Tim Newman

To be honest, in that second clip, he comes across as a bit of a pillock, not a legend.
 
Digifrog said:
IMO, the guy is a legend.
Click to expand...


Legend - 1.
a nonhistorical or unverifiable story handed down by tradition from earlier times and popularly accepted as historical.

Hardly.

No idea of the run up to the first video (over a year ago) so no comment.
He is a total dick in the 2nd and the copper did well to not just tell him to take a hike.
 
He seems a bit of a knob, comply and you'll have no issues... simple!
 
Ya, the policeman in the 2nd vid was polite and was doing what he believed to be right, fair play to him.

There are many instances though in other videos where Tim is just "standing up for himself" in what can only be described as an unjust and unreasonable situation.
 
As said, a lot of these "anti-police" videos start as the police arrive, never before so you have no idea what the person videoing has done to call on such attention.

In my experience, most coppers are absolutely fine IF you are polite and respectful back. You act like a know it all **** and you're only going to get their backs up, they are human, not robots, it's obviously going to annoy them
 
Harvey_nikon said:
As said, a lot of these "anti-police" videos start as the police arrive, never before so you have no idea what the person videoing has done to call on such attention.

In my experience, most coppers are absolutely fine IF you are polite and respectful back. You act like a know it all **** and you're only going to get their backs up, they are human, not robots, it's obviously going to annoy them
Click to expand...

Is it about "anti police" or is it about standing up for yourself and acting within your rights?

This guy for example has exercised his rights and to stand up to what seems like unreasonable actions by authorities and as he sees it, the erosion of rights of freedom in this country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=hAUan2DXBsk
 
Last edited:
Here we go, another 'rights' hero.

I don't get the fascination with it, and most of these people go out looking for a confrontation and are far from polite and co operative. they always get high and mighty over the fact that they have spent 10 mins on google reading various laws and take it out on people who are just trying to do their jobs to the best of their ability.

Complete and utter pillocks in my opinion, I wouldn't want to be associated with them.

There are some genuine ones though, but they are few and far between. This guy however is not one of them.
 
Digifrog said:
IMO, the guy is a legend. Standing up for photographers rights but sometimes puts himself into the thick of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_tSre3Tz5c&list=UUK4l21b4184h4NLtQtaUt8w&index=204&feature=plcp

Ameteur journalism at its best.
Click to expand...

If legend = idiot then I agree with you ... but somehow I doubt we see this the same way.

And just so we are clear about this, he is not standing up for photographers rights - you cannot stand up for rights which do not exist - because photographeres have no more (or less) rights than any other member of the public.

This guy gets stopped and harrassed so often I can only deduce that he gets himself into those situations deliberately. On the basis of the videos that he publishes himself I would have thought that a DPP lawyer could establich enough evidence to have him charged with wasting police time.

I, for one, wouldn't be sorry to see him get his come-upance :)
 
He does seem to get into trouble with the law but in the first video they stated a section 60 which I just googled

Section 60 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, gives police the right to search people in a defined area at a specific time when they believe, with good reason, that: there is the possibility of serious violence; or that a person is carrying a dangerous object or offensive weapon; or that an incident involving serious violence has taken place and a dangerous instrument or offensive weapon used in the incident is being carried in the locality. This law has to be authorised by a senior officer and is used mainly to tackle football hooliganism and gang fights.


Either he was doing something really dodgy or the police were talking crap and just wanted him to stop filming. Guess we'll never know.
 
Bristolian said:
If legend = idiot then I agree with you ... but somehow I doubt we see this the same way.

And just so we are clear about this, he is not standing up for photographers rights - you cannot stand up for rights which do not exist - because photographeres have no more (or less) rights than any other member of the public.

This guy gets stopped and harrassed so often I can only deduce that he gets himself into those situations deliberately. On the basis of the videos that he publishes himself I would have thought that a DPP lawyer could establich enough evidence to have him charged with wasting police time.

I, for one, wouldn't be sorry to see him get his come-upance :)
Click to expand...

Hi Steve, your first comment is fair enough, not everyone agrees to this style of "in your face" activism. Tim is an activist and I say fair play to him.

The rest of your statement is slightly off the mark imho. I don´t think anyone is making any distinction of whose rights are at play, photographers are normal people, like anyone else as you say and all our rights are equal.

I think the bottom line here is one should be free to photograph anything they choose (as long as one is on public land) without question or confrontation from security, police or anyone else for that matter. that is the point. However, for myself being altruistic I think understanding the concerns of said security or police should be considered and acted upon accordingly, it's just I understand why some of us act in the way that we do. I feel indifferent about their action tbh, it's their life, it's their 8 hours spent in a police station only to be released without charge.

I think what gets up these activist photographers noses is the ever decreasing sense of freedom and unreasonable actions by some authorities and pseudo authorities, and I would agree that their attitude probably doesn't do them any favours, but that is up to them.

Myself I would act sensibly but I would retain my privacy if that is my right.
 
Total Priks!!! all of these so called youtube rights activists deliberately put themselves in these situations for the sole purpose of causing a scene to attract the attention of the police.. then they deliberately irritate everyone involved spouting about infringes on their personal rights.. Guy's nobody gives a flying duck about how you have been man handled! You care only about your youtube ratings otherwise you would be out filming and documenting real humanitarian disasters and human rights tragedies.. these idiots deserve all that they get in my opinion and should be fined for wasting police time.
 
I wonder how many thousands of people filmed and photographed these places just fine without any hassle from the security or police what so ever????

Act like an childish idiot = get treated like one! period.
 
Digifrog said:
I think the bottom line here is one should be free to photograph anything they choose (as long as one is on public land) without question or confrontation from security, police or anyone else for that matter. that is the point.
Click to expand...

