Har, I wondered who would take the bait - excellent. I meant it all though.
On 26/2/10, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: >Sorry Cotty, but that is a crock of shit. Not at all mate. >The police are living in a Hollywood fantasy world where people with big >cameras are bad people. They might be in Canada, but not here - in my experience. >Rewind 40 or so years and the Hollywood fantasy was people with Eastern >European accents. >Going after SLR camera users is the police bullying the few to making it >appear to the many that they are actually doing something. Not in my opinion. >Here's a question for you: >Since so much child pornography is shot on video cameras, and you are known >to walk the streets with a video camera, how many little boys have you >molested? Non sequitur. >What age are they the most fun? Non sequitur. >Should we be calling child services to interview your own kid? Non sequitur - go ahead. >You must be a pedophile, you use a big camera. Non sequitur. >The police have ben told time and again that photography is not a crime. Understood and agree. >They have been told that photography unto itself is not a suspicious >activity, but theycontinue to harrass people using SLR cameras. That may well be in your experience. Note that the youtube video only shows what appears to be a Leica (M8?) with a not particularly large lens. Note also that the police can be heard explaining that it wasn't the photography that was causing attention - rather the manner in which it was being done - which is not explained further in the clip or demonstrated in the silhouetted interview. So: the actual manner in which the camera was being used was a cause for concern by the original PCSO. This argument could be used for any activity, I admit. But if the actions of someone attract attention, then there must be a reason why - and in my opinion not just because someone is holding a camera. YMMV. >Why is it that the SLR user is centered out but the P&S user is allowed to >do whaever he does with impunity? I have not experienced this in my travels, but if you have seen this in person, I am not surprised. >Do people who buy big cameras have more of a tendency to be child molesters? Perhaps in Canada? >You should have some insight, you use a big camera. Plenty. I only have a problem with people who don't want to be filmed, and I do sympathize - but only to a point. It's my living. > >Or is it possible that the person with the camera is now the Leper, or the >Jew, or the Nigger or the Commie or the Boogyman that has haunted societies >through the centuries. I doubt it. I've seen police confiscating mobile phones people were holding aloft to photograph an incident. Not surprising. Totally unjustified, mind. >Authorities like to have someone to point at to say "be afraid of this >person, they are bad people." I don't think in the UK photographers are these someones. Black guys wearing hoodies yes. Amateur photogs no. >The result of this, and societys' buying into it, is gas chambers, leper >colonies, segregated schools and water fountains for whites only, Indian >reservations, Cold Wars, and campfire stories that make little kids stay >awake at night. Extreme conclusions - actually I think more likely civil war. I'd expect it here in the UK within 5 or 6 decades. > >Enjoy living in the Fourth Reich, because the train has left the station, >and you are one of the bad people who will be rounded up and put into a >cattle car when it arrives. LOL. I've always been a bit bad. But not bad enough to be adversarial when it comes to the long arm of the law. I'm basically lazy and can't be doing with all this sticking up for one's perceived liberties when the outcome means hours on a hard seat in a cold grey room. This probably won't mean much to you, so apologies in advance for wasting your time. I've spent a lot of time working on one side of the police cordon or the other. I genuinely believe that they believe they know what they are tasked with (in the UK) and how they go about doing it. Sure there are always going to be renegades and the attitude of any police officer is going to be tasked if confronted with an obstinate nature, but on the whole I think the police do a good job (in the UK). That video showed someone who was adversarial by nature. Instead of being like he was, why not be a bit more light-hearted about it and just say what he was about? He didn't want to give his name and address - and I can understand that. But in today's society is is not possible to partake in our way of life and expect to be completely free of inspection from the law. 911 and subsequent events have changed that. In my opinion if that means being stopped on the street - for any reason - and giving a name and address is required, then that's fine by me. I go one further - if I am working (either being paid on a job, or not - perhaps shooting ad-hoc, on spec) and I see a security hut or a copper, I will even go over and have a friendly chat to make myself known. This eases any concerns and means I get uninterrupted time doing what I like to do. I don't carry a civilian ID card, although I do carry a UK press card and I would have no problem showing it, and indeed often wear it on the outside. Why not? I have nothing to hide. I can't place myself in the shoes of the berk in the Youtube video, because I just wouldn't do things like that. It's not in my nature to be adversarial. I can imagine certain situations where I would most likely blow someone's head clean off given the hardware and motivation, but really - life's too short to be worrying about something that might never happen. Just straying into Mark's reply: >The thinking of the thugs with badges undoubtedly goes like this: A >real terrorist is almost certainly going to use as inconspicuous a >camera as possible, but if he does no one will blame me if I miss it. >A person with an SLR and a big lens is infinitely *less* likely to be >a terrorist... but if he is a terrorist and I miss him I'll get >vilified in public and private for letting him get away with it. >Therefore, even though someone with a big, conspicuous camera is >vastly less likely to be a threat to the public, he's a vastly greater >threat to my job than a real terrorist with an iPhone camera. First of all, I don't understand where you're coming from with the 'thugs with badges bit'. I know a few of these people with badges and the ones I do are not thugs. I see plenty of thugs in my line of work and they end to live in low income housing and trailers. They drive uninsured cars and push up the price for everyone else. They make lots of noise late at night and scratch parked cars. They molest and rape young children, cats, and the odd horse (you think I'm joking). They sell hard drugs and rob from the elderly. These are true thugs. But think about it - to catch a thief you have to think like one - the police by nature are hardly going to be pushovers. If you want to see real thugs with badges then may I suggest north America? If you're unlucky enough to be on the receiving end of a car chase there, you might get nudged into a fishtail accident designed to end the pursuit which might possibly end in loss of life. On UK roads, this is not allowed by police rules. Think about why. If you survive the crash and run off, you might have several guns pulled on you. In the UK, this is not the norm. Think about why. This is planet Earth - there is no utopia, only varying degrees of toleration. I tolerate things where I am just fine! Peace, man. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ---------- http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
