain this to me.
mich8261
Well-known
For the benefit of readers outside the USA, at least those who do not follow US news stories, I feel it is important to respond to bsdunek's post. It was the previous "capitalist" administration who decided it was okay to eavesdrop on its citizens' phone calls without oversight (despite laws to the contrary), considered suspending the first amendment, etc.
dotandcom
Newbie
I've no desire to defend what seems to have been a heavy-handed police reaction, and I share the growing concern of many on this forum and elsewhere about the gradual, piecemeal, erosion of our liberties. But for the benefit of paranoid grid-snappers, I will point out that the grids that Stephen Clarke was photographing were those that had just been searched and sealed in advance of the Labour Party Conference in 2008. They weren't just any old grids (I know, I know!). It was a worrying over-reaction by the police, but not totally arbitrary and gratuitous.
All the best,
Chris
All the best,
Chris
mich8261
Well-known
I think stopping him and questioning him on the street would be considered to be not totally arbitrary and gratuitous, but to lock him up for 2 days and search his house certainly is.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Bill,
Hang on.
You can't take pictures any more. You are subject to substantially arbitrary arrest and detention.
You see that as FREEDOM?
I just bought a Redmolotov t-shirt (www.redmolotov.com) with a quote from 1984:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
I assume you've read 1984. Re-read it. If you haven't read it, reflect on the view that those who prefer security over freedom deserve neither.
What else are you willing to give up, after the pursuit of happiness? Liberty? Life?
Tashi delegs,
Roger
Last edited:
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Actually Obama has been busy undoing many of the authoritarian and undemocratic laws that have been passed in the past 8 years...
steverett
Anthopomorphized Camera
Fair enough, but according to the excerpt, "the police couldn’t find any photos of sewer-gratings on his phone." Either he quickly and surreptitiously deleted them, or he was arrested for making a phone call while standing on a sewer grate.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
I wonder how they would react if they caught you shooting with a Minox 8x11... or if they found one on you.
How do you explain that one?
'What are you doing with a spy camera?'
'Errrr...'
;-)
How do you explain that one?
'What are you doing with a spy camera?'
'Errrr...'
;-)
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
Whilst we in the UK, at least, do appear to be coming under heavier and heavier handed restrictions I would like to point out that these in no way have any real impact on most photographers on a day to day basis.
Both myself and many colleagues rarely come across any problems such as those illustrated by the original poster's news story. Chris, quoted above, makes a good point that photographers are only really in danger of such things happening when they are photographing without Press Credentials in an area that has either a permanent high security cordone such as an airbase or a temporary one when a Royal, Member of Parliament etc etc is visiting an area. I have been questioned by Police, Military and Royal security services on occasion and it is certainly a pain in the backside but I have always been treated respectfully and kept from my photography for the minimum amount of time possible. This has happened when I've been working and when I've just stumbled upon a Royal visit or some such thing.
How this develops in the future is clearly open to debate but to suggest that we can all be held without charge, made to wear orange jump suits and have an unwanted three year holiday in a part of the Caribbean is only a short step from some voices here.
From my experience and those fellow professionals and semi-professionals ( those that often struggle to get relevant accreditation for certain events ) that I have spoken to about this are more concerned about the (often private) security groups that can hinder and even make your job impossible because they have no real grasp of the current law and how they can legally impose their 'rights.'
Many of us here find that the biggest hindrance to photography, both as hobby and profession, is the private companies that own land/property that is not obviously private land and have a zero tolerance of photography without a prior agreement in place. I'm not saying that this is unfair or an infringement of my rights etc but it is certainly a pain that is becoming more and more widespread.
This is my opinion based upon discussions with other photographers and my own experiences, though I would certainly agree that we do need to ensure that we don't allow Photography as a means to a valid social document to be lost to a law or series of laws that are put into place due to reactionism over thoughtful process.
Was my horse really that high?!:angel: