Street photographers and the terrorist threat

KIPAX said:
Not really... In fact..thats quite a pathetic statement.. Your saying anyone who isn't a police officer isn't because they are cowards? not because of any life choice or anything? simply because they havent got the ?

the rest of your post i agree with... just let yourself down with the drama queen ending:)
Click to expand...
Your opinion fair doos, happy with that. I have let myself down, err no I havent.

That's my opinion, no matter what people think about it.
 
DemiLion said:
Can I suggest that you potter off and do some studying into the motivation behind his early work?
Click to expand...
Now you're just totally misunderstanding his work & trying to make me seem stupid for not understanding it. Further evidence that as long as you get viewers you'll say pretty much any old s***e?
If you don't get that Parr is a compassionate human who takes questioning snaps you're really not getting it
 
shruggy63 said:
Now you're just totally misunderstanding his work & trying to make me seem stupid for not understanding it. Further evidence that as long as you get viewers you'll say pretty much any old s***e?
If you don't get that Parr is a compassionate human who takes questioning snaps you're really not getting it
Click to expand...


...and if you don't think that one of the primary motivations for Parr's work was highlighting social injustice you really don't get it.
 
DemiLion said:
You clearly haven't been looking at the genre much then. All of the lead artists do this. Martin Parr, Bruce Gildern and Dougie Wallace are names that spring to mind quite easily.
Click to expand...
Sassafras said:
I think Dougie Wallace found his subjects in Harrodsburg to be absurd but Bruce Gilden identifies with underdogs in society. As for Martin Parr, I think he looks at the world with wry amusement.
Click to expand...
DemiLion said:
...and if you don't think that one of the primary motivations for Parr's work was highlighting social injustice you really don't get it.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I see Martin Parr as a social documentary photographer, although he was accused of exploiting people in his early work, Hebden Bridge, Last Resort etc, the switched to things like Ascot. or as Picture editor Colin Jacobson famously said “a gratuitously cruel social critic who has made a large amount of money by sneering at the foibles and pretensions of other people”. Theres certainly a lot of social commentary in his early images, his latest work seems to be more about documenting peoples way of life.

The Barbican had a great exhibition last year, Britain as revealed by international photographers.
https://www.barbican.org.uk/media/events/17922strangefamiliarwalltexts.pdf
https://www.culturewhisper.com/r/visual_arts/preview/6211

Dougie wallace again is a bit of a social documentary photograher, although his blackpool series is a little more in your face. BBC 4 recently did a great show following him around knightsbridge in what do artists do all day

Bruce Gildren I find a bit of a freak show and not my favourite work or style
 
Kind of odd if police can actually do anything about you for doing street photography.

My sister phoned the police after a man was taking photos through her house windows.

The police response, sorry he has not broken the law nothing we can do.
 
shruggy63 said:
Yes, that's pretty much what I was saying.Can I help you further?
Click to expand...


That's not what you said at all. Watch any interview with Parr discussing his first three major works and you'll hear that he was motivated by highlighting social injustice which enraged him.
 
It is what I'm saying. I think we're probably going to end up agreeing here. Parr is inherently on the compassionate, progressive left of politics. He's not trying to humiliate people or make them 'lesser', than others. He's trying to present a form of reality?
 
gramps said:
Yes, some people get very angst about their legal rights on what to me are non-issues ... YMMV. :)
Click to expand...

Indeed MMMV, but your thinly veiled insult about peoples legal rights or their right to assert them is not mitigated by a smiley.
 
Donnie said:
Indeed MMMV, but your thinly veiled insult about peoples legal rights or their right to assert them is not mitigated by a smiley.
Click to expand...
If I wanted to insult you I would, the fact is I don't and I didn't, I am merely stating the facts as I see it ... there is no issue in my mind with giving your name and address to a police officer if you have done nothing wrong. Sure you can stand on your 'rights' and say 'I don't have to so I won't' but personally I see that as pointless and it just serves to make things more difficult. The police have a job to do on our behalf that is difficult enough already, I see no reason to make it more difficult or to withhold cooperation just because you can. (I won't use a smiley if it bothers you.)
 
"some people get very angst about their legal rights" that IS a thinly veiled insult. A right is just that and there's no justification for judging people that are prepared to assert it.

On the subject of the police having a hard job to do, absolutely, no argument there at all, they (as well as many other public sector workers) are under resourced and poorly paid, especially those on the front line.

However, the amount of time wasted on asking photographers what they are doing? really? especially when they know (or should) that they are doing nothing illegal?
 
As I said 'some people get very angst' ... you are free to have your opinion just as I am free to have mine..
 
DemiLion said:
Deviation from the English Language.

(Using a noun as an adjective)
Click to expand...
If you read Beowulf (our oldest surviving example of English) this has always been a common facet of our language. Shakespeare was very good at it.
 
Donnie said:
the point is you are asserting your legal rights.
Click to expand...

And that is very much your entitlement, but there is a potential bigger picture. If a police asks for details and you with hold them that can create a bit of a stand off. This is on the assumption the particular police is a human being and not a power trip police. Look at it from the polices' point of view. They've asked for some details, presumable for a benevolent reason, if you with hold they then will have a lower view of you and potentially the photography community as a whole. Thusly the next encounter with a photographist might not start off in the best manner.
 
So, instead of the police not wasting their time asking everyone with a camera "what are you doing?" when it's pretty obvious that they are taking photos and doing nothing illegal, you should give up your legal right not to give your details, because the next time the police ask "what are you doing?" they will be more aggressive?
 
The problem we now have today is everyone and their dog who has a camera phone seem to want to deliberately create a situation where they know security/police will be called, then start spouting it is my right etc. ad nauseum, just so they can try and pass themselves off as some kind of up-holder of photographers rights, YouTube is full of videos of these idiots.

Use your common sense, it is not hard
 
Last edited:
Donnie said:
So, instead of the police not wasting their time asking everyone with a camera "what are you doing?" when it's pretty obvious that they are taking photos and doing nothing illegal, you should give up your legal right not to give your details, because the next time the police ask "what are you doing?" they will be more aggressive?
Click to expand...
Refusing and making the situation drag out longer than is necessary wastes their time even more.
 
Keith W said:
The problem we now have today is everyone and their dog who has a camera phone seem to want to deliberately create a situation where they know security/police will be called, then start spouting it is my right etc. ad nauseum, just so they can try and pass themselves off as some kind of up-holder of photographers rights, YouTube is full of videos of these idiots.

Use your common sense, it is not hard
Click to expand...

Indeed, but are you assuming everyone that wishes to affirm their right is one of these people?

Orangecroc said:
Refusing and making the situation drag out longer than is necessary wastes their time even more.
Click to expand...

So the answer to my question is yes.
 
Keith W said:
The problem we now have today is everyone and their dog who has a camera phone seem to want to deliberately create a situation where they know security/police will be called, then start spouting it is my right etc. ad nauseum, just so they can try and pass themselves off as some kind of up-holder of photographers rights, YouTube is full of videos of these idiots.

Use your common sense, it is not hard
Click to expand...
I thought it looked like the police only chased people with "pro" looking cameras, while ignoring phones that can often produce images of near equal quality.
 
Donnie said:
actually the whole message stated everyone with a camera phone was out to cause hassle with the police then hide behind their rights, you said that in black and white, there is no assumption there.
Click to expand...

No that is not the whole message is it?

You are taking something out of context to fit your agenda.
 
Just for the record, by providing your name and DOB, the police will simply check it against the police national computer and their local database to see if you're known for anything untoward, especially if its related to your activity. If not, and you come back 'no trace' then the likely hood is they'd give you a "thank you very much" and move on. No record is kept, unless it escalates.

More worrying are the members of the public who call police to investigate a photographers activities...
 
an1uk said:
I thought it looked like the police only chased people with "pro" looking cameras, while ignoring phones that can often produce images of near equal quality.
Click to expand...
The police don't "chase" photographers, trust me, they have better things to do (unless of course they are purposefully photographing sensitive establishments).

However, the public do still call the police when they see photographers in particular places and the police are forced to react, knowing all they'll establish is that they are doing nothing wrong. Its these people that call the police that need educating that they're actually doing nothing wrong.
 
odd jim said:
The police don't "chase" photographers, trust me, they have better things to do (unless of course they are purposefully photographing sensitive establishments).

However, the public do still call the police when they see photographers in particular places and the police are forced to react, knowing all they'll establish is that they are doing nothing wrong. Its these people that call the police that need educating that they're actually doing nothing wrong.
Click to expand...
You're right of course but then logically they should question the people who called them out (and take their names etc) and discover what it is they think is suspicious and then educate them/give them a hard time rather than wasting time asking a photographer why he is taking photographs - to which there is no simple answer.
 
sphexx said:
You're right of course but then logically they should question the people who called them out (and take their names etc) and discover what it is they think is suspicious and then educate them/give them a hard time rather than wasting time asking a photographer why he is taking photographs - to which there is no simple answer.
Click to expand...
Oh they do get all the callers details etc, but people are known to embellish the facts to get the police there. Unfortunately all calls have to be taken in good faith.
 
odd jim said:
Oh they do get all the callers details etc, but people are known to embellish the facts to get the police there. Unfortunately all calls have to be taken in good faith.
Click to expand...

Yes, I had someone claim that I smelt of alcohol to try to get the police interested. The police officer who came along was very charming and told the complainant that there's nothing wrong with photographing people in public places.


PS The police officer did not ask for me details.
 
an1uk said:
Like a terrorist will give them accurate details anyway :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The police won't take what someone says at face value; they'll ask for ID and do a check on PNC and other databases. The majority of the current threat actors in UK are not particularly sophisticated and are unlikely to have good quality counterfeit identity documents, a solid backstory, and the ability to withstand questioning.

The creatures responsible for recent attacks in London made no attempt to hide their identities - hiring vehicles in their own names and so on. The controlling minds behind some of them probably do take steps to cover themselves, but they aren't likely to undertake potential target surveillance themselves.

Personally I'd have no problem giving police my details.
 
Anubis said:
Personally I'd have no problem giving police my details.
Click to expand...

I can't think of a single reason why I wouldn't give me details.... Unless you think he is going to sneak into your house and steal all your camera gear then I don't know why anyone wouldn't :)
 
Is it compulsory for every thread in this forum to develop into an argument? Everyone has their own feelings, regards and opinions about everything. Just do what you feel is right for you and get on with it and accept that some will not agree with you but they have just the same rights to have their opinions as everyone else. Fuelling argumentative threads is getting no one anywhere but it does not help the forum as viewed by potential and new members who are looking for a place to talk about photography.
 
GrahamT said:
Is it compulsory for every thread in this forum to develop into an argument?
Click to expand...

You see an argument.. I see a debate..

One of us isn't cut out for this haha :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top