Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,700   Posts: 1,549,187   Online: 1233
      
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 98
  1. #31
    BarryWilkinson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Somerset UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    691
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by catem View Post
    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)

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    587
    Quote Originally Posted by BarryWilkinson View Post
    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

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    VT
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    576
    Images
    1
    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.

  4. #34
    Andy K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sunny Southend, England.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9,422
    Images
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by jonjonho View Post
    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'?


    -----------My Flickr-----------
    Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    587
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy K View Post
    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

  6. #36
    Leon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Kent, England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,075
    this thread is wandering into soapbox territory

  7. #37
    FrankB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Northwest UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,147
    Images
    24
    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.
    The destination is important, but so is the journey

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,355
    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.
    Last edited by catem; 02-17-2007 at 04:40 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Near Tavistock, Devon, on the edge of Dartmoor.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    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

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Datchet, Berkshire UK- about 20 miles west of London
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    342
    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.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin