British Home Secretary green lights restrictions on photography

carpediem007 · 07-07-2008, 05:46 PM

We haven't just passed Orwell's wildest expectations (cameras everywhere, cell-phone tracking, RFID license plates etc...), we also seem to be returning to 1930s Nazi-Germany in some parts of Europe...

Italy starts controversial plan to fingerprint Gypsies, including children - International Herald Tribune

... and the Red Cross will be present again... To make sure everything is handled correctly!!!

MRRiley · 07-07-2008, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by benjikan

We are here. The UK has the highest per capita of video surveillance camera's in the world. A London resident gets filmed on average of 500 times per day.

We have passed Orwell's wildest expectations.

Ben

I suppose you are right Ben. The problem is that our version is simply much more insidious than Orwell's version.

ChrisA · 07-07-2008, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by Damn Brit

Maybe the next thing that will happen is British towns issuing photography permits.

Very likely. We'll have to pay for them, of course - at a rate that will make it a tax, not an admin charge.

The pen-pushers and paper-shufflers will get busy persecuting innocent people, the government will triumphantly cite such measures as 'anti-terrorism', in the hope of getting re-elected.

Any real terrorist will just get a permit if they need to case the joint with a decent-sized lens.

falconeye · 07-08-2008, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by monochrome

a decision by the Home Secretary that local constabulary have authority to limit photography in public places

Note that this should have been in General Talk as it isn't Pentax related.

It is also related to another quite active thread there, which addresses a similiar situation in the US:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-talk/30466-taking-photographs-wit...orted-dhs.html

Originally posted by Peacekeeper

Where I am now, Sudan, the internal security situation is so tight

While this is sad, it is due to the fact that Sudan isn't a democracy (the last time I checked, at least). Your story tells us what we all can loose if we don't defend civil liberty rights which we started to take for granted.

Originally posted by Damn Brit

British towns issuing photography permits.

Well, Paris was always issueing photography permits to use a tripod on public ground -- for monetary reasons, of course

Ben, did ya know?

Big Dave · 07-11-2008, 08:59 AM

Hi Richard,
Since the Queen or King must approve any bill before it can become law,so I don't think that the UK is a complete democracy. The Queen also chooses the Prime minister, who then forms a government. It wasn't until the end of the last century that the hereditary house of lords became subbordinate to the elected house of commons. I always thought that it was a constitutional monarchy, not a true democracy. Its your call. I enjoyed my vists to England very much. The people are wonderful.

Dave

Originally posted by Richard Day

I find it amusing that it's the non Brits who are "protesting".

We Brits know that "rules are made for the blind obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men". That's why we don't have a written constitution!

We've just had a democracy longer than most and understand that as soon as you enshrine anything in "absolute" terms, the problems occur. That's why we have regulations that are open to sensible interpretation so that reason prevails.

I'm sure that these "guidelines" are just that. Nothing to rant about, it won't materially affect anything, unless it's a definite intrusion in peoples lives, petty burocrats exist everywhere - I suggest that we move on.

**Lowell Goudge** · 07-11-2008, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Big Dave

Hi Richard,
Since the Queen or King must approve any bill before it can become law,so I don't think that the UK is a complete democracy. The Queen also chooses the Prime minister, who then forms a government. It wasn't until the end of the last century that the hereditary house of lords became subbordinate to the elected house of commons. I always thought that it was a constitutional monarchy, not a true democracy. Its your call. I enjoyed my vists to England very much. The people are wonderful.

Dave

I am not sure dave, that you have this right. The reigning monarch or (in canada their representitive the governer general) must sign any legslation before it is law, BUT, I am not aware of any single case in teh last 100 years where this does not happen. Also, the Monarch, or representitive, generally does not select the prime minister, the PM is the leader of the party elected with the majority of seats and must also be an elected member of parliment, or in the case of a minority govenment, the leader of the party capable of forming a coolition.

The monarch is really just a figurehead today.

navcom · 07-11-2008, 12:49 PM

"He who thinks he can trade freedom for security will soon find he has neither."

**Lowell Goudge** · 07-11-2008, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by navcom

"He who thinks he can trade freedom for security will soon find he has neither."

you need to consider that all is relative. we are not talking about absolute security the level of security is to some extent inversely proprtional to the level of freedom/.

Big Dave · 07-11-2008, 06:06 PM

Lowell,
I was surprized to read these things myself. Often what we are led to beleive as common knowledge isn't the case. I took these examples from the Wikipedia UK government history writup. apparently the monarch has more power then we thought. I wouldn't make it up. Here is the link. Parliament of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dave

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

I am not sure dave, that you have this right. The reigning monarch or (in canada their representitive the governer general) must sign any legslation before it is law, BUT, I am not aware of any single case in teh last 100 years where this does not happen. Also, the Monarch, or representitive, generally does not select the prime minister, the PM is the leader of the party elected with the majority of seats and must also be an elected member of parliment, or in the case of a minority govenment, the leader of the party capable of forming a coolition.

The monarch is really just a figurehead today.

