Petition.

No. Because it won't make an ounce of difference.
 
QUOTE: We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Remove new restrictions on photography in public places

The problem with the wording here is that as far as the letter of the law is concerned, there are not that many restrictions on photography in public places.

A better subject for a petition would be to ensure police forces trained their officers properly in what the existing laws are actually for.




Steve.
 
no i will not sign....
as i do not agree with the amended (none) wording, but a agree with the priciple.

it's easy to say something is wrong - it is less easy to put in place a better well thought out suggestion
 
D.R.H. said:
So you advocate doing absolutely nothing at all, then?
Click to expand...

Yep. Pretty much.

I dont think this is any different to those sodding FaceBook petitions either: "Sign this! Get St Georges Day for a Bank Holiday lolz"

Ive never known anything like this make a difference, so I wont waste my time. This isnt a dig at the OP, just my opinion :)
 
Have you got any good examples of when doing 'absolutely nothing', ever changed anything?
 
When it comes down to it the only thing that makes a difference is your vote. Petitions like this can highlight peoples concerns if done properly but this one is badly worded and ill thought out and should be ignored.
 
D.R.H. said:
Have you got any good examples of when doing 'absolutely nothing', ever changed anything?
Click to expand...

I'll give you one last year we planted a tree in our garden since then we've done absolutly nothing and the tree has changed its grew bigger and better and therefore this is a good example.

As this is a photography forum i will gladly take pictures of the said tree if needed:thumbs:


Dave:D
 
A better subject for a petition would be to ensure police forces trained their officers properly in what the existing laws are actually for.


+1
 
Have you got any good examples of when doing 'absolutely nothing', ever changed anything?
Click to expand...

{welcome to TP}

who said anything about doing nothing? - deciding not to vote for a poorly worded petition that no one is going to take notice of is just that - not wasting time on that version of the many that are listed here and elsewhere.

write a good one and submit it in a way that works and you will get mine (and many on TP) vote...


The police have a hard job to do and one way to make a change is to be direct. Last Monday we did a young kids race in a town centre (photos on my website as proof) I found where the police were that were controlling the traffic etc - and i spoke to them (around 7 of them) just after they had had their team brief and TOLD them i would be taking photos - gave them flyers of my website and informed them where they could get all my details (at the registration for the event) - result lots of photos of the kids doing the race - police happy - parents happy - race organiser happy - us happy....

its not about doing nothing its about doing things that work...
 
Studio16 said:
I'll give you one last year we planted a tree in our garden since then we've done absolutly nothing and the tree has changed its grew bigger and better and therefore this is a good example.

Dave:D
Click to expand...

Well at least the tree is doing something. How miffed would you have been, if it did absolutely nothing, didn't grow, didn't flower, didn't change?
 
These Downing St petitions achieve nothing except conning a few folk into believing that the gov is prepared to listen to the public.
 
I signed on of those e-petitions, about a shooting matter. It had a few hundred thousand signatures if I remember correctly, and did it make even the slightest ounce of difference? The hell it did.

It's a good way of convincing the voting public that the government listen to us, and actually care. I would love to hear from ANYONE who has got the government to change ANYTHING through this site! Cynical, maybe, but it's just the way I feel!

Chris
 
Hi all,

Apologies to the late responses after my first reply to this post, I have been away this weekend.

Like many others it is the wording that I feel makes this petition weak and not worth signing.

However my opinion on petitions are such that a lower levels they work fine, to local councils etc etc. I have seen many in my local area taken into consideration and acted on. But at a high level like this, I can't see that a magic list of names is going to change things. Sure, it may make the gov aware that people are unhappy about it, but that is already fairly obvious.

A bit more common sense from boths sides is needed. We need to to bear in mind that the cops doing the legwork are merely under instruction and doing thier job, whilst a few cases of rude and difficult officers have been highlightedthrough various channels we still need to grin and bear it, and be civil and co-operative.

On the flip side, the Police and powers that be need to realis that there are such things as tourists, hobbyists etc etc and also apply a little common sense.

Whislt we hear all the horror stories of people being stopped, searched, moved on, given a hard time and pictures being deleted, we never seem to hear of the instances of freindly, chatty coppers coming to have a quick check to see what your up too.
Is that because it doesn't happen or becuase it doesn't make a newspaper story? :shurg: who knows...

My main point being, rather than fight each others causes, we surely need to work together. That can only come through talking to each other and understanding the two sides positions on the argument. A list of names on paper won't acheive that.

