. . . . ...... Right to Shoot in London

<b>. . . . ...... Right to Shoot in London !?</b><br>

 

On June 21, 2011, non-profit organization <u>Shoot Experience</u> sent out only 6 photographers to various parts of

London to see the current state of photographers’ rights.<br>

Few photographers used tripods, and others used hand held. All were instructed to keep to public land and photograph the

area as they would on a normal day. <br>

The main of that event was aimed to test the policing of public and private space by private security firms and their reaction

to photographers.<br>

You may read more <a

href="http://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/iupiv/stand_your_ground_six_photographers_test_their/">here</a>,

or watch it <a href="

<br><br>

<p>Rather than send people away to another web site, why not at least mention the general point you're trying to make? Do <em>you</em> think that the results were predictable? Do <em>you</em> think that what happened was good, or bad, or in between? Why? Otherwise you're making people go off to blind links with no context.<br /><br />Hmmm. I just took the Kombizz bait again, I guess. Dropped my guard after a couple of months.</p>

I've photographed London. Nobody bothered me. Case dismissed.

<p>This has already been posted on this forum.<br>

Just below your post is "Stand your ground," which tells the same story.<br>

It was posted yesterday.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've photographed London. Nobody bothered me. Case dismissed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why is your lone experience relevant and dispositive to the question when others encounter a different experience?</p>

<p>The responses some people make when one makes a post is getting really snotty rude and ridicules on this web site. Instead of making a helpful comment or retorting with there feelings on the subject matter it’s become a battle of wit or putting a person on some form of lower level for asking or making the comment in the first place. This is not the first post that I have noticed it on but here are a few examples of responses from this one.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>why not at least mention the general point you're trying to make?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I seem to of got it the point being:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On June 21, 2011, non-profit organization Shoot Experience sent out only 6 photographers to various parts of London to see the current state of photographers’ rights.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The first sentence of the post clearly states the point. (current state of photographers’ rights.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I've photographed London. Nobody bothered me. Case dismissed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> Case dismissed ( I guess he is the only bloke who has a say in London )</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This has already been posted on this forum. Just below your post is "Stand your ground," which tells the same story. It was posted yesterday.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>(There is some helpful info from a non mediator putting someone in there place.)<br>

I don’t mean to come of as a jerk but that is what a lot of the responses of lately sound like. Sometimes I think it may be better to make no comment at all instead of being so rude, me included now that I have probably pissed of a mediator.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've photographed London. Nobody bothered me. Case dismissed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why is your lone experience relevant and dispositive to the question when others encounter a different experience?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Because it is by far the most normal experience. Alone it means nothing (as you suggest) but in reality, just about every photograph taken in London (or anywhere else) happens with no drama whatsoever. We just hear about the very few (relatively) incidents which do occur and blow them up out of all proportion. </p>

 

<p>That may be the normal experience but obviously not the only. There are lots of freedoms that people ordinarily exercise that encounter undue prohibition. For instance the U.S. freedom of speech. Someone may not have had it restricted but it doesn't mean its not an important and existing issue. As to photography, much of it, like typical tourist photography, goes unfettered. Other types may encounter more resistance. That becomes a legitimate issue of concern.</p>

<p>Craig: Kombizz has a long history of lobbing posted links to external destinations without providing any further context or even re-engaging in the thread once he does so. It's good form, when you steer traffic away from this site, to provide a little insight into <em>why</em> one think it's worth having PN's members go off and read something. There's been lots of grousing about this sort of thing in the past, and for good reason. If you weren't around for seeing ten of those in a row, creating threads to which the OP rarely returns or contributes, you'd understand. Cetainly the OP does, and really doesn't care.<br /><br />And he certainly didn't care enough to (as the PN guidelines require, and Richard noted) check for other people having posted on exactly the same topic. If your sense is that I'm snotty in my replies to people, please check a few thousand more comments, first. One of the most important social graces on sites like this is having the decency to return to your own threads. If it's a question, and people answer, it's polite to answer clarifying questions and to thank the answerers. If it's <em>not</em> a question (and Kombizz's posts just about never are), and especially if the purpose of the post is to send people away from this web site, it's polite to make the post <em>itself</em> interesting and informative in a self-contained way, referring to that outside information as a reference/link. That is not the OP's style, and moderators have nicely asked him, repeatedly, to think about that more constructively. In this thread, he's deliberately requiring readers to leave in order to find out the only thing that matters (the results of the test, or at least a general observation about them). <br /><br />My original response is in <em>that</em> context, which I can understand not being obvious to anyone but the OP, and to people who've seen dozens and dozens of such threads launched by him.</p>

<p>Matt, First I would like to make a public apology to you for suggesting that you were being rude or snotty. I did not have a full understanding of the situation at hand with the original poster nor is it any of my business to be involved in such. I am not trying to be a suck up, am just being a man and admitting were I was wrong in making an assumption without merit. Also thanks for fixing the typo on my earlier post.<br>

John you’re latter response also makes a lot of sense and I do agree with you. I guess the case dismissed thing kind of seemed a little harsh. But again I think there is a situation here with the original poster that is non of my business and I should keep my nose in my own house.<br>

Again I hope I have not offended anyone and will defiantly keep my post photography related in the future, to avoid being an ass.</p>

<p>Not at all, Craig. I can't complain about context-less posts, and then get cranky if someone complains about <em>my</em> comment (which didn't explain its own historical context, for those who haven't before been on planet Kombizz). Truly, not to worry. All most people want here is constructive, congenial, collegial carrying on - and I'm certainly not beyond occasional tone-deaf remarks! I've made plenty.</p>

<p>I photographed in London for 10 days a few years ago, all over the central part of London (inside the Circle Line) and never once was I harassed or asked any questions at all. Had a D300 with a zoom lens attached. Very nice city, nice people, will visit again. </p>