**monochrome** · 07-11-2008, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

you need to consider that all is relative. we are not talking about absolute security the level of security is to some extent inversely proportional to the level of freedom/.

We in the US forget that freedom isn't free (from risk).

We expect the government to protect us individually and collectively from all possible forms of injury, adjudicate recoveries when we are injured, prevent those who would take what is individually or collectively ours (including any of our "rights") from so doing. exact retribution from them, whether they be individuals, corporations or nation-states when they so do, ensure we are fed, clothed and educated, etc., etc.,

Yet having all those protections, guarantees and eyes-for-eyes, God forbid anyone from the government should tell any of us what we may or may not do - and NEVER tax us - tax the other guy who has more money than I.

I, for one, will accept responsibility for my actions and ask no recompense when I fail as a result thereof, if society will allow me unfettered freedom to act.

Big Dave · 07-12-2008, 07:08 AM

Tom,
Most large city arenas have restictions on camers. Lenses can't be over 2 or 3 inches long etc. You can't get a good shot, unless you buy a courtside ticket for a million dollars. These are city owned places and should be less restrictive, because we pay the taxes.

Dave

Originally posted by TomInJax

Ya, that makes sense. Kind of like the firearms laws in the UK?

I see governments someday requiring permits for anyone carrying a pro or semi-pro looking camera. Background check and all! Then they will limit photography to lenses shorter than 100mm.

ASSAULT CAMERAS!!!

Big Dave · 07-12-2008, 07:22 AM

Do you get a discount for a monopod?

Dave

Originally posted by falconeye

Well, Paris was always issueing photography permits to use a tripod on public ground -- for monetary reasons, of course

Ben, did ya know?

**monochrome** · 07-12-2008, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by Big Dave

Tom,
Most large city arenas have restictions on camers. Lenses can't be over 2 or 3 inches long etc. You can't get a good shot, unless you buy a courtside ticket for a million dollars. These are city owned places and should be less restrictive, because we pay the taxes.

Dave

The arena doesn't really care - the event sponsor, team or act that rents the arena (a private enterprise) believes it owns the rights to the images - and adds the camera clause to the rental contract.

07-11-2008, 07:10 PM	#25
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276 Original Poster	Finding the balance Originally posted by Lowell Goudge you need to consider that all is relative. we are not talking about absolute security the level of security is to some extent inversely proportional to the level of freedom/. We in the US forget that freedom isn't free (from risk). We expect the government to protect us individually and collectively from all possible forms of injury, adjudicate recoveries when we are injured, prevent those who would take what is individually or collectively ours (including any of our "rights") from so doing. exact retribution from them, whether they be individuals, corporations or nation-states when they so do, ensure we are fed, clothed and educated, etc., etc., Yet having all those protections, guarantees and eyes-for-eyes, God forbid anyone from the government should tell any of us what we may or may not do - and NEVER tax us - tax the other guy who has more money than I. I, for one, will accept responsibility for my actions and ask no recompense when I fail as a result thereof, if society will allow me unfettered freedom to act.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Photographers Rights and Photography Restrictions	Lowell Goudge	General Photography	54	02-21-2022 08:18 PM
Photographers win British war on photography?	monochrome	Photographic Technique	7	12-17-2009 05:56 PM
British Journal Of Photography Loves Pentax	rparmar	Pentax DSLR Discussion	0	06-02-2008 08:30 AM
Some available light shots of the lights available @ home...	m8o	Post Your Photos!	3	11-01-2007 08:25 PM
UK Petition to stop restrictions on photography in a public place - please sign up.	mickdann	Photographic Technique	3	02-23-2007 12:30 PM

07-07-2008, 05:46 PM	#16
carpediem007 Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Eilat, Israel Photos: Gallery Posts: 51	We haven't just passed Orwell's wildest expectations (cameras everywhere, cell-phone tracking, RFID license plates etc...), we also seem to be returning to 1930s Nazi-Germany in some parts of Europe... Italy starts controversial plan to fingerprint Gypsies, including children - International Herald Tribune ... and the Red Cross will be present again... To make sure everything is handled correctly!!!

07-07-2008, 06:16 PM	#17
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	Originally posted by benjikan We are here. The UK has the highest per capita of video surveillance camera's in the world. A London resident gets filmed on average of 500 times per day. We have passed Orwell's wildest expectations. Ben I suppose you are right Ben. The problem is that our version is simply much more insidious than Orwell's version.

07-07-2008, 11:52 PM	#18
ChrisA Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: London Posts: 393	Originally posted by Damn Brit Maybe the next thing that will happen is British towns issuing photography permits. Very likely. We'll have to pay for them, of course - at a rate that will make it a tax, not an admin charge. The pen-pushers and paper-shufflers will get busy persecuting innocent people, the government will triumphantly cite such measures as 'anti-terrorism', in the hope of getting re-elected. Any real terrorist will just get a permit if they need to case the joint with a decent-sized lens.

