Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Street Shooters Test Laws In London  (Read 2006 times)

Kevin Gallagher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 962
Street Shooters Test Laws In London
« on: July 22, 2011, 06:45:03 am »

Link To DpReview article
 
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1107/11072115streetphotog.asp

Very interesting bit of video
Logged
Kevin In CT
All Animals Are Equal But Some Are More Equal
 George Orwell

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Street Shooters Test Laws In London
« Reply #1 on: July 22, 2011, 02:47:01 pm »

Nice to see some common sense prevail; but still, I can understand the private security's concerns too. It's really much the same situation as that earlier example of the chap in the US railway or bus terminal.

In this video, it's all done to prove a point,  but were they really interested in doing some serious shooting why would it be a problem to ask first? I suspect that reason should go both ways in these situations, but the temptation is probably to shoot first and ask questions later. I can also understand why guards would object to being filmed or photographed, even I don't like it, public land notwithstanding - I'm not part of public land, I'm me. I think.

Rob C 

Kevin Gallagher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 962
Re: Street Shooters Test Laws In London
« Reply #2 on: July 22, 2011, 09:47:49 pm »

Hi Rob, my .02 on this was that's it's showing the bravado and bluffing of the rent a cops as opposed to real, professional, sworn police officers who are aware of the law.
Logged
Kevin In CT
All Animals Are Equal But Some Are More Equal
 George Orwell

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Street Shooters Test Laws In London
« Reply #3 on: July 22, 2011, 09:50:07 pm »

Well, first of all the background noise makes the film unintelligible, but from what I can gather the film makes it clear that rent-a-cops are the same the world over. (1) They don't know anything about the law, and (2) that's not going to stop them from making asses of themselves.

Looks as if things have gotten pretty bad in England, but I'll tell you right now, Rob, if I were shooting on the street in the US and goons like these tried what they're trying in this film I'd have them in court in a heartbeat.

There's no reason why this kind of rent-a-cop should object to being filmed -- unless the cop knows that what he's doing is wrong and that the film might provide evidence against him in court. I don't know what the law is in England, but I know what it is in the US, and in the US I could go after these rent-a-cops either with a criminal complaint or with a civil suit. I'd win in either case as long as I could show the kind of film shown here.

When you go into a public place in the US you may be you, but you're also part of the public. You have no expectation of privacy. If you're really worried about being photographed it's best to stay home.

But... a reasonably good street photographer doesn't have his camera up to his eye long enough for slugs like these to notice. To be noticed you'd have to walk around carrying a tripod with your camera on top, which is what one of the obvious novices in the film did. Ah well!
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Street Shooters Test Laws In London
« Reply #4 on: July 23, 2011, 04:49:14 am »

Perhaps we take two different messages from the film, Russ; I thought it to be an organized 'testing' of security responses, in which case it got what it was looking for.

I also understand the problems of security that static targets such as offices face: their only defence is some form of private security. After 9/11 and yesterday's events in Olslo, how can you or anyone else turn a blind eye to the reality facing any 'establishment' property? That these failed to prevent or deter lunatics isn't the point: the point is that people have to try. And how does anyone know that less determined individuls have not been put off by the sight of men in suits listening to their music? To me, they are a low price to pay for a huge benefit.

Though I earned my living from photography, and posibly even because of that, I'm not given to the belief that there is some sort of divine right of snappers! Neither do I subscribe to the belief that, because I may be in the public thoroughfare, I lose my right to deciding what's done with/to my personal image. Security cameras in the street? They are not there for fun; they cost a fortune to run and certainly did help bringing to justice or showing criminals in several bombings in the UK. That's a part of surveillance that I accept as legitimate; the private sector playing sniper for its own amusement is something quite else. One wants to do that, fine; hire a clown and follow him with a Leica for a couple of hours! 

;-)

Rob C

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Street Shooters Test Laws In London
« Reply #5 on: July 23, 2011, 01:10:45 pm »

Rob, I think we agree on the film. Yes, it was supposed to be a test, but the testers seem to be unusually incompetent. How come they're not carrying cards, for instance, with the laws written out on them so they can hand them to the rent-a-cops to see what reaction they get? As Kevin pointed out, when the real, sworn cops showed up they knew the law and sort of laughed off the whole thing.

I guess I'm particularly sensitive to this kind of crap. I've been around long enough to have a deep and personal appreciation for the loss of liberty in Western nations, my own included. I doubt anyone nowadays could pull off an HCB tour of a city, or a Robert Frank tour of a country, without having misguided government or private functionaries interceding on behalf of people out in public, demanding privacy as their "right." As I said before, if you want privacy, stay home. You actually have privacy rights there, enforced under the law.

To me, the fascinating thing about the test is that these guys were shooting buildings instead of people. How the hell can a building on a public thoroughfare be demanding privacy, or the right not to be photographed?

Snappers may not have a divine right, but they sure as hell have a legal right.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.
Pages: [1]   Go Up