Should Photography be banned?

Question

In public places.
Our prime minister is trying to ban photography in public places this means no more photos of your kids out playing visiting the zoo or on thier bikes.

Should this ban go ahead and y.

If like me you think it is terrible
sign the petition at the address below.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Photography/

Answer 1

Blair wouldn't ban it it it had wheels then he could tax you more money like the motorists and he cannot ban your photo's they are fantastic xxx

Answer 2

There have been various moves in the UK over the past few years to try and limit photography. The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone was going to put notices up all over the place warning parents of the alleged dangers of people with cameras, but was forced to back down because of the outcry. There have been well reported stories of people having been arrested in London and in the Royal Parks for taking photographs. As someone who ocassionly takes photographs on railway stations, I am aware that there have been problems with that, although a code of conduct to be observed by the photographers and railway companies and transport police has been published see:-http://www.btp.police.uk/railenthusiasts.html). Some schools have banned both still and video photography and this shows the nub of the problem here. it is nothing to do with terrorism, but ll about the perceived problems with paedophiles. If you want to take pictures in the UK, do so without being worried. BUT don't try to take pictures of children. You will face problems and abuse and possibly even arrest.

However, I don't believe that the Government want to licence amateur photographers - I think that this is just a scare!

(Later) Yes it is. The whole petition has been caused by a misunderstanding. For full details see here:- http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/No10_petition_fuels_photo_rights_confusion_news_110568.html

And to the person who thinks the UK is the only country where you have to pay for a TV licence - WRONG! Many countries operate the same system, including Germany, The Netherlands did until quite recently, but decided collection through Income Tax was cheaper. You also pay in countries such as Pakistan and Ghana - though in the latter it's about 17p a year! see:- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6241013.stm

Answer 3

I am not a citizen of the UK but, I can say as an American with the freedom of expression in the constitution we have, it offends me and if it happened here in this country, we would all be screaming that it is unconstitutional for sure! I can't sign the potition because I am not a citizen of the UK but I do express that I do not understand such a ban. Yet, I would be careful that you are not so quick to judge also, maybe there is a reason they are proposing the ban. Maybe it is out of fear for the children in your country. Maybe it is some weird way they feel it would help the fight against terrorism or something. I would read ujp on it and even ask your politicle representatives about it. If I were a citizen in the UK then yes I would sign the petition and start asking questions. Here in the United States we have an open door policy with all of our government elected officials. Good luck,.

Answer 4

Rather than prohibit photography, he should encourage photography. A would-be criminal or terrorist does NOT want his/her photo taken, and the more people out taking photos, the more likely that the person with nefarious intentions would be photographed by a hobbyist or some vacationer snapping away. I am reminded of the horrendous subway bombing where the authorities were able to see the events as they occurred because civilians immediately took out their cell 'phones and started snapping away images AND some of the perpetrators' images were caught on surveillance cameras! I am also thinking of the police personnel that have been photographed abusing civilians... is that, perhaps, what this Prime Minister is afraid of?

That Prime Minister is really out of touch with the benefits of modern technology.

Answer 5

I have not heard this! Good grief, the tourism industry is set for a huge dive if this ever takes effect. No more photos with the Opera House, or Harbour Bridge or Ulurru, or hey! The Big Banana, The Big Prawn, The Big Apple all those corny photos of friends and families laughing and generally having a good time. Surely, the world has gone truly mad.
Stop the world. I want to get off.

Answer 6

The law is certainly ludicrous, and is just another illustration of post 9/11 paranoia. Although some would think such legal proposals are immune from U.S. law but let me remind you that in 2005 lawmakers tried to ammend an article to the Patriot act that would make it a federal crime to photograph or videotape in areas deemed sensitive to national security: bridges, garages, warehouses etc. Of course the article goes on to say that it would only be a federal crime if the pictures were indeed used to aid in a terrorist attack. However, if the law were passed I could certainly immagine certain overly protective homeland security guards confiscating film or demanding pictures being deleted of such places as the golden gate bridge. And on the Subject of San Francisco, they have already deemed certain areas like subways or transit systems off limits to photography(they really do enforce this law as I was approached by the BART police and was asked to stop taking photos of my friends kid or have my film confiscated) so it wouldn't be such a jump for them to enforce a ban on taking photos of the bay bridge or golden gate bridge.

Answer 7

No. This is an insane over-reaction to the terrorist attacks and just gives in to what they want. Just last night, here in the United States, my local police told me I could take pictures from a local bridge. I was practicing photos with long exposures and was on the sidewalk so I wasn't impeding anything. The policeman was bascially an idiot and could not grasp what I was doing. I didn't want to deal with the trouble so I just left but I will be informing city hall on Monday morning.

Answer 8

It's not a total ban. They want people to have an ID card. That does seem a bit extreme.

I tend to doubt such a law will pass or does Illford have no clout. Does Kodak have no clout. Sony, Nikon, Canon, Agfa, Fuji.

What will all the Japanese toursts do with their cameras!

Of course, unlike the REST of the WORLD the UK does require you to get a license to own a TV set.

It's your own fault for spelling things wrong. It's COLOR not COLOUR!

Answer 9

what next. without photography how would we know what criminals, killers, people on here that are contacting us. anyone could say they were. someone else . are probably hiding from something. not wanting pictures taken of them, this world would be in a mess . even though no pictures. all nationalities could claim to be someone else. how would we know what the politicians look like, the president. ooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh no if this is stopped what next. people should be ablu to take pictures of their family out side in public, parks , games, fairs. etc. not for people to take nude pictures.

Answer 10

That's being a tyrant! This law won't last very long if it ever comes to light, I guarantee you.