cobra_lite
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 228
- Edit My Images
- No
Why then did the newspaper deem it worthy of a quarter-page article? :shrug:
Distasteful but still not on
- Thread starter magicaxeman
- Start date
- Status
Why then did the newspaper deem it worthy of a quarter-page article? :shrug:
- Messages
- 9,208
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
cobra_lite said:
Because maybe they were desperate for news? I didn't see it in the nationals but even so, I doubt the paper would have provided a weekend edition free DVD with the video footage on it.
Point is you can't compare it to a famine, or war. Events that change history need to be documented for public consumption. Personal event which only affect the girls family don't. IMO of course.
Last edited:
Splog
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,257
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
and mine!
- Messages
- 7,422
- Name
- Not an addick!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
odd jim said:
Firstly, the post you've quoted was my reply to another post about the morality of a press photographer and so was intended to have wider scope than this particular story. It was not my intention to suggest a parallel between an Ethiopian famine and an RTA.
That said, since almost every London news outlet (and some national ones) covered the story, it would appear that a good many editors DID consider it newsworthy.
- Messages
- 9,208
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Llamaman said:
In the context it was written in i assumed you were talking in relation to the subject of the thread.
In relation to the press coverage, did they show any gory photos or video stills?
My guess is they didn't?
Last edited:
Splog
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,257
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
No.... The cop deleted them!
Quaker
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 972
- Name
- Quaker
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What absolute tosh.
To say professional photographers see this incident different to anyone else is rubbish. Maybe desperate, untalented professional photographers who can only make money taking such images would share you point of view.
The policeman was 100% correct whether what he did was legal or not.
After reading your post, i couldn't be bothered to go any further and thought i would reply to your post.
I am not aware of the article as obviously don't read enough papers or watch the news enough (due to it all being doom and gloom), however from what i have gathered, this individual wasn't a professional photographer getting news pics, but some random bloke on the street who wanted a bit of gore, to show to his mates down the pub and more than likely put onplaces like Youtube and so like.
These are 2 separate issues. I can see you point about the Pro coming to you and you sacking him (after all, it's his job and as stated above, it would be your decision to put them on paper), This wasn't somebody who did this for a living, so surely there are a totally different set of rules. At the time it would be like yes, get the film, but what would he say if it was his child and somebody else taking the film, not happy i would have thought.
Personally, i think the policeman made the right decision.
cobra_lite
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 228
- Edit My Images
- No
Quaker
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 972
- Name
- Quaker
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I did want to say ***** but thought better of it, :bonk:
Last edited by a moderator:
- Messages
- 9,208
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But this incident wasnt hard news really.
Fair enough something newsworthy with massive public interest, such as the Diana crash, wars, historical events etc - these are the only justifiable events where one might understand putting a videophone into a dying persons face, but not this incident. I've covered the public interest aspect in my other posts so wont blab on about them in this one.
Would those fine photographers you have listed carried out the actions of this idiot with the videophone or would they put their talents to more useful, justifiable and relevant use?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 9,208
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No, but everyone needs to know where the line is... Its part of judging the incident when you arrive and assess the situation.
You yourself agree its distasteful. Out of interest, and not to judge you personally, but would you have carried out the same actions as the guy with the videophone (bearing in mind he didnt even know she was an upcoming ballet dancer?)
EDIT - and remember this guy wasn't a press tog, just a passing member of the public. And the officer, not that I'm condoning his actions, had to contend with protecting a very distressing scene, protecting and helping the child, and dealing with the mother of the child who was present and extremely distressed.
Last edited:
DemiLion
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 13,016
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Of course it was hard news; that's defined by the timeline, not necessarily the subject matter.
Well, we're still not entirely clear what actions the guy with the videophone took...however;
I am a press photographer, 95% of the time I have a camera on me...that's my job. If I happened to be walking along and saw this incident, I would make sure I had my Press Card visible, and take some shots of the scene, carefully trying to avoid making anyone recognisable. I go for two "categories" in these sort of situations, think of it as NSFW or Safe.
Safe shots would be the sort of things such as, general police car/ambulance shots, cordon shots, bus shots...something that illustrates the scene. Depending on the prevailing mood (ie. am I about to get my head ripped off by the general public) I might go for something which illustrates the story better than a shot of a bus. Perhaps a shot of a bus with paramedics near it. Difficult to judge without having been there.
As you said, he didn't know it was an up and coming ballerina...it could've been Kate Moss, Boris Johnson, Nelson Mandela or Lord Lucan hand in hand with Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster. If I didn't know who it was, I'd be doing my job...ironically, if I DID know it was a small child which as you said probably isn't "hard news", I'd be less inclined to do so.
If I'm in any doubt, I'll get the shot and then make a journalistic judgement on whether it gets submitted.
Does that make me a horrible person? In your eyes probably yes.
Am I doing my job? Yes.
Do I always enjoy my job? Tell me anyone that does.
Just like any job, journalism has it's dark moments...ask any reporter about their first "death knock".
- Messages
- 9,208
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But the subject matter defines how newsworthy it is, surely?
- Messages
- 9,208
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Of course that doesn't make you a bad person, but the point you've put across is that you'd cover it professionally and probably sensitively, ie, if you wanted a shot of the bus I'd take it you'd use a longish lens and not do it right in the faces of the attending emergency workers and the girls mother.
That to me is far more acceptable, regardless of the overall morals of the situation, and furthermore would avoid conflict with the attending police officers.
swanseamale47
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 10,876
- Name
- wayne clarke
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And where the law is?.
The issue isn't that it was bad taste to photograph the scene, you have to remember were are a multicultural society, you can't assign your values to other people. For me the issue is that a "trained" police office let his emotions get in the way of the law, they above all else have to take the law seriously, and not make it up as they feel like, thats the goverment (elected by us) is job.
Franky if a simple RTC has that much impact on an office I can't help wondering if he's in the right job. I have seen and delt with some terrible incidents during my life, none made me loose control.
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Many years ago as a young copper I attended the scene of an accident where a 15 year old lad had fallen off his bike in front of a bus on a steep incline. He ended up under the back axle of the bus pretty mangled up with his bike and conscious but slowly suffocating. We couldn't get the bus jacked up without it rolling back and had to send for heavy lifting equipment and were waiting for another bus to park behind it to prevent it rolling.
Two of us had crawled under the bus and were talking to the lad offering him what comfort we could - but he died. At this point a local freelance photographer well known as an ambulance chaser started to crawl under the bus to take pictures. He was told to **** off in no uncertain terms!
I think some people contributing to this thread need a serious reality check - this isn't about your civil liberties collapsing around your ears, it's about simple decency and common sense. We still don't know enough about this case, but no doubt the copper involved had enough on his plate with the accident without having to get involved wtih arresting some passing nobber with a mobile phone who clearly hadn't got the sense of a gnat!
Policemen make decisions on the spot all the time and not always within the letter of the law - i did many times, and always found that if I'd acted reasonably in the circumstances there was little to worry about from any court in the land.
Two of us had crawled under the bus and were talking to the lad offering him what comfort we could - but he died. At this point a local freelance photographer well known as an ambulance chaser started to crawl under the bus to take pictures. He was told to **** off in no uncertain terms!
I think some people contributing to this thread need a serious reality check - this isn't about your civil liberties collapsing around your ears, it's about simple decency and common sense. We still don't know enough about this case, but no doubt the copper involved had enough on his plate with the accident without having to get involved wtih arresting some passing nobber with a mobile phone who clearly hadn't got the sense of a gnat!
Policemen make decisions on the spot all the time and not always within the letter of the law - i did many times, and always found that if I'd acted reasonably in the circumstances there was little to worry about from any court in the land.
Jerm
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,068
- Name
- Jeremy Nako
- Edit My Images
- No
I think we're confusing 2 different acts here.