I agree and while I have only been into photography for a short time most of my shooting is photographing whatever I fancy on public land (including many shots of people, buildings etc,.) and not once have I ever been confronted.

So are these 'legends' just unlucky or are they deliberately provoking it?
If they really care about rights should they not be getting to the parts of the world where the word 'rights' doesn't even exist and trying to make a real difference? That would make them a legend.
 
Digifrog said:
I don´t think anyone is making any distinction of whose rights are at play, ...
Click to expand...

Actually Scott, you did in your opening post ... "Standing up for photographers rights"
 
Its alway a hard one theses thread,some feel he standing up for his rights,some that he is a prick :(

Me i think we can learn a lot from history,i wonder if people years ago thought that Sophie Scholl,was a hero or a prick.
 
Dan_H said:
He does seem to get into trouble with the law but in the first video they stated a section 60 which I just googled

Section 60 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, gives police the right to search people in a defined area at a specific time when they believe, with good reason, that: there is the possibility of serious violence; or that a person is carrying a dangerous object or offensive weapon; or that an incident involving serious violence has taken place and a dangerous instrument or offensive weapon used in the incident is being carried in the locality. This law has to be authorised by a senior officer and is used mainly to tackle football hooliganism and gang fights.

Either he was doing something really dodgy or the police were talking crap and just wanted him to stop filming. Guess we'll never know.
Click to expand...

The clue is in the date when the film was taken. There was a Sect 60 in force over most of London that day.
 
The 'legend' is the policeman who calmly and politely wastes his time dealing with a bunch of argumentative children spoiling for a reaction :thumbs:

Tim Newman? Not so much :thumbsdown:

It's 'legends' such as Mr Newman who create a stigma for the rest of us IMO :shake:
 
I'm sorry but in my eye's this guy is an utter fool (not what I want to say) he is doing nothing here to further the rights of the photographer, which itself is a bit of a misnomer as photographers have no rights more or less than any member of the public, he is not a champion of photographers all he and people like him do us get the backs of security and police up, have them on the defensive from the very beginning, only a few weeks ago when at a local hospital the air ambulance came in so I grabbed my camera to get a few shot's sure enough I was approched by a couple of guards, they asked what I was doing and I told them, they said fair enough and when on there way, the same with all but one encounter I had with the police

on the first video we have no idea what went on initially, policed don't come over and just grab you like that...

Matt
MWHCVT
 
THis guy sounds like an argumentative 17 year old just out of a sociology class. All for photographers documenting interactions with police, but i have to agree with the opinion that he comes across as a grade a kn*b..
 
Digifrog said:
IMO, the guy is a legend. Standing up for photographers rights but sometimes puts himself into the thick of it.
Click to expand...

Digifrog said:
Ya, the policeman in the 2nd vid was polite and was doing what he believed to be right, fair play to him.

There are many instances though in other videos where Tim is just "standing up for himself" in what can only be described as an unjust and unreasonable situation.
Click to expand...


I think that you need to take off your rose tinted spectacles for a bit.

Newman is a professional activist and doesn't actually give a stuff about ' photographers' rights'. As long as he complain about the State ( or anything not remotely left wing enough) he'll be there. In short, he's a grade A cock.

Digifrog said:
Is it about "anti police" or is it about standing up for yourself and acting within your rights?
Click to expand...

Yes it is about being anti-police.
 
I would also love for their to be no need for laws or the policing (heavy handed or not) of them but we are a billion miles away from that...
 
DemiLion said:
The clue is in the date when the film was taken. There was a Sect 60 in force over most of London that day.
Click to expand...

Haha.

Hadn't noticed that. Well in that case the bloke was being a berk!

Police are bound to be on edge on days like that so why not just cooperate and not be antagonistic.

I think unless you are being an arse then you shouldn't need to spout about photographers rights etc as police arent all idiots and would just ignore you or take a general interest but that's about it. Better things to do with their time I reckon!
 
DemiLion said:
I think that you need to take off your rose tinted spectacles for a bit.

Newman is a professional activist and doesn't actually give a stuff about ' photographers' rights'. As long as he complain about the State ( or anything not remotely left wing enough) he'll be there. In short, he's a grade A cock.

Yes it is about being anti-police.
Click to expand...

This^ except 'left wing':thinking:

Anti Authority thinkng is as much a right wing issue as left wing. As you'll know the modern governments who are intrusive and heavy haded tend to be baddged 'left' whilst 'progressive' libertarian governments tend to be considered 'right wing'. But heavy handed policing is almost always considered 'fascistic':cuckoo: as if communist regimes had soft and fluffy police forces.

OT but it shows how much traditional views of 'left' and 'right' are completely outdated.

Back on topic - the guy's clearly a knob. And I'm a supporter of modern direct action type politics.:shrug:
 
The left wing comment was specifically about Newman, Phil. Read his website! :)
 
and as I said earlier, if he really cares about rights there are much bigger fish to fry and he should get himself to a country where most of the people wouldn't even know what rights are because they have never had any!
Poor me, I get told off by the police when I provoke them taking photos. At least he is not in jail for writing a poem which may not fully support the government...
 
DemiLion said:
The left wing comment was specifically about Newman, Phil. Read his website! :)
Click to expand...

i cant find his website, the youtube channel is full of Police behaving badly:thinking:

its odd, he's seen more of that in a few years than i have in nearly 50, and I lived through the Miners strike and Poll tax demo's.:shrug:
 
Phil V said:
i cant find his website, the youtube channel is full of Police behaving badly:thinking:

its odd, he's seen more of that in a few years than i have in nearly 50, and I lived through the Miners strike and Poll tax demo's.:shrug:
Click to expand...

Go and read the Utube blurb again! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top