07-08-2008, 09:14 AM	#19
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by monochrome a decision by the Home Secretary that local constabulary have authority to limit photography in public places Note that this should have been in General Talk as it isn't Pentax related. It is also related to another quite active thread there, which addresses a similiar situation in the US: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-talk/30466-taking-photographs-wit...orted-dhs.html Originally posted by Peacekeeper Where I am now, Sudan, the internal security situation is so tight While this is sad, it is due to the fact that Sudan isn't a democracy (the last time I checked, at least). Your story tells us what we all can loose if we don't defend civil liberty rights which we started to take for granted. Originally posted by Damn Brit British towns issuing photography permits. Well, Paris was always issueing photography permits to use a tripod on public ground -- for monetary reasons, of course Ben, did ya know?

07-11-2008, 08:59 AM	#20
Big Dave Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: San Antonio, Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 547	Hi Richard, Since the Queen or King must approve any bill before it can become law,so I don't think that the UK is a complete democracy. The Queen also chooses the Prime minister, who then forms a government. It wasn't until the end of the last century that the hereditary house of lords became subbordinate to the elected house of commons. I always thought that it was a constitutional monarchy, not a true democracy. Its your call. I enjoyed my vists to England very much. The people are wonderful. Dave Originally posted by Richard Day I find it amusing that it's the non Brits who are "protesting". We Brits know that "rules are made for the blind obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men". That's why we don't have a written constitution! We've just had a democracy longer than most and understand that as soon as you enshrine anything in "absolute" terms, the problems occur. That's why we have regulations that are open to sensible interpretation so that reason prevails. I'm sure that these "guidelines" are just that. Nothing to rant about, it won't materially affect anything, unless it's a definite intrusion in peoples lives, petty burocrats exist everywhere - I suggest that we move on.

07-11-2008, 11:57 AM	#21
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,886	Originally posted by Big Dave Hi Richard, Since the Queen or King must approve any bill before it can become law,so I don't think that the UK is a complete democracy. The Queen also chooses the Prime minister, who then forms a government. It wasn't until the end of the last century that the hereditary house of lords became subbordinate to the elected house of commons. I always thought that it was a constitutional monarchy, not a true democracy. Its your call. I enjoyed my vists to England very much. The people are wonderful. Dave I am not sure dave, that you have this right. The reigning monarch or (in canada their representitive the governer general) must sign any legslation before it is law, BUT, I am not aware of any single case in teh last 100 years where this does not happen. Also, the Monarch, or representitive, generally does not select the prime minister, the PM is the leader of the party elected with the majority of seats and must also be an elected member of parliment, or in the case of a minority govenment, the leader of the party capable of forming a coolition. The monarch is really just a figurehead today.

07-11-2008, 12:49 PM	#22
navcom Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Minnesota USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 807	"He who thinks he can trade freedom for security will soon find he has neither."

07-11-2008, 01:02 PM	#23
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,886	Originally posted by navcom "He who thinks he can trade freedom for security will soon find he has neither." you need to consider that all is relative. we are not talking about absolute security the level of security is to some extent inversely proprtional to the level of freedom/.

07-11-2008, 06:06 PM	#24
Big Dave Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: San Antonio, Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 547	Lowell, I was surprized to read these things myself. Often what we are led to beleive as common knowledge isn't the case. I took these examples from the Wikipedia UK government history writup. apparently the monarch has more power then we thought. I wouldn't make it up. Here is the link. Parliament of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Dave Originally posted by Lowell Goudge I am not sure dave, that you have this right. The reigning monarch or (in canada their representitive the governer general) must sign any legslation before it is law, BUT, I am not aware of any single case in teh last 100 years where this does not happen. Also, the Monarch, or representitive, generally does not select the prime minister, the PM is the leader of the party elected with the majority of seats and must also be an elected member of parliment, or in the case of a minority govenment, the leader of the party capable of forming a coolition. The monarch is really just a figurehead today.

07-12-2008, 07:08 AM	#26
Big Dave Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: San Antonio, Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 547	Tom, Most large city arenas have restictions on camers. Lenses can't be over 2 or 3 inches long etc. You can't get a good shot, unless you buy a courtside ticket for a million dollars. These are city owned places and should be less restrictive, because we pay the taxes. Dave Originally posted by TomInJax Ya, that makes sense. Kind of like the firearms laws in the UK? I see governments someday requiring permits for anyone carrying a pro or semi-pro looking camera. Background check and all! Then they will limit photography to lenses shorter than 100mm. ASSAULT CAMERAS!!!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-12-2008, 07:22 AM	#27
Big Dave Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: San Antonio, Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 547	Do you get a discount for a monopod? Dave Originally posted by falconeye Well, Paris was always issueing photography permits to use a tripod on public ground -- for monetary reasons, of course Ben, did ya know?

07-12-2008, 07:24 AM	#28
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276 Original Poster	Originally posted by Big Dave Tom, Most large city arenas have restictions on camers. Lenses can't be over 2 or 3 inches long etc. You can't get a good shot, unless you buy a courtside ticket for a million dollars. These are city owned places and should be less restrictive, because we pay the taxes. Dave The arena doesn't really care - the event sponsor, team or act that rents the arena (a private enterprise) believes it owns the rights to the images - and adds the camera clause to the rental contract.