Well the poll tax was introduced as a "fairer" system but look what happened to that.
Originally Posted by BarryWilkinson
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.
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.
Originally Posted by jonjonho
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'?
Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.
Exactly, and the same applies to a ban. How can you tell if someone is making a phone call or taking a photograph?
Originally Posted by Andy K
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.
this thread is wandering into soapbox territory
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
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
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)
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.
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 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.
Must be in Lounge territory now!
Originally Posted by Steve Smith
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!
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.
Seems like you could get the tourism industry behind this fight. I always wanted to go to England but if I can't take pictures it sure would make me ,and many other people I'm sure, think twice about going there. It would have a definite affect on tourism income.