Distasteful but still not on

Status
Not open for further replies.
odd jim said:
I agree with this - no need to be threatening or aggressive.

Add to this - those sort of actions would certainly make the attending officers job even more difficult - dealing with fights whilst the girl still lays under the bus.
Click to expand...

Good point, Jim, some people seem to have forgotton the girl and her mother in all of this. :(

I can't believe this thread is still running, still churning over the same ground. I guess it's because regardless of the actual rights or wrongs and regarless of how much is repetition of what has already been said, people love to disagree.
 
goldenlight said:
Good point, Jim, some people seem to have forgotton the girl and her mother in all of this. :(

I can't believe this thread is still running, still churning over the same ground. I guess it's because regardless of the actual rights or wrongs and regarless of how much is repetition of what has already been said, people love to disagree.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Though I think we all agree the persons actions at the scene are distasteful, regardless of whether they would have done so themselves.

A very emotive subject and one that will carry on and on in this modern day and age unfortunately.

I honestly wish I was born at the turn of last century, but thats a whole other subject!
 
odd jim said:
I honestly wish I was born at the turn of last century, but thats a whole other subject!
Click to expand...

Jim, you would have endured two world wars sandwiching a huge depression!

I wish I had been born 9 years earlier, in 1946 rather than 1955. I'd have less of the madness of the present day to endure and would have had more fun in the sixties! :D
 
goldenlight said:
Jim, you would have endured two world wars sandwiching a huge depression!

I wish I had been born 9 years earlier, in 1946 rather than 1955. I'd have less of the madness of the present day to endure and would have had more fun in the sixties! :D
Click to expand...

Ah true.

maybe mid 1800's then? :lol:
 
I quite fancied being a Penzance based smuggler...
 
Marcel said:
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.
Click to expand...

The best post in this thread bar none. Well said......:clap:
 
A little late to the thread but IMO the copper has done the right thing, had I been a member of the public seeing someone filming such an incident I would have probably got arrested because I would have either smashed the guys phone up or rammed the phone so far down there throat the would need a rectal exam to send a text

Is the copper legally in the wrong yes, it what he did morally defendable I think we have overall agreed yes

Matt
MWHCVT
 
malo50 said:
If I'd been there I would have taken your camera off you and beat the p**s out of you. I hope that's not too pedantic.:thumbs:
Click to expand...


Not pedantic in the slightest. Idiotic, but certainly not pedantic.

You have no idea about the situation, no idea of what I do, no connection or understanding of the location and absolutely zero knowledge of the local people. Apart from that, crack on talking out of your rectal orifice!

I hope that is not too vague? :D
 
Last edited:
malo50 said:
You've questioned the provenance of a serving police officer, you've stated that any one who doesn't agree with you is either a bleeding heart or a pedant.
You've also stated that no news outlet would buy your photo's of a dying girl.

I think you've been fairly aggresive yourself. When I dared to try and put my point of view you call me an idiot. As a father, if i saw you or anyone else taking a photograph of a dying girl, for no documentary or evidential reason, maybe I wouldn't slap the snot out of you, but I would certainly have something to say. Please don't tell me what I would or wouldn't do.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you seem to have misunderstood almost everything I've said:

I questioned the actions of a serving officer as he should have known better.
People are free to disagree with anything I say, however the knee-jerk reactions being touted here speak more of an emotional response than a reasoned one. I queried that.
I'm a father myself.

Your 'point of view' is that confronted with this situation you would assault someone. :cuckoo:

While you may not be an idiot, you are starting to act like one.
 
I think its sick just read this I'd be straight in helping if I was needed not taking pictures.

Simular things happen on road accident on one side and then some one courses another on the other side rubber necking...

But that's just my thoughts
 
My concern with this story is not the actions of the photographer (I think we almost all agree his actions were repugnant), but the role of the police in modern society.

The police's role is to uphold and enforce the law, NOT to try and impose individual officers' morality on the public they are supposed to serve. If the officer felt an offence was being committed, he should have made an arrest. If he felt there was a public order issue, he should have told the guy to stop filming and get lost. If he felt an offence was going to be committed (e.g. sharing the video) he should have confiscated the phone as evidence of the intent. Simply deleting the photo and sending him on his way is an implicit admission that he was acting beyond his legal authority - this is not something to be applauded.

We already have police chiefs who think they're politicians, let's not also encourage officers to start thinking that they can decide what is right and wrong outside of the constraints of the law.

One of the basic rights of living in a free society is the right to be a law- abiding plonker.

