Distasteful but still not on

Status
Not open for further replies.
magicaxeman

magicaxeman

An Idiot
Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,097
Edit My Images
No
I was reading this story about a young ballerina who was sadly knocked down and killed by a bus the other day, now apart from the sadness at the loss of a young and obviously talented life,I was rather disturbed at the actions of a police officer on the scene.

In the article it states that a guy was filming the scene on his mobile phone, now whilst most would agree that its ghoulish and distasteful at best the actions of the officer where illegal as far as I know in that he seized the phone and deleted the shot footage before sending the person packing.

As said distasteful as it may have been it could set a precedent if his actions are left un challenged, not only that but the footage could have been legally seized as evidence and used to help the inquiry into her death.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367523/Girl-12-dies-hit-double-decker-bus.html
 
Last edited:
The copper did the right thing imho. ..

Sent from my X10i using TP Forums
 
Never going to get the full story from an article (especially one in the daily mail!) so I reserve any judgment.
 
I think photographer's rights take a back seat on this occasion - obviously a chancer with a mobile wanting a bit of footage for Youtube. Well within his rights, but the copper obviously had common decency in mind....

Surprised though that the DM didn't make more of an issue of that section of the story though; "sicko photographer films dying ballerina" and all that might have sat nicely against it's dole-dosser and immigrant pieces....;)
 
Last edited:
Splog said:
The copper did the right thing imho. ..

Sent from my X10i using TP Forums
Click to expand...

No he didn't. His actions were illegal. He has no right to delete imagery for any reason whatsoever without a Court Order and can only prevent filming if the person doing the filming was hindering the rescue attempts or acting in a manner so as to cause a breach of the peace (i.e. if the parent was getting hysterical and the angry mob turned on the guy, the police officer would be correct to prevent him from further filming and ask him to leave for his own safetly).

What next? No footage of the fighting in Libya because it's distasteful?
No footage of the tsunami victims in Japan because it's distasteful?

Most of our world history is distasteful - does that mean we're no longer allowed to see it recorded?
 
Have a word with yourself. Not everything is about upholding some freedom-of-speech ideal - a little girl was dying under a bus.

cobra_lite said:
What next? No footage of the fighting in Libya because it's distasteful?
No footage of the tsunami victims in Japan because it's distasteful?
Click to expand...

I don't think ITN (or any other news broadcaster) will be running footage of people squirming as they die as a result of some atrocity, no matter how righteous they feel it is. Dead bodies maybe - not a problem with that - but not actual dying people, their lives ebbing away live on screen. There are limits.....
 
Last edited:
cobra_lite said:
No he didn't. His actions were illegal. He has no right to delete imagery for any reason whatsoever without a Court Order and can only prevent filming if the person doing the filming was hindering the rescue attempts or acting in a manner so as to cause a breach of the peace (i.e. if the parent was getting hysterical and the angry mob turned on the guy, the police officer would be correct to prevent him from further filming and ask him to leave for his own safetly).

What next? No footage of the fighting in Libya because it's distasteful?
No footage of the tsunami victims in Japan because it's distasteful?

Most of our world history is distasteful - does that mean we're no longer allowed to see it recorded?
Click to expand...

Thanks, I understand the legalities. I said he did the 'right' thing.

Sent from my X10i using TP Forums
 
To be honest, I've done the exact same thing. There is a limit to acceptable journalism v's public decency, and just as I shield a scene to maintain a patients dignity, I support a patients/member of the publics right (legal or otherwise) to a bit of dignity.

whether its legal or not is beside the point IMHO.
 
specialman said:
Have a word with yourself. Not everything is about upholding some freedom-of-speech ideal - a little girl was dying under a bus.



I don't think ITN (or any other news broadcaster) will be running footage of people squirming as they die as a result of some atrocity, no matter how righteous they feel it is. Dead bodies maybe - not a problem with that - but not actual dying people, their lives ebbing away live on screen. There are limits.....
Click to expand...

like this http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4010/4582818618_a187e034c6_m.jpg
she did not die Scared for life
 
paulminus273 said:
like this http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4010/4582818618_a187e034c6_m.jpg
she did not die Scared for life
Click to expand...

