I'm sorry David but whatever was in the mind of the petitioner is now irrelevant. If we don't sign, Blair will say we are not interested. If we do sign we are to be classed as paranoid!
Originally Posted by David Henderson
This is a 'no win' situation which I suspect is the reason why the website was set up in the first place.
In theory, the e-petitions are a good idea, democracy in action etc.
Originally Posted by BarryWilkinson
In practice, I think they're ill-conceived (thought I'd get that phrase in, everyone else is using it ). Any crackpot (no reference to current discussion) can put up a petition about ANYTHING and urge people to sign it. There is usually very little information indeed, and even blatant misinformation.
Frankly I think Blair would be a crackpot himself if he took much notice of them, and I don't think he does.
This is a pity because it could be a very clear avenue for thought-out public expression of opinion. But it isn't.
It's a storm in a tea cup. The whole E-petition thing is a joke and rightly ignored by most in government. The one that has attracted the most publicity can't even scrap together 2% of the population to get involved
Try the Isle of Man, Scotland or The Republic of Ireland. I have been to all three in the last 9 months or so and found no such nonsense about no photography in any of those places. I wandered around the Guinness brewery in Dublin, snapping away and you can get few places the Irish would guard more preciously.
Originally Posted by jmailand
Yes we are getting a little paranoid in London but elsewhere in England things are less frenetic and a photographing tourist is unlikely to cause a stir. Around our Stately Homes and places like Stratford upon Avon, you'll look suspicious as a tourist if you don't have a camera.
A propos this thread, those of you with access to the Amateur Photographer magazine may like to look at this week's Roger Hicks' article on ideas for a Photographer's Protest.
Entertaining and thought provoking, I thought.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Here's a link to AP's online coverage of the story - http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...ws_110170.html
The destination is important, but so is the journey
I'm quoting from the AP article: 'During the incident a member of the rugby club apparently asked them to delete their pictures which they agreed to do.'
How could they 'delete' something on film?
The real irony is that the public seems helplessly determinded to lose rights as the authorities are always trying to gain more, even by breaking the law.
Take a look at the court case of NYPD's illegal surveillance/videotaping of the protesters during RNC 2004 in NYC:
The content of the story above is, in NYC, police cannot videotape any public event without an issued warrant, but in this particular case they did with hundreds of videotapes without any warrant, and that's illegal. But I'm assuming this is a small fraction of what they actually do, and I'm glad this is becoming a news.
It seems this kind of unlawful conduct is spreading out all over the place. I thought it was some kind of a common practice in the former communist totalitalian states, but no one seems to really queston about that.
And it really seems like the west is becoming a big quasi totalitalian state now.
Last edited by firecracker; 02-20-2007 at 09:01 AM. Click to view previous post history.
So what was so very very hard about asking permission first - or at least explaining who they were? Sounds like they were a group of camera club members with more than likely flashy pro-looking cameras, taking pics at the side of the youngsters' rugby pitch. With no connection to the group at all.
Sorry, more than likely if it was my son in the group I'd want to at least know who they were, and why they didn't have the good manners to ask first.
Sounds like if they'd done so, the whole incident (and petition) may well have been avoided.
Isn't it time photographers grew up?
Adding more (then I've said enough!)..... I don't do much 'documentary' photography as such, but I am often out and about with my camera in London, and I have never, ever experienced any problem or paranoia. Most often people, if they notice me at all, are interested in my camera and more interested that their children - if they are around mine - are getting in my way, rather than that their children may be included. Sometimes I find myself worrying about other people worrying what I'm doing but can honestly say I've never had any evidence of this, (so paranoia - photographers' paranoia that is - must be catching!)
It's surprisingly easy to make some sort of contact with people if you want to photograph near them, you don't even have to have a full conversation.
It wouldn't cross my mind, though, to photograph youngsters in this sort of group situation without talking about it first - when I was studying photography full time and had to do the 'documentary' module getting permission if at all possible & reasonable (it isn't always) was drummed into us as good practice. That's regardless of who it is you're photographing.
Last edited by catem; 02-20-2007 at 09:49 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: added more!
I can only speak for the case of Japan: Yes, online petition is a joke. It doesn't really affect anything substantial.
Originally Posted by markbb
People hit streets for real change, not sit in front of a computer and click on the screen.