And to those who have said things like "the copper is only human" etc - I would take the opinion that a key requirement of working in the emergency services is the ability to act calm, professionally, and emotionally detached from the situation. If you can't keep a level head, get a desk job!
 
DemiLion said:
Can't argue with that Frac! :D
Click to expand...

It is obviously an emotive subject and not all will agree, but that is human nature,thank God..............:)
 
DemiLion said:
Not pedantic in the slightest. Idiotic, but certainly not pedantic.

You have no idea about the situation, no idea of what I do, no connection or understanding of the location and absolutely zero knowledge of the local people. Apart from that, crack on talking out of your rectal orifice!

I hope that is not too vague? :D
Click to expand...
Vague, no. Irrelevant yes. I've never been to the North Pole, but I know it's bloody freezing.

I stated what I would do in a given situation. In what way was I talking out of my backside?
 
Last edited:
Llamaman said:
My concern with this story is not the actions of the photographer (I think we almost all agree his actions were repugnant), but the role of the police in modern society.

The police's role is to uphold and enforce the law, NOT to try and impose individual officers' morality on the public they are supposed to serve. If the officer felt an offence was being committed, he should have made an arrest. If he felt there was a public order issue, he should have told the guy to stop filming and get lost. If he felt an offence was going to be committed (e.g. sharing the video) he should have confiscated the phone as evidence of the intent. Simply deleting the photo and sending him on his way is an implicit admission that he was acting beyond his legal authority - this is not something to be applauded.

We already have police chiefs who think they're politicians, let's not also encourage officers to start thinking that they can decide what is right and wrong outside of the constraints of the law.

One of the basic rights of living in a free society is the right to be a law- abiding plonker.

And to those who have said things like "the copper is only human" etc - I would take the opinion that a key requirement of working in the emergency services is the ability to act calm, professionally, and emotionally detached from the situation. If you can't keep a level head, get a desk job!
Click to expand...

Fair point, but even the most hardened and professional have and end to their tether, it's a fact of life.
 
odd jim said:
Fair point, but even the most hardened and professional have and end to their tether, it's a fact of life.
Click to expand...

True, but I don't think we should applaud it when they lose it. Understand, perhaps, but not salute.
 
First of all may I apologise for my intemperate language in my first post. It was stupid and I know it. It only serves to weaken any opinion I may have with the subject at hand. I did exactly what Cobra said, I let emotion cloud my reason and lashed out at someone who didn't deserve it.

Cobra you've seen and done things, I'm glad I'll never have to experience, and I know you're coming from a totally different mindset. I totally disagree with you, but can understand where you're coming from. I've always had issues with the photographer/person duality. Please excuse my idiocy and I hope we can look forward to many more constructive debates in the future.
 
malo50 said:
First of all may I apologise for my intemperate language in my first post. It was stupid and I know it. It only serves to weaken any opinion I may have with the subject at hand. I did exactly what Cobra said, I let emotion cloud my reason and lashed out at someone who didn't deserve it.

Cobra you've seen and done things, I'm glad I'll never have to experience, and I know you're coming from a totally different mindset. I totally disagree with you, but can understand where you're coming from. I've always had issues with the photographer/person duality. Please excuse my idiocy and I hope we can look forward to many more constructive debates in the future.
Click to expand...

Likewise I should probably apologise. I reacted mainly to the threat of being beaten up.

FYI:

I work part time as a press photographer. I live approximately 800 yds from the scene of the accident. I was on the 68 bus 15 minutes ahead of the tragedy.

I still stand by the remark that had I not missed the accident, I would have photographed it. However the images would have been usable press shots, not gore-centric (like some that have emerged) and would have portrayed the actuality of the scene. I don't revel in such images or the taking of them, but it's a job pure and simple.
 
A lot of assumptions being made in this thread - we have very little information about the situation. However - two wrongs don't make a right.
 
DemiLion said:
Likewise I should probably apologise. I reacted mainly to the threat of being beaten up.

FYI:

I work part time as a press photographer. I live approximately 800 yds from the scene of the accident. I was on the 68 bus 15 minutes ahead of the tragedy.

I still stand by the remark that had I not missed the accident, I would have photographed it. However the images would have been usable press shots, not gore-centric (like some that have emerged) and would have portrayed the actuality of the scene. I don't revel in such images or the taking of them, but it's a job pure and simple.
Click to expand...

That's very gracious of you, and I appreciate it. I guess even at my age I've got a lot of growing up to do. Without being sycophantic, I understand that as a pro tog, you often have to do things you'd rather not. I thank God I'll never be in that position.
 