Wish I'd put a bet on to see how quickly someone would bring that image.

I'm not talking about that image. Yep, sad that she got scarred for life, and that shot probably helped raise many questions about how warfare was conducted in the modern age. Yep, how was the photographer to know she would survive - impossible to tell. But that was then and this is now....

This guy at the bus accident was a chancer with a mobile phone, plain and simple, who wanted nothing more than a bit of gore that he could share with the rest of the internet. He was not a photographer who just happened to be around as in the scarred girl shot....
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
Have a word with yourself. Not everything is about upholding some freedom-of-speech ideal - a little girl was dying under a bus.
I don't think ITN (or any other news broadcaster) will be running footage of people squirming as they die as a result of some atrocity, no matter how righteous they feel it is. Dead bodies maybe - not a problem with that - but not actual dying people, their lives ebbing away live on screen. There are limits.....
Click to expand...

Yours is a typical bleeding-heart knee-jerk reaction IMO...and quite saddening to be perfectly honest.

I think it is to do with upholding photographers' rights.
You cannot decide what 'rights' apply one day and not the next because your delicate sensibilities are offended.
The rules for press photographers and film cameramen are and always have been: record the event - whether to print or broadcast later is an entirely different matter - please try and see that distinction if nothing else.

ITN may not broadcast such footage today, but next year, in ten years?

Look at the footage from WW2, Korea and Vietnam - the Falklands War, even. Far more grisly than would be broadcast live today, but in 50, 40, 30, 20 years' time, cheerfully repeated on The History Channel.

But if no footage exists, those events might never have happened once those personally involved are also no longer with us.
 
cobra_lite said:
No he didn't. His actions were illegal. He has no right to delete imagery for any reason whatsoever without a Court Order and can only prevent filming if the person doing the filming was hindering the rescue attempts or acting in a manner so as to cause a breach of the peace (i.e. if the parent was getting hysterical and the angry mob turned on the guy, the police officer would be correct to prevent him from further filming and ask him to leave for his own safetly).

What next? No footage of the fighting in Libya because it's distasteful?
No footage of the tsunami victims in Japan because it's distasteful?

Most of our world history is distasteful - does that mean we're no longer allowed to see it recorded?
Click to expand...

What planet are you on? This has NOTHING to do with civil liberties. How would you feel if a gore perv was filming your child while they fought for life under a bus??!

Police officer did well. I'd have done exactly the same.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
What planet are you on? This has NOTHING to do with civil liberties. How would you feel if a gore perv was filming your child while they fought for life under a bus??!

Police officer did well. I'd have done exactly the same.
Click to expand...

How do you know what his purpose was?
Were you there?
As long as he wasn't hindering the rescue effort he was doing nothing illegal - I think there are some very strange attitudes present here...
People should maybe try not to let their initial emotional response to this tragedy cloud their reasoning.
 
cobra_lite said:
How do you know what his purpose was?
Were you there?
As long as he wasn't hindering the rescue effort he was doing nothing illegal - I think there are some very strange attitudes present here...
People should maybe try not to let their initial emotional response to this tragedy cloud their reasoning.
Click to expand...

Jeez get a life.

I don't know you but I'd hazard a guess you've never seen a body mutilated under a bus, or had to drag the pieces out then make sure you washed all the blood off your clothing before telling an unknowing family what has happened to their loved ones. Then taken the parents to the hospital to identify what's left of them?

I have, and attitudes such as yours sicken me.

Nothing more to say.
 
You are right cobra he was dong nothing illegall just his morals got in the way of what he was doing.

Theat is the trouble these days there are so many ways to capture a scene but you have to ask yourself, would you want "your" dead daughters image splattered all over facebook or you tube???

Pro togs get assigned to wars, to report on what goes on but they are still highly scrutinised as to what the general public can see.
I would like to know how much footage or photos get deleted or sidelined from a war tog.

This issue about the policeman are not about right or wrong in the eyes of the law its about the right or wrong of someones morals.

