Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 56

Thread: UK police order amateur photographer to ‘delete’ pictures at tourist hotspot

  1. #21

    Default Re: UK police order amateur photographer to ‘delete’ pictures at tourist hotspot

    Quote Originally Posted by LazerLordz View Post
    Never happened before.
    Maybe not to you.
    Alpha

  2. #22

    Default Re: UK police order amateur photographer to ‘delete’ pictures at tourist hotspot

    Quote Originally Posted by jet View Post
    Do you think something like this can happen here?
    has happened before, but nothing involving the police ever, i think?

    more like over-earnest security guards

  3. #23

    Default Re: UK police order amateur photographer to ‘delete’ pictures at tourist hotspot

    Quote Originally Posted by Del_CtrlnoAlt View Post
    U make it sound like Nightmare In London...
    it's not that bad really

    but i would love to be able to wake up early, go to places to catch the sunrise without fear of losing my wallet and my camera

    that fear is not present in singapore. here, after sundown, you just want to go home as quickly as possible unless you are in the more touristy areas with people, e.g. houses of parliament, etc. it doesn't feel safe, and it isn't quite as safe.

  4. #24

    Default Re: UK police order amateur photographer to ‘delete’ pictures at tourist hotspot

    Quote Originally Posted by waileong View Post
    1. Things that shouldn't happen still happen due to the ignorance of officers of their powers under the law. That's why you have courts to pursue redress and compensation, that's why you can sue the Govt in the UK (something few people dare to do or even contemplate in Singapore).

    2. I don't think you understand about rights.

    3. Gangs have existed for the longest time, right from the Middle Ages and even before. There were no concepts of human rights then-- the king and his lords basically arrested whom they like (no rules of evidence needed), threw them in dungeons for as long as they liked (no producing before a magistrate withing 48 hours for a formal charge), tortured them for as much as they liked till they confessed (no Amnesty International then), and sentenced them to any punishment they liked (no court of appeal, etc).

    Was the UK a better place then? Did the people feel safe? There were a lot of highwaymen back then, if you read the history, and the rich people never felt safe even with their bodyguards.

    So how does taking away rights make the UK a safer place?
    so are you saying that if this happened in singapore the photographer who raised the issue would not get anything done? i honestly beg to differ. i think complaint letters, unfortunately, remain a very significant and powerful tool in singapore's context - we are still worried about what others think of us, at least the culture is still there. as from personal experience.

    rights? oh, i only understand rights too well. i understand that they are this silly set of ideals which can be flouted at whim, twisted and bent for the sake of the "greater good" whenever any nation sees fit. rights? they are to me, something sang by people who are unrealistic. you cannot attain utopia, similarly, rights are simply guidelines in normal times. when it comes to the crunch, every bloody single right flies out of the window anyways, and that has been proven true, and true again every single time in history. we would all love that rights are always enforced and human beings will respect each other, but it is simply too much to ask for.

    so don't bring rights into the issue. these are moral grey areas to me. for example, if i kidnap a person against his will, but in the process save him from a bomb which he would have gotten if he went to work. have i violated his rights? yes. in which scenario was he better off? you tell me. have you done a good thing for him, despite violating his rights? you tell me. i think he'd be better off traumatised than dead, so long as there is the premise that his life is worth living.

    honestly? give me the ability to walk in the wee hours of the morning confidently, without having to look over my shoulder. ask anyone here. you can take away my spastic right to spout nonsense when i'm drunk in exchange for that - it's a small price to pay. because in current scenario, i seem to have freedom, i seem to have ooh, that extra step in human evolution - but do i really? maybe you are right - revoking these petty rights here would not help matters as the aspect of my gripes, looking at how things have been and will be. after all, the point i was trying to make was that we should see things for what they are and not sing praises blindly of a world we do not know.

  5. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    near the Equator
    Posts
    1,255

    Default Re: UK police order amateur photographer to ‘delete’ pictures at tourist hotspot

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae View Post
    Maybe not to you.
    Well, it's not just me, but I can count of so many people I know who have not been accosted.