The Policeman was wrong to do what he did - fact in law.
The little scrote was very, very wrong in doing what he did. Not legally, but morally by most peoples standards.
The policeman should have pointed out to the scrote the error of his ways.. in whatever legal fashion he deemed suitable, as I would have done.
It's not however IMHO for people to carry out illegal acts if they find the actions of someone else immoral.
That's not a recipe for a civilised society.
The Policeman was wrong to do what he did - fact in law.
The little scrote was very, very wrong in doing what he did. Not legally, but morally by most peoples standards.
The policeman should have pointed out to the scrote the error of his ways.. in whatever legal fashion he deemed suitable, as I would have done.
It's not however IMHO for people to carry out illegal acts if they find the actions of someone else immoral.
That's not a recipe for a civilised society.
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
How bloody condescending that you wonder of he's in the right job. Who said he let his emotions get the better of him? I wasn't there, but it's a fair bet that with the girl's hysterical mother at the scene and a crowd of onlookers witnessing this idiot's actions, there was every likelihood of a breach of Tbe Peace occurring for which he could have been arrested, I don't see this as anything but an on- the- spot decision by the officer, who had more pressing things to do at the time than be dealing with this idiot. There's certainly no implication that he 'lost control.'
The final arbiter in these matters is a court of law - that's who he answers to - not some of you - thankfully!
- Messages
- 7,422
- Name
- Not an addick!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So are you saying that the role of the Police is to enforce moral codes rather than the Law?
If so, whose moral code? The code of the Police officer or the majority of the public?
- Messages
- 7,422
- Name
- Not an addick!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I totally agree with everything you've said.
I think a lot of people posting here have let the emotive nature of the subject matter (the death of a small child is tragic) cloud their judgment. One needs to consider the bigger picture (no pun intended) here - if the Police don't respect the rule of law, who will? Can we give the police carte blanche to ignore the law when they see fit, and expect them to use those powers fairly?
If Policing is driven by morality, whose morality?
If the morality of the public, that's caving into mob rule. Surely the point of a liberal democracy is that the rights of minorities to live their lives in ways that may not be to the taste of the majority -but are none-the-less legal - should be protected.
If the morality of the officer, that way madness lies. What if the officer has views that are political, xenophobic, homophobic? How should he act then?
The role of the police must be to uphold the law. If society feels strongly enough that they wish to stop something, that is the role of parliament to legislate, which is then enforced by the police.
- Messages
- 7,422
- Name
- Not an addick!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Cue wild speculation...
If there was a breach of the peace, he could have used the powers granted to him to caution or arrest the guy and/or confiscate his phone as evidence. He did neither, instead choosing a course of action for which he had no legal authority.
There's plenty - see above. He chose to dispense with the tools granted to him by parliament and instead act in an extra-jucidicial manner. That sounds like someone losing the plot.
Er, that's the point. It should have been the courts that decided whether the photos need to be deleted as they are the body that have such power - NOT the police. In arbitrarilly deleting the photos without authority, he has usurped the powers of the Courts.
I am amazed at how many of you seem so keen to hand over incredible powers to the Police with no checks or balances on that power. They have a less than stellar record in this area (remember Anti-Terrorism powers being used to arrest a man asking a question at the Labour Party Conference, just days after the Police Commisisoner assured parliament that the powers would not be used lightly?).
- Messages
- 16,680
- Name
- Ebenezer McScrooge III
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I thought it was law and ORDER in which case getting him to stop was exactly the right course of action?
The legality of deleting the video is a different question but as the scrote obviously didn't have any common decency (press photographers would have legitimate cause to capture events) I don't have an issue with it. There's law then there's justice.
Quaker
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 972
- Name
- Quaker
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I would say that those highlighted wouldn't think about trying to make a quick buck out of something so tragic as this young girls death, I suspect they are not that desperate.