Spike
 
cobra_lite said:
Yours is a typical bleeding-heart knee-jerk reaction IMO...and quite saddening to be perfectly honest.

I think it is to do with upholding photographers' rights.
You cannot decide what 'rights' apply one day and not the next because your delicate sensibilities are offended.
The rules for press photographers and film cameramen are and always have been: record the event - whether to print or broadcast later is an entirely different matter - please try and see that distinction if nothing else.

ITN may not broadcast such footage today, but next year, in ten years?

Look at the footage from WW2, Korea and Vietnam - the Falklands War, even. Far more grisly than would be broadcast live today, but in 50, 40, 30, 20 years' time, cheerfully repeated on The History Channel.

But if no footage exists, those events might never have happened once those personally involved are also no longer with us.
Click to expand...

That's the first time anyone's ever teamed me up with the phrase 'bleeding heart' :)

I can decide what rights apply one day AND the next because it is my choice to decide. And BTW, my sensibilities are not delicate - far from it - they are just balanced with the fact that as a parent, I know I would never do what that guy did.

I am well aware of the 'rules' for press and I know the distinction between getting the material and distributing it. It doesn't mean that I have to whole-heartedly agree with it. Wast this guy press? - I'd put a tenner on it that he wasn't...

TBH, we don't know what ITN (or others) will broadcast in 10 years but I can only assume that moving images of a dying girl trapped under a bus won't make it as their lead feature. Attacking terrorist strongholds yes, but not Youtube footage of kids perishing brutally....

With your last comment are you saying that those family members down the generational line, once mum and dad are gone, would relish having access to some mobile footage of the scene of a family member's demise?

Just because this is a photography forum, it doesn't mean everyone is a hardline 'fight for your rights' type, no matter how it may affect us as photographers later. Yes, being pestered by police and security guards when you're doing something innocuous is crappy, but this is not one of those situations.....
 
Last edited:
I think the B&W answer is that the policeman is wrong. Having said that, spare a thought for his feelings, he's not just a copper but a human being and no doubt upset and traumatised by this tragic incident. If I was there I'm not sure that I wouldn't have ripped the phone out of that pillock's hand myself.

We quite rightly cherish and defend our freedom but must always remember that with freedom comes responsibility. Responsibility not to trample over the freedom and feelings of others.

Although he should not have deleted the footage the policeman may well have had a case for arresting the guy for a public order offence. However his main priority was clearly trying to deal with this dreadful situation.

Right or wrong, who cares? I've nothing but sympathy for the young girl, her family and the police officer in this case. Equally, I've nothing but contempt for the idiot with the phone.
 
goldenlight said:
I think the B&W answer is that the policeman is wrong. Having said that, spare a thought for his feelings, he's not just a copper but a human being and no doubt upset and traumatised by this tragic incident. If I was there I'm not sure that I wouldn't have ripped the phone out of that pillock's hand myself.

We quite rightly cherish and defend our freedom but must always remember that with freedom comes responsibility. Responsibility not to trample over the freedom and feelings of others.

Although he should not have deleted the footage the policeman may well have had a case for arresting the guy for a public order offence. However his main priority was clearly trying to deal with this dreadful situation.

Right or wrong, who cares? I've nothing but sympathy for the young girl, her family and the police officer in this case. Equally, I've nothing but contempt for the idiot with the phone.
Click to expand...

Much more eloquently put than I could ever manage :)
 
paulminus273 said:
like this http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4010/4582818618_a187e034c6_m.jpg
she did not die Scared for life
Click to expand...

That type of situation is totally different. It depicts not some tragic accident that nobody forsaw but a bloody and brutal act of war, an act that was preventable and unecessary. An act that could be prevented from happening again in the future by brave and responsible photo-journalism.

As it happens this photograph is widely credited with changing pubic opinion in the US and precipitating the end of the conflict in Vietnam. Not a bad days work if you ask me, but what does a quick snap or gratuitous video clip of a girl dying under a bus achieve, apart from offense and added trauma for the victim's family? :(
 
The copper was morally correct- screw the legalities in this instance. I would have shoved the phone up the sicko's @ss afterwards.
 