I have read through this thread and held off from posting in order to remove the emotion we inevitably feel in a story like this.

If I were to come across such a scene my morals would not allow me to get out a camera of any type, I understand that some would need to in a professional capacity. Those are my morals, and that is the point.

We have the privilege of living in a free society where we have freedom of speech etc. Part of the price for that privilege is that everyone, including the person with the phone here, has the right to act on their own morals within the confines of the law. In this instance, as distasteful as it may be to most, the police officer is the one who crossed that line.

Paul.
 
I've not had a chance to read the entire thread, but it seems to be based on the unusual premise that what we read in newspapers is absolute fact. I know from my own experiences that often it is not - the reports are designed to sell papers, titilate, and lastly to inform.

None of us will know what the person with the mobile phone really did, or why. There may even be a possibility that he started to film as much detail as he could in case it would be of assistance to the authorities. My own mother was horrifically injured in a road traffic accident - there were few witnesses and we spent years bringing a civil case where the legal team painstakingly pieced together accident scene reconstructions, photography, commissioned expert witnesses, brought in crash and trauma experts - the list is endless. Had just one person filmed where my mother had been hit, where she had crawled to, where other cars where, who was about, how the medics treated her (which may have been inappropriate given that her injuries were far worse than realised) .... everything would have been entirely different and we would not have had the agony of having to prove what was pieced together using other forms of evidence. Whilst I have the deepest sympathy for that poor girl and her family, I cannot condone the officer's actions - he may well have destroyed very valuable footage. As for the law - it is what it is - we cannot cherrypick whether it should apply from one day to the next, no matter how dreadful the situation.
 
I've just read all of this thread and it seems that the consensus of opinion is the policeman was legally wrong but morally right,as the gentlemen with the camera phone was morally wrong, if I had been around and unable to help I would/could not have hung around spectating, I'm not into gore etc, I've had to work at some bad accident sites in the mining industry and only did so because there was no-one else to do it.
A pro shooting informative news shots are not the same as joe public filming on their phone, maybe it was just as well it was the police officer that attended to the filmer rather than a member of the public doing it.
Off to the pub now to forget about this thread. goodnight.
 
I have to admit I did not post this thread to cause controversy but to raise points that I felt we all need to think about, and think about carefully.

Even I as hardened as I am to such scenes will freely admit that even my first instinct was to condemn the actions of the guy filming, but once raw emotion had diminished I started to look at the bigger picture and saw things differently.

Reacting emotively to an incident has lead to a lot of bad legislation and limitations on personal freedoms in this country and sadly our democracy means that even the reprehensible and distasteful is something we have to put up with in order to retain those freedoms
 
iancandler said:
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
Click to expand...
And if it end up on youtube, how do you think the family will feel?
 
wasper said:
And if it end up on youtube, how do you think the family will feel?
Click to expand...

Indeed! ....... Then again probably says more about the people who enjoy watching that sort of thing and youTube in general :shake:
 
DemiLion said:
I still stand by the remark that had I not missed the accident, I would have photographed it. However the images would have been usable press shots, not gore-centric (like some that have emerged) and would have portrayed the actuality of the scene. I don't revel in such images or the taking of them, but it's a job pure and simple.
Click to expand...

That's a whole world away from grabbing a video clip for the novelty value. I'm sure that had you been there you'd have made it known to the police officer that you were press. :)
 
The overall problem is that it used to be the case that the law gave a clear account of what is deemed wrong. Not, you'll notice what is right, but more what is not permissible.
The issue or morality used to be guided by our conscience as a whole. A social conscience if you like.
Now, if you just take 5 minutes watching Jeremy Kyle. Or go in a Manchester pub on a Friday night you can plainly see that socially our morals are hanging on by a lifeline.
We live in an age now where some people think it acceptable to knock someone to the ground and literally stamp on their skull with all their bodyweight just for a 'funny look' or a 'laugh'.
We live in a society where seeing someone in distress or danger is no longer automatic cause for going over to help, it's a reason to pull out a mobile phone to share with your friends, to go over and gawp at another persons misfortune.
We live in a society where we are inherently interested in the misfortune of others purely for entertainment purposes. (A quick look at the type of TV programs that are everywhere will show that).

So my question is, while the law provides a clear statement of what is not allowed, who guides our morality within the boundaries of what is not provided for within law?
It should be a collective social conscience. A conscience of thought for our fellow humans, but when that seems overall lacking in society...what do we have left to guide us?

We shouldn't let the letter of the law guide how moral an action is, but we should let morality guide the letter of the law.
 
My major concern is where you draw the line. If you maintain that everybody has the right to photograph anything, you could potentially have an accident site swarming with people, be they press or sickos, snapping away. What an invidious position any attending officer will be in trying to sort out who's who.
 
Civil rights against common decency. I hope we as people are still good, and some silly arsed photographers aren't going to throw toys out of their prams. The officer absolutely did the right thing. The guy with his mobile had no intention of videoing it except to show his mates the gory details and uploading to Youtube.
 
hairboy said:
The guy with his mobile had no intention of videoing it except to show his mates the gory details and uploading to Youtube.
Click to expand...
And why does that make any difference at all? Is Youtube illegal? Is having an interest in gore illegal? The answer to both is no. The officer was therefore acting in a personal capacity (preventing something he didn't like) rather than a professional one (preventing a crime or public disorder). By definition, this is an abuse of his powers.

If we start allowing police officers to act outside of the law, based upon their personal view of right/wrong, that's a very dangerous road to go down.

One of the key requirements of a functioning liberal democracy is the separation of the powers of the legislature, judiciary and the police. If the police start deciding what is right/wrong, regardless of what the law says, they are usurping the powers of the democratically elected government. Which cannot be a good thing, regardless of what you think about politicians!

As much as I dislike what the photographer was up to, in the eyes of the law he was doing nothing wrong, and the agents of the law (such as the police) have no right to interfere.
 
Marcel said:
So my question is, while the law provides a clear statement of what is not allowed, who guides our morality within the boundaries of what is not provided for within law?
It should be a collective social conscience. A conscience of thought for our fellow humans, but when that seems overall lacking in society...what do we have left to guide us?

We shouldn't let the letter of the law guide how moral an action is, but we should let morality guide the letter of the law.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. :thumbs:

However a quiet word from the police officer to shame the man in order to stop him filming gratuitously would have been far better than grabbing his phone and deleting images.
A press photographer going about his business in a quiet and professional manner would probably not have occasioned any action in the first place, or condemnation from the other bystanders.

I think the problem here (i.e with those of us commenting) is that some of us with a press background only see the 'event' - we tend to divorce ourselves from the emotional trauma of the occasion in order to do our jobs.
I still, when passing a road-accident on the motorway, look at it with a view to stopping if it turns out to be a newsworthy event: i.e a lot of dead people involved. What does that say about me? Nothing good, I'm sure.

Only today I was looking at another thread with images from Libya (happily from my old Agency :thumbs:) taken by two very good friends of mine. I know them both to be very decent people who would be very upset if accused of callous and unfeeling attitudes to their subjects.
Yet there they were - dead bodies all over the road from the first French air-strikes.

I think it's very difficult for the layman to understand this type of mindset, especially if you've never had to put your feelings in your back pocket to enable you to continue working under very stressful conditions.
 
cobra_lite said:
I still, when passing a road-accident on the motorway, look at it with a view to stopping if it turns out to be a newsworthy event: i.e a lot of dead people involved. What does that say about me? Nothing good, I'm sure.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Images are extremely powerful and can often convey an event in a way words can't (except in the hand sof the most skilled writers). As a result, images form an extremely important part of how we perceive and understand events that we weren't personally present at.

Such power can be used to deceive, but also to do a lot of good - can we honestly say that disaster appeals would raise the money they do without the shocking footage? (Indeed in the case of Live Aid, it was Michael Burke's reporting (*) that inspired Geldof and Ure in the first place).



(*) I appreicate that Burke was the reporter, not the cameraman. Apologies to the unsung hero!
 
Llamaman said:
I disagree. Images are extremely powerful and can often convey an event in a way words can't (except in the hand sof the most skilled writers). As a result, images form an extremely important part of how we perceive and understand events that we weren't personally present at.

Such power can be used to deceive, but also to do a lot of good - can we honestly say that disaster appeals would raise the money they do without the shocking footage? (Indeed in the case of Live Aid, it was Michael Burke's reporting (*) that inspired Geldof and Ure in the first place).

(*) I appreicate that Burke was the reporter, not the cameraman. Apologies to the unsung hero!
Click to expand...

What you describe is/are scenarios with massive public interest which affects many people.

Why would the public be interested in seeing a gory video of a little child under a bus?

Two entirely different scenarios.
 
odd jim said:
Why would the public be interested in seeing a gory video of a little child under a bus?

Two entirely different scenarios.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I think that we all know the answer to that first comment - think happy slapping etc.

As for them being different situations I agree completely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top