Do one yourself matey. You need to get some morals.
swanseamale47
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 10,876
- Name
- wayne clarke
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 7,422
- Name
- Not an addick!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You are right that the role of the Police is also to maintain order - which they do by using powers granted to them. I don't see how you go from that to justifying his actions - is there any evidence that there was a public order offence being committed? If he felt that one was going to arise, he could simple have asked they guy to leave. Deleting the photos/video seems to serve no purpose other than to satisfy his desire to do the "right" (as opposed to legal) thing.
And where are the powers that give the police the right to seize and destroy personal property if no crime has been committed? A confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act requires a court conviction and a confiscation order - not the whim of a bobby on the beat.
It's not a question. It's very clear. It was illegal.
Lacking common decency isn't an offence, and even if it was, the correct cause of action would have been to use the powers given to him, not those he imagined (or wished) himself to have.
Sounds worringly like something a vigilante mob would say.
- Messages
- 7,422
- Name
- Not an addick!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So close-up video of someone dying in an RTA is OK as long as they're famous? How famous do they need to be? Should they phone round a few TV stations to gauge interest before they start filming?
We have no idea why this guy was filming or who if anyone he was filming for. We know nothing aboout him whatsoever. The only thing we know about his actions is that they were NOT against the law.
The policemans actions were however against the law. He dealt with this in entirely the wrong way and destroyed evidence in the process.
I find it worrying that so many people are defending him. I'm not saying that I approve of the filming - but I don't know anything about it - and neither does anyone else - but we do know about the policeman's actions - and they were wrong.
The policemans actions were however against the law. He dealt with this in entirely the wrong way and destroyed evidence in the process.
I find it worrying that so many people are defending him. I'm not saying that I approve of the filming - but I don't know anything about it - and neither does anyone else - but we do know about the policeman's actions - and they were wrong.
slr10
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 668
- Name
- Michelle
- Edit My Images
- Yes
After reading all the comments on here and also reading the daily mail's article, it is only one person who is saying that the police officer actually deleted the footage! This hasn't actually been confirmed (or denied)
At the end of the day whether it was deleted or not, the guy trying to film this horrific accident was filming the death of a 12 year old girl. That is the most appalling part.
At the end of the day whether it was deleted or not, the guy trying to film this horrific accident was filming the death of a 12 year old girl. That is the most appalling part.
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Accordiing to an eye witness -Michelle Lunney.....
Michelle Lunney, 44, who lives nearby, said: The police told us she was late for a dance class and her mum was stuck in traffic, so she got out to run down the hill to her class and was hit.
I heard screaming, I thought it was her but it was her mother, she was absolutely hysterical. The most distressing thing was that a man tried to film it the accident happened and hes trying to film under the bus.
It seems to be pointless trying to explain to some of you that this officer needed to prioritise his actions, and the girl under the bus clearly took precedence over the guy with the mobile phone. For all we know he was the only officer on the scene - it's a bit difficult to arrest someone who may well turn stroppy while dealing with a fatal road accident! Some of you need to address the practicalities of the situation.
The officer did what he thought was most expedient at the time. It's open of course for this 'photographer' to complain but I bet he hasn't - and wont.
Michelle Lunney, 44, who lives nearby, said: The police told us she was late for a dance class and her mum was stuck in traffic, so she got out to run down the hill to her class and was hit.
I heard screaming, I thought it was her but it was her mother, she was absolutely hysterical. The most distressing thing was that a man tried to film it the accident happened and hes trying to film under the bus.
It seems to be pointless trying to explain to some of you that this officer needed to prioritise his actions, and the girl under the bus clearly took precedence over the guy with the mobile phone. For all we know he was the only officer on the scene - it's a bit difficult to arrest someone who may well turn stroppy while dealing with a fatal road accident! Some of you need to address the practicalities of the situation.
The officer did what he thought was most expedient at the time. It's open of course for this 'photographer' to complain but I bet he hasn't - and wont.
- Messages
- 7,422
- Name
- Not an addick!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Status