All simply my opinions, and Dee, Facebook petitions are a real PITA!! :lol:

Rob
 
What else do you think we do then, take pictures???? :thinking: :lol::lol::lol:
 
sportysnaps said:
The police have a hard job to do and one way to make a change is to be direct. Last Monday we did a young kids race in a town centre (photos on my website as proof) I found where the police were that were controlling the traffic etc - and i spoke to them (around 7 of them) just after they had had their team brief and TOLD them i would be taking photos - gave them flyers of my website and informed them where they could get all my details (at the registration for the event) - result lots of photos of the kids doing the race - police happy - parents happy - race organiser happy - us happy....

its not about doing nothing its about doing things that work...
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. There are too many people here who seem to think the answer is to stick together and be obstructive to the police. Does anyone see anything wrong in working with them to gain trust and understanding? If they have not had the right training or have problems remembering the word of the law (I suspect there are rather a lot of different laws they need to memorise so I think they can be forgiven if details get forgotten) then we need to be talking to them to make sure they do understand.

If all photographers did that then these anti terrorist laws would not be an issue for us. It's the childish parranoia that is our obsticle.
 
The problem here is that the petition is misleading. The following:

making it illegal to take a photograph of a police office, military personnel or member of the intelligence services - or a photograph which "may be of use for terrorism".
Click to expand...

is misleading. It implies that it is illegal just to take a photograph of a police officer, which is not the case. The actual text from section 76 is as follows:

Offences relating to information about members of armed forces etc

(1) After section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (collection of information) insert—
“58A Eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of armed forces etc

(1) A person commits an offence who—

(a) elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been—

(i) a member of Her Majesty’s forces,

(ii) a member of any of the intelligence services, or

(iii) a constable,

which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or

(b) publishes or communicates any such information.

(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine, or to both;

(b) on summary conviction—

(i) in England and Wales or Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;

(ii) in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.

(4) In this section “the intelligence services” means the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ (within the meaning of section 3 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 (c. 13)).

(5) Schedule 8A to this Act contains supplementary provisions relating to the offence under this section.”.

(2) In the application of section 58A in England and Wales in relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) the reference in subsection (3)(b)(i) to 12 months is to be read as a reference to 6 months.

(3) In section 118 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) (defences), in subsection (5)(a) after “58,” insert “58A,”.

(4) After Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 insert the Schedule set out in Schedule 8 to this Act.
Click to expand...

It doesn't even mention photography, just eliciting information. :shrug:
 
AndyB said:
I agree 100%. There are too many people here who seem to think the answer is to stick together and be obstructive to the police. Does anyone see anything wrong in working with them to gain trust and understanding? If they have not had the right training or have problems remembering the word of the law (I suspect there are rather a lot of different laws they need to memorise so I think they can be forgiven if details get forgotten) then we need to be talking to them to make sure they do understand.

If all photographers did that then these anti terrorist laws would not be an issue for us. It's the childish parranoia that is our obsticle.
Click to expand...

The link http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...face_wider_anti_terror_curbs_news_281398.html is on about 60,000 volunteers (not full time police officers) looking out for anybody with a camera, zoom lens, and taking pictures overtly, does this sound like you?

If so, no doubt you'll have infinite patients when one of these 60,000 busybodies starts giving you grieve over taking pictures, Yeah!

After all, 'they' will have been on a 3 hour course!
 
I'm sure the cabinet takes the ePetitions into very serious consideration in their meetings.....

I don't sign these things because they are a total waste of time, a way for people to think they are changing things without anybody having to pay them any attention.

If you object to policy, write to your MP.

If you wanted to be more serious about it, why not try to arrange a meeting with a minister and some carefully elected representatives of TP, and sit down and have a frank but open discussion to air your views and hear what they have to say.
 
fabs said:
It doesn't even mention photography, just eliciting information. :shrug:
Click to expand...

'Eliciting information', is a vague term used as a 'catch all'. Whether you use photos, draw sketches, collect information by word of mouth, or by any other means, it's all covered by 'eliciting information'.

It doesn't need to cite 'photography' directly, it's covered, like it or not.
 
If I were to believe the contents of that petition, I'd best hand myself in - go directly to Guantanamo (or wherever they send people when it closes). I have in my possession several photos of police constables.

But that's not what the law is about now, is it? What use is a random photo of an unnamed constable to a terrorist? None whatsoever. As quoted above, photography isn't even mentioned.

