London Metropolitan Police loose the plot.

[gareth harper]

Afraid I can't find this yet on the web, so I'll type it out.

In the news section in this weeks AP in the UK,

Photographers face a fresh crackdown on their right to take pictures in public as a result of new measures designed to clampdown on paedophiles.

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.

For more on this highly controversial move, read next weeks AP news (11 June).


What do you think?
I think this is absolutely outrageous, and incredibly stupid and naive, not to mention very dangerous.

[richard littlewood]

Proper big brother stuff.

[noseoil]

Seems to me there should be some type of legal precedent on this one. Can they just walk up and accuse someone of "taking a picture" of someone on public property? I think not. tim

[Aggie]

using digital cameras and camera phones in London's parks and other public areas.

Considering the cameras they are targeting, I have no problem. As a mother, in today's chaotic world, and the ever viglient stance we have to take to protect our children form the current rash of insanity, I can understand the need for something to help protect. Gone are the days when children could wander around without their parents in attendance. I can now hear the rush to villify me because I in essence am going against those that think that the right to take pictures should be all emcompassing, anywhere, anytime, of any subject, So be it.

[noseoil]

Aggie, I don't think anyone would fault you for caring about children. My concern is that the "authorities" have stepped over a line, in the same way sexual predators have already done in taking and posting child porn.

Is there a balance here somewhere? If so, what would it be? Asking before taking a picture? Passing a new law? How about targeting those perps who run the web sites? tim

[gareth harper]

[COLOR=DarkRed]Considering the cameras they are targeting, I have no problem. As a mother, in today's chaotic world, and the ever viglient stance we have to take to protect our children form the current rash of insanity, I can understand the need for something to help protect. Gone are the days when children could wander around without their parents in attendance.[/COLOR]

I'm wondering what harm I am doing to a child by taking their picture. How does a child suffer by being photographed in a public place.

Nor do I think they, or the public will make any distinction on camera type.

I also find it doubtful that children are at any higher risk today then they were in years gone by. It's also worth noting that the vast majority of children are abused by people they know, more often than not these people are family members.

This is just more nonsense to generate fear, suspicion and paranoia in the general public, and I'm very surprised to hear that Ken Livingston is involved.

I hope that this story turns out to be utter nonsense, but considering recent verified stories in AP about street photographers being arrested, held and their homes searched etc, I rather suspect that this is indeed for real.

[jjstafford]

[...]
I also find it doubtful that children are at any higher risk today then they were in years gone by. [...]

Indeed. That is an issue never addressed. Instead of coming to terms with the reality, it seems that the culture is flailing in blind reaction.

[alien]

I have been following this for a while in the AP magazine and think it is insane.

A hype is being created, and the politicians are eager to show that they do something, however ineffective and ridiculous.

'Real' problems concerning child abuse are not tackled.

Seems to be the norm these days.

[richard littlewood]

It does seem councils and the government can put up as many cameras as they want, where they want, and watch who they want. They are supposed to be trusted to always do the right thing, whereas the average bod with a camera is always open to suspicion, and is a terrorist, criminal, paedophile or all 3. I find it all a little sad and a reflection of the way of things - I'm also a dad and a grandad.

[Dave Miller]

Afraid I can't find this yet on the web, so I'll type it out.

In the news section in this weeks AP in the UK,

Photographers face a fresh crackdown on their right to take pictures in public as a result of new measures designed to clampdown on paedophiles.

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.

For more on this highly controversial move, read next weeks AP news (11 June).


What do you think?
I think this is absolutely outrageous, and incredibly stupid and naive, not to mention very dangerous.

Red Kens as daft as a brush, always was and always will be.