Czech PM lashes out at photographer

Hmm, not sure about that, I think they were both in the street.
 
The difference is pretty simple. The PM was taking his kid to work which is part of his public life. Rowling was out shopping which has nothing to do with her life in the public eye. Chalk and cheese.
 
So how did the tog know the guy was going to his work?
 
Ok, it's been a good discussion but it's getting late so honesty time here,

Ignoring the legalities, would you have done what that tog did? Do you think it's right?
 
Splog said:
If someone came that close to me with a camera and pointed it in my face? I would make certain he hit the wall or the ground very hard :D No photographer has any right to take close up shots like that without permission IMHO - He got what he deserved :lol:
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but we do and if you did that I would hope the photographer pressed charges because no idiot on the street has the right to attack a photographer for taking a photo.
 
Seriously, that's loutish inexcusable behaviour by the PM and Common Assault at the very least were it to happen in this country.

I had some sympathy with Fatty Prescott, much as I loathe the eejit, he did what most blokes would do in that situation, but this was inexcusable.
 
petemc said:
I'm sorry but we do and if you did that I would hope the photographer pressed charges because no idiot on the street has the right to attack a photographer for taking a photo.
Click to expand...

Well.. I'm no idiot but anyone gets that close and think they can take a shot of me or my family without permission will not be walking home and they won't be in any condition to press charges :D I'm all for photographers rights but this is taking the p**s He could / should have asked for permission :| it's called 'reasonable behaviour'
 
Splog said:
Well.. I'm no idiot but anyone gets that close and think they can take a shot of me or my family without permission will not be walking home and they won't be in any condition to press charges :D I'm all for photographers rights but this is taking the p**s He could / should have asked for permission :| it's called 'reasonable behaviour'
Click to expand...

Your "reasonable behaviour" seems to allow you to beat a man up to the point where he won't be able to press charges all because he took a photo. Now thats really quite pathetic. Its a photograph. Surely everyone on here should be well aware of what a photograph is. What would happen? It goes on the internet and then Al Queada targets your family with a jumbo jet while you're out in the park? Honestly, we have one thread where people are going on about the rights of photographers and how stupidly absurd it is that we need a permit to use a tripod in London and over here we have a guy wanting to beat a guy within an inch of his life because he took a photo. Do you go around smashing up cctv cameras because they never asked permission?
 
Youre missing the fact this wasn't some random guy walking to the shops or to his job at a factory. He is the Prime Minister on his way to parliament (?). There is a big difference.

admirable said:
Ignoring the legalities, would you have done what that tog did? Do you think it's right?
Click to expand...

No, Id like to think I've evolved beyond the ape and would use my brain first.
 
Splog said:
Well.. I'm no idiot but anyone gets that close and think they can take a shot of me or my family without permission will not be walking home and they won't be in any condition to press charges :D I'm all for photographers rights but this is taking the p**s He could / should have asked for permission :| it's called 'reasonable behaviour'
Click to expand...

You're right, I'm sure this was the first time the PM had been papped, it must have come as a complete surprise so it's no wonder he reacted like that.

Now, back in the real world. If you did find yourself in a situation where someone took you photo from close range and you attacked them you'd be the one having your collar felt if the tog decided to press charges.
 
If you look at the way that guy's head bounced off the wall it could have had some very serious consequences.
 
petemc said:
Your "reasonable behaviour" seems to allow you to beat a man up to the point where he won't be able to press charges all because he took a photo. Now thats really quite pathetic. Its a photograph. Surely everyone on here should be well aware of what a photograph is. What would happen? It goes on the internet and then Al Queada targets your family with a jumbo jet while you're out in the park? Honestly, we have one thread where people are going on about the rights of photographers and how stupidly absurd it is that we need a permit to use a tripod in London and over here we have a guy wanting to beat a guy within an inch of his life because he took a photo. Do you go around smashing up cctv cameras because they never asked permission?
Click to expand...

As I said I am all for photographers rights, but I also believe in the right to personal space, would you be happy if a total stranger took a photo of your 2 yr old daughter from 2ft away :shrug: as I said 'he would be on the floor'


pxl8 said:
You're right, I'm sure this was the first time the PM had been papped, it must have come as a complete surprise so it's no wonder he reacted like that.