    Could be some factors that trigger it..
    We live in an age when unnecessary things are our only necessities. - Oscar Wilde

  6. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    near the Equator
    Posts
    1,255

    Default Re: UK police order amateur photographer to ‘delete’ pictures at tourist hotspot

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    has happened before, but nothing involving the police ever, i think?

    more like over-earnest security guards
    Being "over-earnest" is a compliment they don't really deserve. I'll call it a lack of professionalism with a dose of poor security and threatcon training thrown in for good measure lah.
    Last edited by LazerLordz; 16th February 2008 at 06:31 PM.
    We live in an age when unnecessary things are our only necessities. - Oscar Wilde

  7. #27

    Default Re: UK police order amateur photographer to ‘delete’ pictures at tourist hotspot

    1. You can differ all you want, I don't think you know the situation on the ground in Singapore. Taking on the govt here is a damn big thing, and scares the s**t out of most people. There's certainly no ACLU to help anyone here.

    What happened in this case is simple. The police know they screwed up, that they had no legal powers to stop photography in a public place (let alone "ordering" anyone to delete their pictures) and they're trying to identify the officers involved so that they can be disciplined. They have not come out in defence of these officers, and rightly so.

    Do you think our police in Singapore would react in the same way? Maybe you might think so, but I seriously doubt it, given the attitude towards civil rights here. At best, I think there would be some wishywashy reply asking for the public's understanding and cooperation in the new security environment, they would never admit that they acted ultra vires.

    2. I don't think you know anything about rights. Of course, those in power will try to flout others' rights, but that doesn't mean what they do is legal. Which is why there must be avenues for redress, even supranational avenues such as the European Human Rights Commission and the International Court of Justice if the national courts are not able to deliver a just verdict.

    3. Rights may be silly ideals to you, but tell that to the African-Americans who lived in the 50's, when they had to give up seats on a bus to whites, when they had to pee in their pants because the nearest toilet was "whites only", when they had to go thirsty because the water cooler was marked "whites only", when they were denied job opportunities because of their skin colour, etc.

    4. Do you think the blacks in America in the 50's were able to walk the wee hours of the morning confidently, knowing at any time the Klu Klux Klan people could come to beat them, burn their houses at any time and the police (largely white) never seemed to be able to find the culprits?

    5. How about women, who couldn't vote simply because of gender? Or Jews who were discriminated simply because of their race and beliefs? Why don't you go tell them that rights are just "silly ideals", and see what they say?

    6. What about peaceful expression & assembly? Do you want to get arrested and jailed simply because you have anti-government opinions? Simply because you were protesting Blair's decision to invade Iraq, and for no other reason?

    7. That's what rights is to me. What do you know about rights?

    8. You don't know me. How would you know what world I know or not know?

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    so are you saying that if this happened in singapore the photographer who raised the issue would not get anything done? i honestly beg to differ.

    rights? oh, i only understand rights too well. i understand that they are this silly set of ideals which can be flouted at whim, twisted and bent for the sake of the "greater good" whenever any nation sees fit.

    honestly? give me the ability to walk in the wee hours of the morning confidently, without having to look over my shoulder. ask anyone here. after all, the point i was trying to make was that we should see things for what they are and not sing praises blindly of a world we do not know.
    Last edited by waileong; 17th February 2008 at 12:58 AM.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    3,688

    Default Re: UK police order amateur photographer to ‘delete’ pictures at tourist hotspot

    Quote Originally Posted by LazerLordz View Post
    Never happened before.
    There was this guy who took photo's of St. Andrews from OUTSIDE the area of the MRT station......yet, people reported him to the MRT staff and they called in the bomb squad!!! Talk about paranoia

    People are so paranoid they don't think: real terrorist will NOT take pics of whatever target IN PUBLIC!

    It was all discussed here in Clubsnap not too long ago

    As for the UK photographer, I think he took pics of the beach area where there could be people visible topless or naked? This happens in many beaches

    HS

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    BB West
    Posts
    2,184

    Default Re: UK police order amateur photographer to ‘delete’ pictures at tourist hotspot

    This kind of thing also can happen. Really
    Only Sony device mostly, haha!

  10. #30

    Default Re: UK police order amateur photographer to ‘delete’ pictures at tourist hotspot

    Quote Originally Posted by waileong View Post
    What happened in this case is simple. The police know they screwed up, that they had no legal powers to stop photography in a public place (let alone "ordering" anyone to delete their pictures) and they're trying to identify the officers involved so that they can be disciplined. They have not come out in defence of these officers, and rightly so.

    Do you think our police in Singapore would react in the same way? Maybe you might think so, but I seriously doubt it, given the attitude towards civil rights here. At best, I think there would be some wishywashy reply asking for the public's understanding and cooperation in the new security environment, they would never admit that they acted ultra vires.
    Do you really, really need me to dig out cases whereby the civil service/governmental bodies have apologised publicly, instead of being high-handed? You seriously doubt it, but I can see things for myself.

    So.. Based on the above, you think that when someone does something wrong, the people in-charge of that someone are right if they remain quiet. But they are less right if they at least bother to give a reply. I am amused by the way you think, believe me.
    2. I don't think you know anything about rights. Of course, those in power will try to flout others' rights, but that doesn't mean what they do is legal. Which is why there must be avenues for redress, even supranational avenues such as the European Human Rights Commission and the International Court of Justice if the national courts are not able to deliver a just verdict.

    7. That's what rights is to me. What do you know about rights?

    8. You don't know me. How would you know what world I know or not know?
    Frankly? Go ask yourself. Just see the statements highlighted in red, they amount to a self-slapping in the face in terms of logic - to me this is a display of shaky principles in life. So why don't you tell me - what do you believe, #2, or #8, since they cannot co-exist at the same time. I was going to quote your previous post, but then I realised that somehow you managed to backstab yourself in the very same post. How convenient for me, then. How would you expect ANY government in the world to give you ANY answer, if you cannot even give a proper stand with regards to your values in life? I think, therein lies the problem.
    3. Rights may be silly ideals to you, but tell that to the African-Americans who lived in the 50's, when they had to give up seats on a bus to whites, when they had to pee in their pants because the nearest toilet was "whites only", when they had to go thirsty because the water cooler was marked "whites only", when they were denied job opportunities because of their skin colour, etc.

    4. Do you think the blacks in America in the 50's were able to walk the wee hours of the morning confidently, knowing at any time the Klu Klux Klan people could come to beat them, burn their houses at any time and the police (largely white) never seemed to be able to find the culprits?

    5. How about women, who couldn't vote simply because of gender? Or Jews who were discriminated simply because of their race and beliefs? Why don't you go tell them that rights are just "silly ideals", and see what they say?

    6. What about peaceful expression & assembly? Do you want to get arrested and jailed simply because you have anti-government opinions? Simply because you were protesting Blair's decision to invade Iraq, and for no other reason?
    Oh please, we're talking about today's situation. There is a great wall of China between a BASIC human right and one which is not absolutely necessary. Incidentally I am relatively familiar with racial segregation in the United States - it is a deplorable situation which disgusts and sickens any rational mind to the core. But what does this have to do with the situation I describe? I'm not you, but I don't think you understand what I mean based on your reply (if that answers 8) - the point I was trying to make was regards (mainly) to the freedom of expression/speech issue that everyone likes to trumpet out whenever they have any opportunity, what the hell does it have to do with racial segregation?

    Let me repeat myself for the last time in simpler terms, perhaps for your benefit. I will describe the situation I see here where I am located - the Speaker's Corner is patronised by drunks spouting nonsense that NO RATIONAL PERSON should even blame them for, witnessed first-hand. And if you question the intoxication let's just say that the bottles and the reek of alcohol in the air helped the detective work a little.

    Peaceful expression & assembly. The people here LOVE to have their field day at protests, peaceful demonstrations with every single issue. I like the idea about it, hey, if I'm bored I can go out and rant about the world, anything that I don't like. I can feel as if I have no responsibility as to what I say, and lose all dignity temporarily. I can go bananas!

    But if you think about it all - those poor people camping in front of the Houses of Parliament to find a cause to believe in. Yeah, they get to express what they want. But do they GET what they want? Does Blair get anything done to him by anyone because of his involvement in Iraq? Is it going to stop anything in Palestine, the United States, heck, even at home?

    A BIG FAT ZERO NO.

    So effectively, you have been given the tools to vent your frustrations, but nothing will be done about it. Is this any bloody different from the situation that people like to paint? No. It is frankly, even more hypocritical, and sometimes I feel disgusted by it. It is just like how Facebook (if you use it) has these silly, silly groups named "I HATE HATERS", "PLEASE FREE THE WORLD OF AIDS", "i hate racist people".. Ok, so you're in a group named that. So? Big deal.

    When you're facing the barrel of a gun at 9 pm in a dimly lit street, what are rights going to do for you? Are you going to tell your assilant that I HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIVE? Do you think he gives a flying fish? Rights are ideals, and maybe the world has moved a little because of them, but rights can be revoked just as swiftly as they are granted, anywhere, anytime, at anybody's whim if they so chose to and have the ability to do so. There are much better things to chant mantras about than these iffy bits of life that frankly are just a social construct to ensure that everybody seems happy. As far as I know - African-Americans all over the world are still largely underpriveleged, possibly because of their background and their own choices undoing themselves in some cases - but what is being done to undo all these? Sure, you have laws to enforce these so-called rights, but can laws cover everything? Is someone who's being abused by the very basis of social machinery able to take you to court, does he even have the know-how? It is ironic, half of what we do in life is at the expense of someone else's rights - sweatshops in China, exploitation of Africa (which will continue for a long time more, I think).. It spells hypocriscy when one can sit around and chant about rights while wearing his shiny new Nike sneakers.
    Last edited by night86mare; 17th February 2008 at 05:04 AM.

  11. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    5,011

    Default Re: UK police order amateur photographer to ‘delete’ pictures at tourist hotspot

    Waileong and night86mare,

    You guys have gone way off topic and the discussion is getting a little heated. Please take it easy, and perhaps invite each other out for coffee.

    Thanks.

    -Roy
    As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning and meaningful statements lose precision.

  12. #32

    Default Re: UK police order amateur photographer to ‘delete’ pictures at tourist hotspot

    Thats a good idea, You 2 go out for a nice cup of coffee and I pay
    Canon 30D, G11, 50 f1.8II, 10-22 f3.5-4.5, 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f2.8L IS, EX580II

  13. #33

    Default Re: UK police order amateur photographer to ‘delete’ pictures at tourist hotspot

    1. Yeah, why don't you go dig. Then for every case you dig, I'll find another one as a counterpoint. How about the recent MRT photography thing for a start? Did SMRT apologise? Or did they give a wishy-washy reason for not allowing photography and trying to justify why they harrassed the photographer (asked him to follow them to see the manager, take down his IC no, etc) when they had no legal powers to do so.

    I ask you-- did they apologise? Answer me.

    2. I asked you another question in a previous post. How does taking rights away make UK a safer place? I already gave you the examples from the past, when the king and his lords gave people no rights at all. Was it a safer place then? Or did brigands, highwaymen and gangs operate at large then?

    You haven't answered how taking rights away will make the UK a better place.

    3. I don't know what slap in the face, what shaky principles you're talking about. Perhaps I quoted your word "flouted" wrongly, I think the better word is "violate", ie those in power will try to violate others' rights, which is why there must be idependent judiciaries and bodies to check on them. Does that make better sense to you now?

    4. I don't think you understand anything about rights, or you would not deplore freedom of expression and assembly so easily, because it ranks pari passu with all the other rights (such as equality before the law regardless of race, gender, religion, right to fair and open trial, etc). I don't think you understand why they chose to make freedom of the press as the very first Amendment to the Constitution, the most sacred legal document in the US. I don't think you understand why freedom of expression and assembly is also in the UK constitution, along with that of other advanced democracies, and again, ranks pari passu with all the other freedoms.

    4. I don't think you understand why the Danish newspapers reprinted those cartoons. They didn't do it to offend anyone-- the offence had already occurred the first time it was printed. They did it because they wanted those people to understand that their constitution guarantees them freedom of expression, and that is as sacred and fundamental a right to them as any other constitutional rights.

    Yes-- it is that sacred to them.

    5. Just like the green movement, political correctness, etc. can be taken to silly extremes, so can freedom of expression and assembly. But that doesn't undermine the fundamental reasons the founding fathers of so many democratic nations wrote these freedoms into their constitutions.

    So what if such laws allow drunks to sputter utter rubbish in the UK? Are you forced to listen to the drunks? Does it make the UK less safe? Do you want to judge who can be given the right to speak and who cannot? What gives anyone this power? In fact, this is the very basis for the constitutionl right for everyone to be equal before the law. Once you violate this principle, the slippery slope starts, and soon only pro-establishment people are allowed to speak. That's why so many people fought so hard for such unfettered rights in the past, and to deny any govt the power to choose or decide who can speak or assemble.

    So what if you think the UK govt doesn't change policies as a result of their protest? I don't agree with you on this one bit-- it's one reason why Labour is in such trouble right now and is likely to lose the next election-- but so what, even if you're right, even if nothing changes, SO WHAT? What is wrong with that?

    Would you prefer to be arrested the moment you take part in a peace march protesting the Iraq invasion? Even if you didn't hurt anyone in your protest, or damage any property? Would you prefer to get arrested and jailed for putting up some white elephants near Buangkok station ahead of some Minister's visit? Answer me!

    6. You keep talking about crime. What does that have to do with rights? People who are arrested have rights, yes-- right to fair open trial, etc. But before they are arrested, how does the rights they have affect your safety? The UK has no constitutional right to bear arms, unlike the US. If you are robbed at gunpoint, it wasn't because the robber had a constitutional right to buy a gun. So? You could be mugged anywhere. But probably less likely in London than in New York.

    Can you definitively link the crime situation to rights or lack of them? I can point out plenty of advanced democracies-- Finland, Denmark, New Zealand, etc.-- where the crime situation is very much under control, so where's your proof that having rights leads to worse crime situations?

    7. In fact, what kind of logic goes on in your mind? How are robbery, banditry and other felonies linked with freedom of speech and assembly? Are you are saying that the drunks who speak in UK rob you in their spare time, when they finish their speeches?

    Do you prefer a state where the police can enter any place without a warrant, arrest anyone they like, detain them indefinitely without charge and sentence them without a fair trial? Because as far as felonies is concerned, I think these are the kinds of rights which are applicable, not freedom of speech or assembly. Answer me-- will removing these make the UK a better place? For your info, societies like the UK watched it happen in Germany in the 1930's under the 3rd Reich and I seriously doubt the voters would want UK to become a police state.

    8. If you don't understand what's happened in the US in the last 50 years, go read a book. Sure, the richest people are still white. But the difference today is that the companies in US are very much conscious about not being sued for any kind of discrimination, they are now all forced to practice diversity, and in fact, they openly encourage gays, lesbians, blacks, hispanics, etc. to join the companies. In some cases, it's gotten to the case that they promote minorities faster than whites, to show that there is no glass ceiling. Not necessarily because they want to, but because they don't want the punitive lawsuits. And in case you are arrested in the US, I suggest you call the ACLU. They have contacts who are willing to take on the govt for you, if the facts of the case suggest that the govt acted unconstitutionally-- there are a lot of them who want to make a name for themselves in a case like this.

    9. Sweatshops in China, etc. occur because businessmen on both sides want to make money without regard for others' rights, plain and simple. That's why there are those who campaign against them, who protest, who call for boycotts. And it's ironic for you to bring this up. Without the right to freedom of expression and assembly, and particularly the freedom of the press and media, these issues of human exploitation would not be half as visible as they are today. How does the foot in your mouth taste now?

