A photographers lot is not a happy one

It seems the police are taking the law into their own hands, as in the
frenzy to clamp down on terrorists, paedophiles, etc, etc, they are now
actively targeting innocent photographers. We seem to be being lead to
believe that all these 'happenings' are isolated incidents, and in no
way reflect police policy of targeting photographers. So why is it then,
that photographers repeatedly have had to use the courts against the
police to get the law upheld?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/29/police_photo_bother_romford/

The lynkked youtube 'video features an audio recording of a recent
incident, which is worth a listen.

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:40:13 +0100, Toonie
<ellellmeister@googlemail.com> wrote:

It seems the police are taking the law into their own hands, as in the
frenzy to clamp down on terrorists, paedophiles, etc, etc, they are now
actively targeting innocent photographers. We seem to be being lead to
believe that all these 'happenings' are isolated incidents, and in no
way reflect police policy of targeting photographers. So why is it then,
that photographers repeatedly have had to use the courts against the
police to get the law upheld?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/29/police_photo_bother_romford/

The lynkked youtube 'video features an audio recording of a recent
incident, which is worth a listen.

And then the chief constables etc issue statements about how people are
allowed to take photographs. The message is sent out to the police
stations (and, one would hope, the call centres). But it doesnt seem to
get into the heads of some of the police officers - or community support
officers, who have been involved in some of the cases I have read about.
It does need to be sorted.

--
Dirty old river, must you keep rolling
Flowing into the night
People so busy, make me feel dizzy
Taxi lights shine so bright

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:56:07 +0100, auuV <auuv@zazehen.invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:40:13 +0100, Toonie
<ellellmeister@googlemail.com> wrote:

It seems the police are taking the law into their own hands, as in the
frenzy to clamp down on terrorists, paedophiles, etc, etc, they are now
actively targeting innocent photographers. We seem to be being lead to
believe that all these 'happenings' are isolated incidents, and in no
way reflect police policy of targeting photographers. So why is it then,
that photographers repeatedly have had to use the courts against the
police to get the law upheld?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/29/police_photo_bother_romford/

The lynkked youtube 'video features an audio recording of a recent
incident, which is worth a listen.

And then the chief constables etc issue statements about how people are
allowed to take photographs. The message is sent out to the police
stations (and, one would hope, the call centres). But it doesnt seem to
get into the heads of some of the police officers - or community support
officers, who have been involved in some of the cases I have read about.
It does need to be sorted.

People are paranoid and fucked-up these days. That, plus having kids
seems to knock 20 or 30 points off the IQ.

Thats why, as an amateur photographer, I have a firm policy of never
taking photographs in the presence of kids, under any circumstances,
ever. It has served me well, and I hope will continue to do so.

In the event that I were ever challenged over taking pictures of
anything else, I suppose I would simply have to rely on being polite,
white and middle-class. And if not, well, if some jobsworth really has
it in for you, there isnt a whole lot you can do about it anyway. (See:
JUSTICE, grave miscarriage of; and PARDON, posthumous.)

I do believe that this whole thing is a microcosm of a much greater
problem, though. The whole focus of society seems to have shifted from
"its a free country" to "anybody could be a terrorist".

So if you *are* a terrorist: mission accomplished!

--
Copyright ©2010 neurotrashboy http://www.shyte.net/users/ntb/

theyll fetch you in the night and it will serve you right

On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 06:56:12 +0100, neurotrashboy <trash@shytenet.co.uk>
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:56:07 +0100, auuV <auuv@zazehen.invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:40:13 +0100, Toonie
<ellellmeister@googlemail.com> wrote:

It seems the police are taking the law into their own hands, as in the
frenzy to clamp down on terrorists, paedophiles, etc, etc, they are now
actively targeting innocent photographers. We seem to be being lead to
believe that all these 'happenings' are isolated incidents, and in no
way reflect police policy of targeting photographers. So why is it then,
that photographers repeatedly have had to use the courts against the
police to get the law upheld?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/29/police_photo_bother_romford/

The lynkked youtube 'video features an audio recording of a recent
incident, which is worth a listen.

And then the chief constables etc issue statements about how people are
allowed to take photographs. The message is sent out to the police
stations (and, one would hope, the call centres). But it doesnt seem to
get into the heads of some of the police officers - or community support
officers, who have been involved in some of the cases I have read about.
It does need to be sorted.

People are paranoid and fucked-up these days. That, plus having kids
seems to knock 20 or 30 points off the IQ.

Thats why, as an amateur photographer, I have a firm policy of never
taking photographs in the presence of kids, under any circumstances,
ever. It has served me well, and I hope will continue to do so.

With the current daftness and paranoia around, its a practical approach.
In the event that I were ever challenged over taking pictures of
anything else, I suppose I would simply have to rely on being polite,
white and middle-class.

That occurred to me, too, while I was thinking about it. (I added in
"female".)

And if not, well, if some jobsworth really has
it in for you, there isnt a whole lot you can do about it anyway. (See:
JUSTICE, grave miscarriage of; and PARDON, posthumous.)

:(

I do believe that this whole thing is a microcosm of a much greater
problem, though. The whole focus of society seems to have shifted from
"its a free country" to "anybody could be a terrorist".

So if you *are* a terrorist: mission accomplished!

Which makes the lawmakers colluders!

--
Madness, madness, they call it madness

On 01/07/2010 8:43 pm, auuV wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 06:56:12 +0100, neurotrashboy<trash@shytenet.co.uk>
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:56:07 +0100, auuV<auuv@zazehen.invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:40:13 +0100, Toonie
<ellellmeister@googlemail.com> wrote:

It seems the police are taking the law into their own hands, as in the
frenzy to clamp down on terrorists, paedophiles, etc, etc, they are now
actively targeting innocent photographers. We seem to be being lead to
believe that all these 'happenings' are isolated incidents, and in no
way reflect police policy of targeting photographers. So why is it then,
that photographers repeatedly have had to use the courts against the
police to get the law upheld?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/29/police_photo_bother_romford/

The lynkked youtube 'video features an audio recording of a recent
incident, which is worth a listen.

And then the chief constables etc issue statements about how people are
allowed to take photographs. The message is sent out to the police
stations (and, one would hope, the call centres). But it doesnt seem to
get into the heads of some of the police officers - or community support
officers, who have been involved in some of the cases I have read about.
It does need to be sorted.

People are paranoid and fucked-up these days. That, plus having kids
seems to knock 20 or 30 points off the IQ.

Thats why, as an amateur photographer, I have a firm policy of never
taking photographs in the presence of kids, under any circumstances,
ever. It has served me well, and I hope will continue to do so.

With the current daftness and paranoia around, its a practical approach.
In the event that I were ever challenged over taking pictures of
anything else, I suppose I would simply have to rely on being polite,
white and middle-class.

That occurred to me, too, while I was thinking about it. (I added in
"female".)

And if not, well, if some jobsworth really has
it in for you, there isnt a whole lot you can do about it anyway. (See:
JUSTICE, grave miscarriage of; and PARDON, posthumous.)

:(

I do believe that this whole thing is a microcosm of a much greater
problem, though. The whole focus of society seems to have shifted from
"its a free country" to "anybody could be a terrorist".

So if you *are* a terrorist: mission accomplished!

Which makes the lawmakers colluders!


E!