Now, back in the real world. If you did find yourself in a situation where someone took you photo from close range and you attacked them you'd be the one having your collar felt if the tog decided to press charges.
Click to expand...

Very true, but No photographer has a (moral) right to take a close range shot without permission and if they do then they suffer the consequences.

I really can't believe that anyone would allow a total stranger to get that close and take a photo without some kind of reaction?
 
Splog said:
As I said I am all for photographers rights, but I also believe in the right to personal space, would you be happy if a total stranger took a photo of your 2 yr old daughter from 2ft away :shrug: as I said 'he would be on the floor'
Click to expand...

I would understand his reasons for doing so because its what I do. I'm a photographer. I take photographs and I have the freedom to photograph people. I'm certainly not going to knock the guy out. What if the guy said she was ugly? Would you shoot him? Saying she's ugly is slightly worse than taking a photo. If he said she was butt ugly would you shoot him and kill his family? What about when she's older and some guy breaks her heart? Nuke the city?
 
Splog said:
Very true, but No photographer has a (moral) right to take a close range shot without permission and if they do then they suffer the consequences.
Click to expand...

But you DO have the moral right to beat someone half to death for taking a photo? Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?
 
splog

your reaction has to be reasonable and appropriate. It would be reasonable and appropriate to ask the photographer what they are doing. It would be reasonable and appropriate (possibly) to ask them to stop. As soon as you use any physical 'argument' you are on the wrong side of the law and would be arrested for assault. Assault can be as simple as pushing him away or even acting in a threatening manner where he feels he is in danger. You might not like it but that is the way the law works so change it or live with it.

Without the right to take images on the street photography as we know it ceases to exist. The point at which it ceases to be a reasonable and legal is (as far as I am aware) not clearly defined. If you ask someone to not take your picture and they continue to do so then that is harassment and you can and should call the police. Beating the living crap out of somebody for a photograph is not considered a reasonable response from any view point and you would be arrested. You also need to consider the effect on the child. Having a photo taken may (unlikely but it may) upset them. Seeing daddy beating the crap out of someone will probably be far more upsetting.

Think you might want to rethink this one :-)
 
Marcel said:
WRT The JK Rowling thing. She was just walking down the street doing shopping.
This is different....the PM took the kid to work. He and he alone removed any privacy rights of the child when he took him to work.
Click to expand...

No way
 
jpwone said:
splog

your reaction has to be reasonable and appropriate. It would be reasonable and appropriate to ask the photographer what they are doing. It would be reasonable and appropriate (possibly) to ask them to stop. As soon as you use any physical 'argument' you are on the wrong side of the law and would be arrested for assault. Assault can be as simple as pushing him away or even acting in a threatening manner where he feels he is in danger. You might not like it but that is the way the law works so change it or live with it.

Without the right to take images on the street photography as we know it ceases to exist. The point at which it ceases to be a reasonable and legal is (as far as I am aware) not clearly defined. If you ask someone to not take your picture and they continue to do so then that is harassment and you can and should call the police. Beating the living crap out of somebody for a photograph is not considered a reasonable response from any view point and you would be arrested. You also need to consider the effect on the child. Having a photo taken may (unlikely but it may) upset them. Seeing daddy beating the crap out of someone will probably be far more upsetting.

Think you might want to rethink this one :-)
Click to expand...

Just about says it all. :thumbs:
 
petemc said:
I would understand his reasons for doing so because its what I do. I'm a photographer. I take photographs and I have the freedom to photograph people. I'm certainly not going to knock the guy out. What if the guy said she was ugly? Would you shoot him? Saying she's ugly is slightly worse than taking a photo. If he said she was butt ugly would you shoot him and kill his family? What about when she's older and some guy breaks her heart? Nuke the city?
Click to expand...

I don't think the photographer's actions here can be defended by his 'rights'. He clearly overstepped the boundary.

A hypothetical senario for you here: you're walking down the street on a Sat afternoon with your young child in a pram. I walk up beside you, lean round and fire off half a dozen close-up frames of your child before walking away.