Legally the copper was in the wrong, morally, ethically and decently well in the right.

I think that if he received orders that he could not delete video/pictures in this situation again, he would be well within his rights to arrest the photographer for a public decency/disorder offence whilst putting the mobile phone into evidence for not only the arrest of the togs case, but also to put into evidence for the inquiry into the death.

That way the tog would not only have the inconvienience of being arrested (even if not charged) but would also not have his mobile phone to do anything with the footage (or make any calls etc.) which would be a severe inconvienience.

At least then the footage/photo would not be deleted and someone higher up the system, a judge maybe, would decide what would happen to the footage.
 
Personally I'm taking the policemans side, doesn't matter if he was lawfully wrong, it's indecent and morally wrong if your first reaction is "where's my camara".
It's not just chancers on the street with their mobiles who do this sorta thing. People in general are obsessed with the macabre. How long were paps reportedly taking photos of the dying princess Di before someone did something about it.
 
odd jim said:
Jeez get a life.

I don't know you but I'd hazard a guess you've never seen a body mutilated under a bus, or had to drag the pieces out then make sure you washed all the blood off your clothing before telling an unknowing family what has happened to their loved ones. Then taken the parents to the hospital to identify what's left of them?

I have, and attitudes such as yours sicken me.

Nothing more to say.
Click to expand...

My attitude as a professional photographer and later as an assistant picture editor is to provide newsworthy images (I'm not saying that this incident is an example of that - a tragic road accident is just that and I suspect the only reason it made the news was her connection to a well-known stage production).

As to having to deal with grieving relatives and wash blood out of my clothes, I have - several times.
Belfast, Londonderry and Armagh during the toubles of the late 70's and 80s, Lebanon and Beirut in the '80s and 90's and Iraq and Afghanistan until I hung my cameras up in 2003 and went behind a desk for a well-earned rest.

It does get to you and I freely admit that more than once I was tempted to down tools and lend a hand rather than record what was going on. But I was there to do a job and I did it to the best of my ability.

As an assistant picture editor in London and later in Singapore, I was frequently sent images that we chose not to put on the boards for reasons of taste or out of compassion for the relatives.
It is possible to photograph an event like this without showing the faces of the victims and without being obtrusive.

I wasn't present at this incident and by the sounds of it, neither was anyone else on this Forum - therefore to speculate further as to the motives of anyone who was present is pointless.

I will say however, that if any of you had come to me as professional photographers with any of the above reasons for not getting an image of a newsworthy event, I would have fired you on the spot. No question.

Cry about it all you like, but that's the nature of the business - if you don't like it, don't get involved.
Maybe this is the difference between amateur photographers and professional news photographers, I don't know.
 
And respect for the girl. There's a line between respecting a dying person, and not.
Filming it on a mobile was the wrong side of that line.

Newsworthy my arse. Why is a gory shot of her upclose 'newsworthy'. Why not a shot of the overall scene? With the freedom of the press comes responsibilty. Responsibility to use that freedom with respect, compassion and thought. Yes, get your images required but with the utmost respect. Hence why a shot of the scene or from a distance might be better.

This isn't about capturing the event for news or posterity. This is about a generation who think nothing of the plight of others, have a complete lack of respect for a fellow human being, and think only of the laugh they can have with their mates at the shock of sharing such a video with no thought for the girl dying.

Legally, yes, the copper was wrong. Morally he was bang on the button.
Legally, a copper cant give a little scrote a clip round the ear anymore either...doesn't stop them needing one.
 
cobra_lite said:
My attitude as a professional photographer and later as an assistant picture editor is to provide newsworthy images (I'm not saying that this incident is an example of that - a tragic road accident is just that and I suspect the only reason it made the news was her connection to a well-known stage production).

As to having to deal with grieving relatives and wash blood out of my clothes, I have - several times.
Belfast, Londonderry and Armagh during the toubles of the late 70's and 80s, Lebanon and Beirut in the '80s and 90's and Iraq and Afghanistan until I hung my cameras up in 2003 and went behind a desk for a well-earned rest.

It does get to you and I freely admit that more than once I was tempted to down tools and lend a hand rather than record what was going on. But I was there to do a job and I did it to the best of my ability.

As an assistant picture editor in London and later in Singapore, I was frequently sent images that we chose not to put on the boards for reasons of taste or out of compassion for the relatives.
It is possible to photograph an event like this without showing the faces of the victims and without being obtrusive.

I wasn't present at this incident and by the sounds of it, neither was anyone else on this Forum - therefore to speculate further as to the motives of anyone who was present is pointless.

I will say however, that if any of you had come to me as professional photographers with any of the above reasons for not getting an image of a newsworthy event, I would have fired you on the spot. No question.

Cry about it all you like, but that's the nature of the business - if you don't like it, don't get involved.
Maybe this is the difference between amateur photographers and professional news photographers, I don't know.
Click to expand...

You've missed the point entirely - this has nothing to do with "photography" be it journalistic or otherwise.

This was a numpty with a videophone, all too common these days, and one that crossed the line.
 
odd jim said:
What planet are you on? This has NOTHING to do with civil liberties. How would you feel if a gore perv was filming your child while they fought for life under a bus??!

Police officer did well. I'd have done exactly the same.
Click to expand...

Well said. The Police Officer obviously responded in a passionate manner, and good for him too. The footage would have more than likely been posted on the likes of UTube, and in my mind that is morally wrong.
 
odd jim said:
You've missed the point entirely - this has nothing to do with "photography" be it journalistic or otherwise.

This was a numpty with a videophone, all too common these days, and one that crossed the line.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your point, but once again we do not know the motives of the individual concerned, you could well be right. However...
Many of the London 7/7 attack images we broadcast to the world were taken on phone-cameras...
 
Someone mentioned earlier ITN not broadcasting a video of people dying. ITN maybe not, but yesterday on BBC 1 all night were videos of children loosing their lives. Is this deemed acceptable because it's for charity? I don't condone the person filming the scene, but at the same time the policeman had no legal right to delete the footage.

It can't be one rule for one and one for another.
 
MacPingu said:
..The Police Officer obviously responded in a passionate manner, and good for him too...
Click to expand...

Obviously - however he is a professional police officer and should not allow 'passion' or 'emotion' to influence his actions - that's what police-training is for.
 
TCR4x4 said:
Someone mentioned earlier ITN not broadcasting a video of people dying. ITN maybe not, but yesterday on BBC 1 all night were videos of children loosing their lives. Is this deemed acceptable because it's for charity? I don't condone the person filming the scene, but at the same time the policeman had no legal right to delete the footage.

It can't be one rule for one and one for another.
Click to expand...

So if this is allowed, then perhaps we should just ban all photography in any public place.

Sent from my X10i using TP Forums
 
cobra_lite said:
I appreciate your point, but once again we do not know the motives of the individual concerned, you could well be right. However...
Many of the London 7/7 attack images we broadcast to the world were taken on phone-cameras...
Click to expand...

...but you can't compare this to 7/7. This was a poor child run over by a bus. Death in public is never dignified, but we can all try and deal with it in a dignified and compassionate way. Sticking a videophone in the dying girls face is neither of those.
 
Splog said:
So if this is allowed, then perhaps we should just ban all photography in any public place.

Sent from my X10i using TP Forums
Click to expand...

No it should be the other way. Anyone should be able to photograph anything.
 
odd jim said:
...but you can't compare this to 7/7. This was a poor child run over by a bus. Death in public is never dignified, but we can all try and deal with it in a dignified and compassionate way. Sticking a videophone in the dying girls face is neither of those.
Click to expand...

If he was crawling under the bus to get all the gory details then fair point - but as I read the article, my understanding is that he was filming the overall scene: we are not told how close he was to the actual victim.
I think decency and good taste are a matter of degree which is influenced by the distance at which they occur.


Today's footage from Benghazi of the rebel fighter jet shot down in flames can be considered 'dramatic'.

Cockpit footage of the pilot screaming in terror as the same flames engulfed him would be less palatable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top