    At the same time, the authorities in China say that all those "western" notions of human rights don't apply if their citizens have empty stomachs, that's why their notion of human rights is that everyone should have the right to three meals a day, and that's why they have no laws to regulate sweatshops and human exploitation. And curiously, there is no freedom of expression as well, so anyone who says anything about Tiananmen or Tibet is arrested quickly and tortured. So you are saying that as long as one has a sweatshop job one should be thankful for the right to work? Are you saying that if one can make enough to eat, one should be deaf, dumb and mute as far as any kind of opinions are concerned?

    10. How would you know what sneakers I own or don't own? But more importantly, there is probably no major product today that does not have at least some, if not all parts that are made in China. So-- everyone should boycott everything from China? Or would a better way be to pressure the Chinese govt to change their views? Frankly, I don't think either is effective, but so what? Not having the right to protest will make the world a better place? Is that what you are saying? Answer me!

    Roy-- It's not heated.
    Last edited by waileong; 17th February 2008 at 01:16 PM.

  14. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    3,688

    Default Re: UK police order amateur photographer to ‘delete’ pictures at tourist hotspot

    Roy, still a long way to 5000 posts..........
    Last edited by hongsien; 17th February 2008 at 11:08 AM.

  15. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Eastcoast
    Posts
    560

    Default Re: UK police order amateur photographer to ‘delete’ pictures at tourist hotspot

    I took a random photo of a cop / gurkha once before and he made me delete it. I did challenge him but backed down after a while considering he was getting a little pissed and had an MP5 on him. The picture sucked anyway.

  16. #36

    Default Re: UK police order amateur photographer to ‘delete’ pictures at tourist hotspot

    This is all about an overly enthusiastic police officer interpreting the rules in her own way.

    You can't demonise the entire UK police force based on the actions of an individual.

    Where "terrorists" are concerned, they'll just use a handphone camera, a lot more incognito.

    Handphone cameras.... God I hate those things...

  17. #37

    Default Re: UK police order amateur photographer to ‘delete’ pictures at tourist hotspot

    hmm... I think this discussion getting abit carried away... its a police community support officer (can they even be considered a cop?) who overstepped on her authority... the UK police are even trying to identify the person involved to find out more, probably implying that what the photographer has so far described as what he did was not illegal...

  18. #38
    Senior Member redstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Beyond the outer limits
    Posts
    2,898

    Default Re: UK police order amateur photographer to ‘delete’ pictures at tourist hotspot

    Quote Originally Posted by drakon09 View Post
    This is all about an overly enthusiastic police officer interpreting the rules in her own way.

    You can't demonise the entire UK police force based on the actions of an individual.

    Where "terrorists" are concerned, they'll just use a handphone camera, a lot more incognito.

    Handphone cameras.... God I hate those things...

    Which terrorist or spy would use an attention-getting DSLR and large lens when they can use HP or pinhole camera, or take from streetdirectory.com?

  19. #39
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,095

    Default Re: UK police order amateur photographer to ‘delete’ pictures at tourist hotspot

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    honestly? give me the ability to walk in the wee hours of the morning confidently, without having to look over my shoulder. ask anyone here. you can take away my spastic right to spout nonsense when i'm drunk in exchange for that - it's a small price to pay.
    Glad to see you agree with the Singapore government here. Now, would you then be consistent and not complain about countries in which you are a foreigner? The UK certainly doesn't need interference in its domestic affairs by foreign talent, especially Singaporeans, no?

  20. #40

    Default Re: UK police order amateur photographer to ‘delete’ pictures at tourist hotspot

    Quote Originally Posted by LittleWolf View Post
    Glad to see you agree with the Singapore government here. Now, would you then be consistent and not complain about countries in which you are a foreigner? The UK certainly doesn't need interference in its domestic affairs by foreign talent, especially Singaporeans, no?
    i don't see how my commentary amounts to

    "interference in its domestic affairs". that's like saying that if one comments about the weather, one is committing blasphemy by interfering in divine affairs.

    but you know, your logic is reallyyyyyyyyy sound here. seeing this, i guess no one needs to interfere with anything if even the home secretary thinks the same way - though of course she has tried to retract her statements.
    Last edited by night86mare; 17th February 2008 at 06:45 PM.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •