Distasteful but still not on

Status
Not open for further replies.
TCR4x4 said:
No it should be the other way. Anyone should be able to photograph anything.
Click to expand...

No wonder that the public are paranoid about photographers ....

Sent from my X10i using TP Forums
 
goldenlight said:
I think the B&W answer is that the policeman is wrong. Having said that, spare a thought for his feelings, he's not just a copper but a human being and no doubt upset and traumatised by this tragic incident. If I was there I'm not sure that I wouldn't have ripped the phone out of that pillock's hand myself.

We quite rightly cherish and defend our freedom but must always remember that with freedom comes responsibility. Responsibility not to trample over the freedom and feelings of others.

Although he should not have deleted the footage the policeman may well have had a case for arresting the guy for a public order offence. However his main priority was clearly trying to deal with this dreadful situation.

Right or wrong, who cares? I've nothing but sympathy for the young girl, her family and the police officer in this case. Equally, I've nothing but contempt for the idiot with the phone.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think the coppers actions should have been to sieze the camera/phone for evidence, that way the gore whore wouldn't have access to the footage immediately. And you never know, it may accidentally get deleted at some point before the phone is returned to the owner. :naughty:

Steve
 
While I argree that it was wrong to photograph the scene, the police officers act was Illegal, they have a DUTY to uphold the law, if they dont how can they reasonably expect anyone else to obey the law.
 
cobra_lite said:
If he was crawling under the bus to get all the gory details then fair point - but as I read the article, my understanding is that he was filming the overall scene: we are not told how close he was to the actual victim.
I think decency and good taste are a matter of degree which is influenced by the distance at which they occur.
Click to expand...

‘I heard screaming, I thought it was her but it was her mother, she was but it was her mother, she was absolutely hysterical. The most distressing thing was that a man tried to film it – the accident happened and he’s trying to film under the bus [/ quote]

Sent from my X10i using TP Forums
Click to expand...
 
swanseamale47 said:
While I argree that it was wrong to photograph the scene, the police officers act was Illegal, they have a DUTY to uphold the law, if they dont how can they reasonably expect anyone else to obey the law.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's not illegal per se, it's an abuse of authority which is a disciplinary matter.

And before people go on about destruction of evidence, the evidence has to be known to be in existence and already documented. Anything else is the realms if civil law.
 
swanseamale47 said:
While I argree that it was wrong to photograph the scene, the police officers act was Illegal, they have a DUTY to uphold the law, if they dont how can they reasonably expect anyone else to obey the law.
Click to expand...

Yup, and added to that they are required to preserve any evidence.
 
Splog said:
...I heard screaming, I thought it was her but it was her mother, she was but it was her mother, she was absolutely hysterical. The most distressing thing was that a man tried to film it - the accident happened and he's trying to film under the bus
Click to expand...

I read the same extract and it's a typical eyewitness account...not to be relied upon.
How far was he from the bus: we're not told - was he under the bus or was he filming the scene that was occurring under the bus from a distance?

Again - we were not present so our opinions differ because our perceptions of what we read differ.
Had there been a photograph of the incident we could make a better assessment...

Ah, but then that's what this whole thread is about, so we can't.
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
Yup, and added to that they are required to preserve any evidence.
Click to expand...

Which they are more than capable of doing without the help of some utter cretin with a mobile phone.
 
odd jim said:
Actually, it's not illegal per se, it's an abuse of authority which is a disciplinary matter.

And before people go on about destruction of evidence, the evidence has to be known to be in existence and already documented. Anything else is the realms if civil law.
Click to expand...

It's criminal damage to destroy someones property, the film belonged to the photographer.
 
odd jim said:
Which they are more than capable of doing without the help of some utter cretin with a mobile phone.
Click to expand...

Please explain all the requests for witnesses and any photographs then, not forgetting the yellow appeal signs?

You have no idea what was recorded and how valuable/worthless it was.
 
DemiLion said:
Please explain all the requests for witnesses and any photographs then, not forgetting the yellow appeal signs?

You have no idea what was recorded and how valuable/worthless it was.
Click to expand...

Requesting eye witnesses and evidence to the actual collision is different from asking people if they have any shots of the victim dying in the road after the event and after the police get there.

Come on...
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Requesting eye witnesses to the actual collision is different from asking people if they have any shots of the victim dying in the road after the event and after the police get there.

Come on...
Click to expand...

And you know that the person filming hadn't also witnessed the accident how?
 
I'm sure they only thing the great British press will defend out of all of this is the right to run the story about sick f*&% photographers at it again and the need to ban them all from taking pictures in public
 
DemiLion said:
And you know that the person filming hadn't also witnessed the accident how?
Click to expand...

Ok next time I'm investigating my next fatal collision I'll invite anyone with a mobile or camera over to the body to take pictures. Clearly it helps. Strangely I've never felt the need to do so before.

Anyway in answer to your question, I would have hoped anyone at the scene on police arrival would have been spoken to and witnesses identified.
 
odd jim said:
Ok next time I'm investigating my next fatal collision I'll invite anyone with a mobile or camera over to the body to take pictures. Clearly it helps. Strangely I've never felt the need to do so before.

Anyway in answer to your question, I would have hoped anyone at the scene on police arrival would have been spoken to and witnesses identified.
Click to expand...

So are you a copper or a womble?

If it's the former then I would hope that you'd know a damn sight better.
 
DemiLion said:
So are you a copper or a womble?

If it's the former then I would hope that you'd know a damn sight better.
Click to expand...

Better than what?
 
If the person feels he is the victim of an injustice, he is free to pursue the matter through appropriate channels.

Something tells me this isn't very likely to happen.

If I was the Policeman, I'd have caused his phone/camera to turn into a thousand separate pieces. Accidentally, of course.
 
Last edited:
did the officer ask if he had filmed the accident itself or did he just delete the footage without asking
 
clowds said:
did the officer ask if he had filmed the accident itself or did he just delete the footage without asking
Click to expand...

All we have is the news article but if what's written is an accurate depiction of events, I have faith that the PO in question would have known what he was dealing with before taking the action he did.
 
Read this bit properly and tell me why anyone thinks they should defend the actions of this person with the mobile phone ...

‘I heard screaming, I thought it was her but it was her mother, she was absolutely hysterical. The most distressing thing was that a man tried to film it – the accident happened and he’s trying to film under the bus.
‘The policeman grabbed his phone and deleted the footage and told him to go.
‘The bus driver, a woman, was hysterical, really distressed.’

I really worry about some of the people posting on here who seem to think that carrying a camera gives them some sort of god given right to do WTF they like, and that basic human decency seems to no longer apply.
 
CT said:
Read this bit properly and tell me why anyone thinks they should defend the actions of this person with the mobile phone ...

‘I heard screaming, I thought it was her but it was her mother, she was absolutely hysterical. The most distressing thing was that a man tried to film it – the accident happened and he’s trying to film under the bus.
‘The policeman grabbed his phone and deleted the footage and told him to go.
‘The bus driver, a woman, was hysterical, really distressed.’

I really worry about some of the people posting on here who seem to think that carrying a camera gives them some sort of god given right to do WTF they like, and that basic human decency seems to no longer apply.
Click to expand...

Indeed!

Sent from my X10i using TP Forums
 
CT said:
Read this bit properly and tell me why anyone thinks they should defend the actions of this person with the mobile phone ...

‘I heard screaming, I thought it was her but it was her mother, she was absolutely hysterical. The most distressing thing was that a man tried to film it – the accident happened and he’s trying to film under the bus.
‘The policeman grabbed his phone and deleted the footage and told him to go.
‘The bus driver, a woman, was hysterical, really distressed.’

I really worry about some of the people posting on here who seem to think that carrying a camera gives them some sort of god given right to do WTF they like, and that basic human decency seems to no longer apply.
Click to expand...

I'm not defending his actions, as I don't know enough about the situation. However I do think that the deletion of the video/photographs was idiotic and that the mobile should have been seized.

Having said that, if I'd have been there, I certainly would have taken photographs with a view of submitting them to the SLP, Streatham Guardian, Standard et al with a mobile if I wasn't carrying my compact as usual. As to what the content of those photos would have been, would have been a judgement call to be made at the time.
 
cobra_lite said:
My attitude as a professional photographer and later as an assistant picture editor is to provide newsworthy images (I'm not saying that this incident is an example of that - a tragic road accident is just that and I suspect the only reason it made the news was her connection to a well-known stage production).

As to having to deal with grieving relatives and wash blood out of my clothes, I have - several times.
Belfast, Londonderry and Armagh during the toubles of the late 70's and 80s, Lebanon and Beirut in the '80s and 90's and Iraq and Afghanistan until I hung my cameras up in 2003 and went behind a desk for a well-earned rest.

It does get to you and I freely admit that more than once I was tempted to down tools and lend a hand rather than record what was going on. But I was there to do a job and I did it to the best of my ability.

As an assistant picture editor in London and later in Singapore, I was frequently sent images that we chose not to put on the boards for reasons of taste or out of compassion for the relatives.
It is possible to photograph an event like this without showing the faces of the victims and without being obtrusive.

I wasn't present at this incident and by the sounds of it, neither was anyone else on this Forum - therefore to speculate further as to the motives of anyone who was present is pointless.

I will say however, that if any of you had come to me as professional photographers with any of the above reasons for not getting an image of a newsworthy event, I would have fired you on the spot. No question.

Cry about it all you like, but that's the nature of the business - if you don't like it, don't get involved.
Maybe this is the difference between amateur photographers and professional news photographers, I don't know.
Click to expand...

So we think we're talking here about a pro tog taking a newsworthy clip for the BBC or ITV? On a mobile phone? :thinking:

BTW I'm well aware that far worse photographers than me earn a living from it, if it means taking these sort of pictures they're welcome to it.
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
Having said that, if I'd have been there, I certainly would have taken photographs with a view of submitting them to the SLP, Streatham Guardian, Standard et al with a mobile if I wasn't carrying my compact as usual. As to what the content of those photos would have been, would have been a judgement call to be made at the time.
Click to expand...

Really? You'd have gone out of your way to take intimate pictures of a young girl dying under a bus with her mother present and hysterical, knowing full well that no newspaper would publish them?
 
odd jim said:
What planet are you on? This has NOTHING to do with civil liberties. How would you feel if a gore perv was filming your child while they fought for life under a bus??!

Police officer did well. I'd have done exactly the same.
Click to expand...

I am one of those people who is fed up to the back teeth of the state meddling with Joe Public - and strongly believe in freedom of speech, but in this case I totally agree and think the copper applied common sense rather than the law. I would be horrified if I knew that someone was filming my little girl in that position. Trouble is these days, that footage could be all over the internet and that to me is very distasteful.
 
DemiLion said:
Having said that, if I'd have been there, I certainly would have taken photographs with a view of submitting them to the SLP, Streatham Guardian, Standard et al with a mobile if I wasn't carrying my compact as usual. As to what the content of those photos would have been, would have been a judgement call to be made at the time.
Click to expand...

CT said:
Really? You'd have gone out of your way to take intimate pictures of a young girl dying under a bus with her mother present and hysterical, knowing full well that no newspaper would publish them?
Click to expand...

Again for the hard of reading:

As to what the content of those photos would have been, would have been a judgement call to be made at the time.
 
cobra_lite said:
My attitude as a professional photographer and later as an assistant picture editor is to provide newsworthy images (I'm not saying that this incident is an example of that - a tragic road accident is just that and I suspect the only reason it made the news was her connection to a well-known stage production).

As to having to deal with grieving relatives and wash blood out of my clothes, I have - several times.
Belfast, Londonderry and Armagh during the toubles of the late 70's and 80s, Lebanon and Beirut in the '80s and 90's and Iraq and Afghanistan until I hung my cameras up in 2003 and went behind a desk for a well-earned rest.

It does get to you and I freely admit that more than once I was tempted to down tools and lend a hand rather than record what was going on. But I was there to do a job and I did it to the best of my ability.

As an assistant picture editor in London and later in Singapore, I was frequently sent images that we chose not to put on the boards for reasons of taste or out of compassion for the relatives.
It is possible to photograph an event like this without showing the faces of the victims and without being obtrusive.

I wasn't present at this incident and by the sounds of it, neither was anyone else on this Forum - therefore to speculate further as to the motives of anyone who was present is pointless.

I will say however, that if any of you had come to me as professional photographers with any of the above reasons for not getting an image of a newsworthy event, I would have fired you on the spot. No question.

