UK police order amateur photographer to delete pictures at tourist hotspot
- Thread starter jet
- Start date
- Status
GOOD LORD!
That's akin to self-empowered CENSORSHIP privileges!
What's next? They gonna tell you what you can or cannot eat, or how to breathe, and how much air you're allowed to take in at a time, or how to have sex at home, and sit down and watch just to make sure you 'don't do anything you're not allowed to'?
That's akin to self-empowered CENSORSHIP privileges!
What's next? They gonna tell you what you can or cannot eat, or how to breathe, and how much air you're allowed to take in at a time, or how to have sex at home, and sit down and watch just to make sure you 'don't do anything you're not allowed to'?
They did mention it's a hotspot tourist destination.
Imagin what might happen if the pic somehow go leak out?
Wouldn't it just be easier to impose a blanket ban at all tourist hotspots?
Following that line of logic, they might as well ban all cameras and anyone from entering a tourist hotspot once there are more than 10 or 20 people within a vicinity for fear of whatever. Heck, just don't let anyone in at all and have all the tourists gawking at the tourist attractions behind a policed barrier a kilometer away. They could even start collecting money to allow people to gawk!
Following that line of logic, they might as well ban all cameras and anyone from entering a tourist hotspot once there are more than 10 or 20 people within a vicinity for fear of whatever. Heck, just don't let anyone in at all and have all the tourists gawking at the tourist attractions behind a policed barrier a kilometer away. They could even start collecting money to allow people to gawk!
Nope. It's a public place, and the main subject is the scenery, not the people. But, again, it's a public place. How do you think paparazzi survive? So long as you're in public, anyone can take pictures. Otherwise, Diana and the other royal family members, and all the other stars, would have no problems with paparazzi.
But how do you want them to ban?
It isn't some designated hotspot where people enter via an entrace.
Here people roam about freely.
Honestly,they've become paraniod.
Let's not forget US and UK are 2 hotspot for terrorist bombing.
As i've said,they are becoming paraniod.
Photog takes pic of tourist hotspot-->post online-->extremist chance upon the picture and make his move.
The KEYWORD is "HOTSPOT"
Ask yourself.
What could possibly be the reason why they are confiscating his camera?
i understand that the police are doing their job. like i mentioned somewhere else, i kena once already, but the officer was relatively nice and friendly and very polite, although er, he had problem spelling certain things which i did help him out with. so that's a relatively good experience - what they do have the power to do is invoke the terrorism act, which allows them to take down your details and address. frankly though, they didn't even ask me for identification. so it's all very dubious how thorough or committed they are at it.
nonetheless, asking people to delete photographs is ridiculous, there are thousands of visitors in the uk, and just because someone has a dslr doesn't mean that he's a terrorist. the best part is, in most of the photog magazines here, the main complaint is that dslr-only photographers are more or less left alone compared to dslr + tripod photographers. yet another reason not to take your tripod out unless absolutely necessary.
nonetheless, asking people to delete photographs is ridiculous, there are thousands of visitors in the uk, and just because someone has a dslr doesn't mean that he's a terrorist. the best part is, in most of the photog magazines here, the main complaint is that dslr-only photographers are more or less left alone compared to dslr + tripod photographers. yet another reason not to take your tripod out unless absolutely necessary.
IF you read the article, you'll realise they are trying to take action against the officer, not the photog. Hey, people have rights in UK.
yeah take action against the police officer who is trying to be yaya and not admit to his mistake? why they have to identify him from the picture? weridz
even then such things shouldn't happen
people have rights? :bsmilie: there was a report 3 days ago about a 2,500 member strong gang based IN LONDON itself, "tougher to break than the ira"
so tell me, what are the police/government doing about the right to walk about without fear? other than adding in the fact that you might be pestered by the police itself.
compromise, compromise. you make it sound as if the uk is a glorious place to live in. it has its perks, but it ain't the best. no place is.
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?
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?
- Status
Similar threads
