Comments on: This is why we need more photographers at public events

By: London Wedding Photographer

London Wedding Photographer — Sat, 02 May 2009 16:29:19 +0000

In respose to the last comment – I was wondering around Westminster Bridge taking photographs on a 300 f2.8 (a ruddy big lens) on a Nikon D2x (a rudy big camera) with a huge manfrotto tripod slung over my shoulder that looked like the gun in Arnies Predator Film and no one stopped me – and that was a week after the London bombings.

By: Surrey Wedding Photographer

Surrey Wedding Photographer — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 08:09:23 +0000

Just reading your article and I remembered a petition that was launched against photo restrictions imposed by the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. The only way to prevent this is to sign up to the No.10 petition. Besides if I really was filming/photographing in order to gather information on potential targets does the govt *REALLY* think that I would be walking round with a ruddy great big lens on my equally ruddy big camera letting the whole world seeing what I'm carrying? I think not - this is just getting silly.

By: kybernetikos

kybernetikos — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:35:21 +0000

I quite like some of the stuff Simon has written here and also here about protest in general, and this incident in particular.

By: anti-mob

anti-mob — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 07:06:49 +0000

Sort of.

Personally, I think that everything the police do should be filmed by law, and (where it doesn’t infringe on the rights of those they are involved with) made available to the public. If the film is not available, the default assumption should be that they did something wrong.

In terms of a crowd though “independent observers” are all well and good, but no matter how “independent”, they all have their own biases. For example, they generally want not to get into trouble, but they want to see trouble. And the trouble making element loves the attention. It’s like a big crowd of people standing around shouting “fight, fight, fight”.

In this day and age of pervasive cameras, I don’t see the need for “independant observers”. I certainly think that all the protestors should be filming themselves for evidence, but protest tourists are not doing anything useful except increasing the disruption, putting themselves at risk at get a good shot, while diluting the message of the protest.

At the same time, unlike real reporters, they seem to be shockingly naive about the various things that can happen on a protest. Complaining about getting held up for a few hours? That makes you a protest tourist, not a citizen journalist.

By: ® Andy

® Andy — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 21:41:36 +0000

Exactly the sentiment I’ve posted elsewhere Roo! As well as your reports from the day, I had other friends who were shooting pictures there too. Indeed one of them felt the weight of a riot policeman’s baton himself whilst doing so! Hence I understood that there was a strong degree of “spoiling for a ruck” from some of the officers there, with their containment approach and body language. However, they still loudly proclaimed that Ian Tomlinson’s death was an unfortunate bit of synchronicity and of course that the crowds had impeded their medical attempts.

Stuff and nonsense, and you’ve got to assume they’ve known that from very early on!

Then add in the growing hassle that urban photographers like me are receiving for exercising our right to shoot pictures and the legislation to empower the police even more, and you wonder why a historically government supporting lefty like me is getting increasingly cross! I’ve always been very respectful to the police and the job they do to protect us but am increasingly worried than in a growing number of cases they don’t see that as their role! Tonight I’m soooooo cross and if heads don’t roll over this, especially given the findings of the Jean Charles de Menezes judgements, perhaps strong civil protest is the way forward and I’ll be joining you at it!!