Cry about it all you like, but that's the nature of the business - if you don't like it, don't get involved.
Maybe this is the difference between amateur photographers and professional news photographers, I don't know.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between covering an on-going war/conflict and filming under a bus that's just ridden over someone.

Would you fire someone for not getting any close-up "under the wheels" coverage?
 
There is a separate issue here which is more about the 'craze' of social journalism which is encouraged by the likes of the BBC/SKY/ITV and the advancement of technology. Now we have every man/woman/child and pet carrying a piece of equipment capable of capturing a moment in time, as a result we have seen some truly breathtaking images of the Tsunami wave in Japan last week. We now also have people (and I have seen this myself) whose first thought when encountering an incident is to take the phone out and record away, rather then help.

What the Police man did was legally wrong and would be going on about rights and infringements, but sometimes in life it is not Black and White. Sometimes, just sometimes there is exceptions which prove the rule (or in this case the law). This was not someone taking photo's to expose the tragedy of war, or the barbarity of mankind.....this was a chancer who found himself at a scene where an unfortunate young girl found herself under a bus. There is a time and a place, this I feel (and it's only my opinion) was neither
 
There will already be Video of the incident - TfL buses are fitted with video cameras - forward facing and also nearside facing externally [ not sure about rearward ] and certainly the interior of the buses.

This is not the first time that a Met cop has deleted photos so it's time the Met made sure that their officers know exactly what they may or may not do .

I have no problem at all with the Police officer stopping the man using his phone camera .
 
Marcel said:
And respect for the girl. There's a line between respecting a dying person, and not.
Filming it on a mobile was the wrong side of that line.

Newsworthy my arse. Why is a gory shot of her upclose 'newsworthy'. Why not a shot of the overall scene? With the freedom of the press comes responsibilty. Responsibility to use that freedom with respect, compassion and thought. Yes, get your images required but with the utmost respect. Hence why a shot of the scene or from a distance might be better.

This isn't about capturing the event for news or posterity. This is about a generation who think nothing of the plight of others, have a complete lack of respect for a fellow human being, and think only of the laugh they can have with their mates at the shock of sharing such a video with no thought for the girl dying.

Legally, yes, the copper was wrong. Morally he was bang on the button.
Legally, a copper cant give a little scrote a clip round the ear anymore either...doesn't stop them needing one.
Click to expand...


Totally agree.
 
If you're close enough to photograph under the bus, you're close enough to help. Even if it's only to console or comfort. Good on the copper. I'd have smashed his phone under foot without reviewing said video.:( Legal wrong but morally right IMHO.
 
Doog said:
If you're close enough to photograph under the bus, you're close enough to help. Even if it's only to console or comfort. Good on the copper. I'd have smashed his phone under foot without reviewing said video.:( Legal wrong but morally right IMHO.
Click to expand...

If the police had got there then it's highly likely in this case that the paramedics were either on scene or seconds away. Also, given the situation, amateur first aid would probably have been either very dangerous for both parties or next to impossible.

Given a couple of news reports, I'm inclined to think that it probably was a member of the GBP gore festing, but that still doesn't excuse the pictures being deleted rather than impounded.
 
I'm very surprised at how many folk see the deletion of a video as carrying as much weight as the moral issue at hand regarding whether it's right to film the incident in the first place.

Whether it's misplaced machismo borne out of the anonymity of internet forum use, or just people who have a hard-nosed view of how things should be in life, i don't really know. What I do know is that this 'getting the image at all costs' attitude is sooooo not in keeping with the spirit of TP as a general photography forum who's key aim is to teach and bring photographers together.
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
If the police had got there then it's highly likely in this case that the paramedics were either on scene or seconds away. Also, given the situation, amateur first aid would probably have been either very dangerous for both parties or next to impossible.

Given a couple of news reports, I'm inclined to think that it probably was a member of the GBP gore festing, but that still doesn't excuse the pictures being deleted rather than impounded.
Click to expand...

As I said legally wrong but morally right. There's no point in impounding the phone, just destroy it or the images and be prepared to have your nuts kicked afterwards by the boss. I hate the ghouls that turn up to have a look. It's in very bad taste.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top