How would you react to that? Would I be well within my rights?
 
I'm not the Prime Minister of a country who is more than likely to be followed by photographers on a daily basis. If that did happen to me I wouldn't push the guy over, I would act rationally and ask what he was doing. Honestly, this is a photographers forum yer? At what point did you all become anti-photography with a desire to hit other photographers?
 
WillyNelson said:
A hypothetical senario for you here: you're walking down the street on a Sat afternoon with your young child in a pram. I walk up beside you, lean round and fire off half a dozen close-up frames of your child before walking away.

How would you react to that? Would I be well within my rights?
Click to expand...

But he's not a massive public figure, taking his child to parliament.
 
petemc said:
I would understand his reasons for doing so because its what I do. I'm a photographer. I take photographs and I have the freedom to photograph people. I'm certainly not going to knock the guy out. What if the guy said she was ugly? Would you shoot him? Saying she's ugly is slightly worse than taking a photo. If he said she was butt ugly would you shoot him and kill his family? What about when she's older and some guy breaks her heart? Nuke the city?
Click to expand...

:lol:

pxl8 said:
But you DO have the moral right to beat someone half to death for taking a photo? Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?
Click to expand...

Never said I did have the moral right to beat someone half to death and Yes

jpwone said:
splog

your reaction has to be reasonable and appropriate. It would be reasonable and appropriate to ask the photographer what they are doing. It would be reasonable and appropriate (possibly) to ask them to stop. As soon as you use any physical 'argument' you are on the wrong side of the law and would be arrested for assault. Assault can be as simple as pushing him away or even acting in a threatening manner where he feels he is in danger. You might not like it but that is the way the law works so change it or live with it.

Without the right to take images on the street photography as we know it ceases to exist. The point at which it ceases to be a reasonable and legal is (as far as I am aware) not clearly defined. If you ask someone to not take your picture and they continue to do so then that is harassment and you can and should call the police. Beating the living crap out of somebody for a photograph is not considered a reasonable response from any view point and you would be arrested. You also need to consider the effect on the child. Having a photo taken may (unlikely but it may) upset them. Seeing daddy beating the crap out of someone will probably be far more upsetting.

Think you might want to rethink this one :-)
Click to expand...


It would also be reasonable and appropriate for the photographer to ask permission
 
It would but that defeats the point of street photography. There is a guy in New York who works for Magnum. He goes right up to people and takes pictures. He uses the flash too, right in peoples faces. They always look surprised and walk off. He's never had any issues.
 
Stupid pap gets what he deserves, where's the story? If it was an every day normal person I'd say it was harsh but paps are a vile brainless sub species that deserve no respect and smacking em about abit is probably the only way to get through to them.
 
Splog said:
:lol:
It would also be reasonable and appropriate for the photographer to ask permission
Click to expand...


The whole point of street photography is that you don't need to ask permission. You already have permission. You are permitted to take photos in the street. The photos you take may include people. By being in a public place (considerably broader in law than the street) you may be photographed without your explicit consent. Your consent is already granted by being there.

At what point this right to photograph then crosses the line and becomes an invasion of privacy/harassment is also reasonably well defined even though it is not (as far as I am aware) explicitly stated anywhere. What is very well defined is the proper response to an invasion of your privacy or harassment.
 
a1ex2001 said:
Stupid pap gets what he deserves, where's the story? If it was an every day normal person I'd say it was harsh but paps are a vile brainless sub species that deserve no respect and smacking em about abit is probably the only way to get through to them.
Click to expand...

It's simple supply and demand. If people got fed up with reading about and looking at photos of celebs, footballers and their WAGs, etc, etc. then the paps would be out of a job. The paps who are simply making a living off the real brainless - those who buy the papers, mags, etc. for their latest dose of circle of shame, etc.
 
If that incident had happened in this country it would have been a clear case of assault by a public figure and even CPS would be struggling to drop it. The PM should have known better, it's frankly disgraceful behaviour which he's lucky not to be explaining to a court.
 
To bring this full circle and respond properly to the original scenario this is my take.

The PM pushing the pushchair was a perfectly legitimate candidate for a street photographer.

If the pushchair had not been covered the child within the push chair would have also been a reasonable photo to take from a reasonable distance.

The child in a covered push chair has an expectation of privacy and pushing the camera into the push chair to get the shot would not be reasonable.

The parents reaction (PM or not) was disproportionate to the 'offence' committed.
 
pxl8 said:
It's simple supply and demand. If people got fed up with reading about and looking at photos of celebs, footballers and their WAGs, etc, etc. then the paps would be out of a job. The paps who are simply making a living off the real brainless - those who buy the papers, mags, etc. for their latest dose of circle of shame, etc.
Click to expand...

Doesn't change the fact that paps have steadily reversed a few thousand years of human evolution as they steadily decend into a neanderthal underworld occupied by morons. I don't care what market they serve the levels to which they are willing to sink defy belief and make sympathy for them an impossibility.

To me this thread has become to much based on the photographers rights issue. This isn't a case of someone out inocently taking photo's in the town centre it's yet another low life pap over stepping the mark and someone needs to do something about it to save prime ministers from having to waste energy slapping them about abit.
 
a1ex2001 said:
I don't care what market they serve the levels to which they are willing to sink defy belief and make sympathy for them an impossibility.
Click to expand...

Again, the greater the demand the greater the rewards and therefore the depths and/or risks someone is willing to take.
 
a1ex2001 said:
paps are a vile brainless sub species that deserve no respect and smacking em about abit is probably the only way to get through to them.
Click to expand...

Thats a pretty ignorant view,

I know a few paps and most of them are alright guys trying to make a bit of cash. Most members of the public do not understand the relationship the paps have with celebrities. Eg. celebs (Big and small) will ring pap. agency's to tell them which shopping center or public event they are attending or leaving.

Obviously not the situation in this case but your making a pretty rash judgement, based on what i would assume is little fact
 
pxl8 said:
Again, the greater the demand the greater the rewards and therefore the depths and/or risks someone is willing to take.
Click to expand...

Not jst someone, most normal people would never stoop the the levels these morons consistently do. If the money is enough for these people to sell there moral souls then they can expect so sympathy when some one slaps them back into the real world.

What sort of idiot thinks it's exceptable behaviour to shove his camera into a childs push chair? Money or no money they've got it comming it allways puts a smile on my face when a pap gets a slap or his gear trashed by some irate celeb.
 
a1ex2001 said:
Not jst someone, most normal people would never stoop the the levels these morons consistently do. If the money is enough for these people to sell there moral souls then they can expect so sympathy when some one slaps them back into the real world.

What sort of idiot thinks it's exceptable behaviour to shove his camera into a childs push chair? Money or no money they've got it comming it allways puts a smile on my face when a pap gets a slap or his gear trashed by some irate celeb.
Click to expand...

please see previous post
 
a1ex2001 said:
What sort of idiot thinks it's exceptable behaviour to shove his camera into a childs push chair?
Click to expand...

Eh? When did that happen? Tog behind and to one side of PM who was behind pushchair. Tog take picture, PM lashes out at nearest tog. The only shoving was done by the PM who makes himself out to be a bit of a thug and a fool to boot.
 
Have you ever met a real pap a1ex2001? spoken to one or witnessed first hand any of this 'moronic' behavior? or are you just going along with the general view point somehow oddly portrayed by the same people who employ some of them (IE Daily Mail etc).
 
Jimmy_Lemon said:
Have you ever met a real pap a1ex2001? spoken to one or witnessed first hand any of this 'moronic' behavior? or are you just going along with the general view point somehow oddly portrayed by the same people who employ some of them (IE Daily Mail etc).
Click to expand...

My point exactly
 
petemc said:
I'm not the Prime Minister of a country who is more than likely to be followed by photographers on a daily basis. If that did happen to me I wouldn't push the guy over, I would act rationally and ask what he was doing.
Click to expand...

"Taking pictures of your kid, mate. Perfectly within my rights."
Would you be ok with that?

The point is the line between legal rights & moral restrictions. Imo the photographers actions were past that moral boundary. I'm not anit-photographer, I just think we should all behave responsibly & with a bit of though for others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top