I've voted on a few No. 10 petitions. The best I've got is a response claiming to be from the PM but most likely from a junior secretary. Still, if its a worthwhile petition I might put my name to it. This one isn't - it's just misguided. Betty is spot on.
 
D.R.H. said:
'Eliciting information', is a vague term used as a 'catch all'. Whether you use photos, draw sketches, collect information by word of mouth, or by any other means, it's all covered by 'eliciting information'.

It doesn't need to cite 'photography' directly, it's covered, like it or not.
Click to expand...

So you comment on the small bit at the end of my post, but ignore the major part that completely debunks the core statement of the petition? :shrug:
 
fabs said:
It doesn't even mention photography, just eliciting information. :shrug:
Click to expand...

So you now agree it doesn't need to specify 'photography', yeah?

The law is open to 'interpretation', just like the wording of the petition. The law itself will only be more defined when it gets tested in court.

If you are talking pictures of the police doing their job and they don't like it for whatever reason, they could/might 'interpret' section 76 as a means to prevent you from doing so. Are you willing to argue your case over the finer points of section 76, to a couple of burly cops who are clearly having a bad day. Yes/no?

It all boils down to interpretation, by the police, public, and more importantly the judiciary.

The law might be well intentioned, but it's how it's interpreted at street level that effects us all, and could be open to misuse by certain individuals.
 
And for the second time you completely miis the point. You are asking people to sign a petition that is misleading in that it misquotes the act itself.

And yes, I am willing to point out to a couple of coppers if they were misinterpreting the act. I would make a point of doing it in a civil and polite way and if I was still unhappy with the outcome I would follow the complaints procedure.
 
fabs said:
You are asking people to sign a petition
Click to expand...

A classic case of miss interpretation, at what point did I state, 'sign this petition'?

My original post simply said;-

Anybody interested in signing this?

I was expecting a few yes and no answers. What I got was a long thread banging on about precise wording and the futility of it all. 99.9% in the negative.
 
D.R.H. said:
A classic case of miss interpretation, at what point did I state, 'sign this petition'?

My original post simply said;-

Anybody interested in signing this?

I was expecting a few yes and no answers. What I got was a long thread banging on about precise wording and the futility of it all. 99.9% in the negative.
Click to expand...

You posted a link to a petition asking if people were interested in signing it. Then you went on to challenge those who said that they weren't. Sounds to me like you were wanting people to sign it. It has been pointed out that the wording on the petition is misleading, which it is. This in effect makes the petition worthless.

If you were just expecting yes and no answers then it was pointless starting a thread on here as t would have become pretty boring quite quickly.
 
D.R.H. perhaps you should try a being a volunteer and see the kind of pressure they deal with - all for no pay. Society today means they have a tough job trying to protect you and your family and there are always going to be areas of confusion. I think sometimes we need to be more understanding of things from their side.

If you disrespect them then you are not going find you get the most reasonable treatment are you?

There's a better solution to a pettition and that is for photographers to be more grown up about their place in this 'civilised' world and try to understand why they might be seen as a threat under certain circumstances.
 
AndyB said:
There's a better solution to a pettition and that is for photographers to be more grown up about their place in this 'civilised' world and try to understand why they might be seen as a threat under certain circumstances.
Click to expand...

Quite right Andy! We should all grow up! As there is absolutely nothing at all to worry about, as far as this new ill-conceived law is concerned.

Or is there?

Austin Mitchell, MP seems to think so.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=52309

Sticky thread, with over 400 replies. Why are they wasting their time? They should 'get a grip' and 'grow up'. Lol :clap:
 
Steep said:
When it comes down to it the only thing that makes a difference is your vote. Petitions like this can highlight peoples concerns if done properly but this one is badly worded and ill thought out and should be ignored.
Click to expand...

And no doubt will be by the goverment!
Wayne
 
I'm actually quite interested in this and will later try to get onto one of the courses close to me

If I manage, and obviously manage to go too, I'll report after the event - though it's looking for me like June earliest

DD
 
I think I might go into business taking photographs of suspicious looking photographers and sell the pictures to the police ;)
 
D.R.H. said:
Quite right Andy! We should all grow up! As there is absolutely nothing at all to worry about, as far as this new ill-conceived law is concerned.

Or is there?

Austin Mitchell, MP seems to think so.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=52309

Sticky thread, with over 400 replies. Why are they wasting their time? They should 'get a grip' and 'grow up'. Lol :clap:
Click to expand...

And yet you still haven't responded to certain points raisedin THIS thread, hmmm? :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top