Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,651   Posts: 1,481,311   Online: 1018
      
Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 122
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,231
    Images
    9
    Dealing with as many kids as I do, I have to agree with Jovo. The family is more of a threat than a stranger. Yes, we worry about strangers and we should but statistically and realistically most crimes against children are committed by family members (immediate and extended)

    This law is a really good way to hassel a small part of the public and allow people to imagine that they are safer. In reality their children will be no safer, and as over protective parents are looking out for the "perv" with the camera the real people to worry about are left unchecked.
    Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI

    So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004

  2. #22
    FrankB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Northwest UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,147
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by gareth harper
    London Mayor Ken Livingston - in co-operation with the metropolitan Police- has warned parents to vigilant about strangers taking pictures of children using digital cameras and camera phones in London's parks and other public areas.

    The mayors office told us that it plans to erect warning signs in the Greater London Authority-owned property. This includes Trafalgar Square.

    AP has learnt that Livingston also wants to put up signs elsewhere in London after discussing this with councils and private landowners.
    Thanks for posting this, Gareth.

    If we read it carefully there's nothing in this about extending the law, prosecuting anyone, making photography illegal, etc. That would be difficult and would cost money. Instead they have "warned parents to be vigilant" and will "erect warning signs" perpetuating that warning.

    Basically it's a nice cheap way of appearing to do something in response to a media-generated hysteria which will actually serve no purpose other than to generate more hysteria.

    If the average man/woman in the street out with their child and that warning freshly reinforced in their mind encounters a person taking a picture, whether it be with a rangefinder or a tripod-mounted ULF rig, do you think they will all pause to consider whether this constitutes a threat to their (or anyone else's) child? Some may. Others certainly won't.

    So, welcome to London where, if you have a camera, you can look forward to being accosted and accused of pedophilia by anyone who feels like it, have the police called, your home ransacked (as reported in AP a few months ago) and if they can't find anything to prosecute you for be let go with a stern (and completely unconstitutional), "Don't do it again!".

    And where London leads, others follow...

  3. #23
    Dimitri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Athens, Greece
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    81
    This is interesting, but not surprising. I mean if the same people tried to ban "bah-bah-black sheep" and black bin liner bags as being racist (or inciting racial hatred) then this is a normal course of action (and very sane by the past standards).

    And to think that most of these lunatic notions may become laws because people do not care for anything that does not affect them directly.

    I don't know if this is typical of the GL Area, but I seem to remember some funny stories of people being arrested by the police because they tried to develop their family photos (including pictures of their own children taking baths) at their local Boots.

    Mind you these incidents were not very common in the early 90's (after that I left the UK, so I don't know much), which leads me to believe that some people are getting more and more insane.
    Too many Chiefs not enough Indians.....

  4. #24
    Dimitri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Athens, Greece
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by FrankB
    And where London leads, others follow...
    Fank, I only hope that they do not try to export it as well.

    I left England in 92 and returned to Greece where I did not have to worry about insanities like these.

    However I'm now worried that the USA -> UK -> Eurore line in exporting insanity will find it's way in our part of the world. We already got some of it with the Olympics, but it was short lived. Let's hope that it will stay this way.
    Too many Chiefs not enough Indians.....

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    371
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by gareth harper
    London Mayor Ken Livingston - in co-operation with the metropolitan Police- has warned parents to vigilant about strangers taking pictures of children using digital cameras and camera phones in London's parks and other public areas.

    The mayors office told us that it plans to erect warning signs in the Greater London Authority-owned property. This includes Trafalgar Square.
    It doesn't sound like they are proposing any laws making it illegal to take photos, they're just proposing to put up some signs asking parents to be vigilant.

    Big deal.

    If they are in fact attempting to make it illegal to take photos, I think the Met will discover that it is necessary for that to be passed by an Act of Parliament. :-)

    We had similar stuff occur here in Australia recently, with some councils attempting to ban photography at public swimming pools. They soon found out that they didn't have the authority to do that and were forced to back down amid quite a lot of public backlash over councils exceeding their authority.

    Graham.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Italia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,680
    Quote Originally Posted by Dimitri
    This is interesting, but not surprising. I mean if the same people tried to ban "bah-bah-black sheep"

    Anti Japanese? Does this mean no war movies at all?

  7. #27
    Bob F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,984
    Images
    19
    "However I'm now worried that the USA -> UK -> Eurore line in exporting insanity"

    Hey, I resent that! The UK is perfectly capable of inventing its own insanity without US help thank you very much! ...

    Forget it peeps: it won't happen, it's just posturing. Livingstone will do anything for publicity, but he won't pay for it, and neither will Mr Plod. The Met is even talking about stopping using the boards they use to request public help at scenes of serious crime because they feel it just makes people afraid of crime rather than being of any actual help.


    Bob.

  8. #28
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,280
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob F
    The UK is perfectly capable of inventing its own insanity without US help thank you very much! ...
    That's viewed as "eccentricity", not insanity, by the rest of Europe. Now these recent "imports", however...

    BTW, what are the politicians proposing to do about all the surveillance cameras in London? AFAIK London has the greatest surveillace camera coverage of the world - will they be banned too? Just in case a child wanders in front of one?
    Last edited by Ole; 06-01-2005 at 06:28 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Spelling
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    North of England
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    491
    Images
    2
    Ole, that's just what I was thinking. In addition a large proportion of surveillance cameras are privately owned (night clubs, petrol stations etc.). What about speed cameras. If I get photographed speeding but have my children in the car .............................??? This is really going back to Bernie Grant days in Islington.

  10. #30
    Andy K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sunny Southend, England.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9,422
    Images
    81
    I think we are missing the real issue here.

    The problem isn't so much the proposal itself, the problem is the mindless hysteria it will whip up. It won't be long before we see stories of innocent photographers accused and hounded by 'the public', or even assaulted by a 'concerned parent'.

    Accusations of paedophilic intent are serious, and is the kind of sh*t that sticks no matter how innocent the person.

    The British are a great people, but sometimes they are dumb as rocks. All it takes is one headline from a hysterical Murdoch paper and the witch hunts will start.


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

Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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