would you comply with this?

[dai_hunter]

World Naked Bike (& Skate) Ride in the UK

SATURDAY 11 JUNE 2005

 

http://www.worldnakedbikeride.org/uk/london/policy/index.html

 

THE LONDON RIDE HAS A PHOTOGRAPHY POLICY

 

"The London ride has adopted a photography policy which a) prohibits

close-ups, b) prohibits photos taken when people aren't on their

bikes/skates/transport, c) bars photos before/after the street ride

(except in a designated photo area). This policy is intended to

curtail any inconsiderate photography which might otherwise take

place. We wish to create a safe and supportive environment for all riders.

 

All photographers present at the ride must abide by this policy. Those

who do not will be asked to leave. This INCLUDES any riders OR

PRESS who take photos...." (more on line)

 

Frankly, my view is that they have absolutely no legal basis, and no

right in law or practice, to even attempt to restrict photography by

anyone, much less the press, while assembling their group, or riding,

in a public place (the streets of London). ESPECIALLY where they are

using the words "prohibited" and (their policy) "bars photography."

This was above all a public protest in a public place and thence a

newsworthy event. The rule to be enforced by who, and on what

authority... exactly?

 

The nudity issue aside, but only considering the fact that it was a

protest event held in a public place, what do you think? Even

including the nudity issue these folks chose of their own free will to

present themselves nude in public - thus there is, was, and would

never be, an issue of privacy to consider (at least in UK law). This

ISTM is a dangerous precedent.

 

Hunter

[jeff_drew4]

Gee. . . as long as the weather holds . . . :-) <p>

What "nudity issue?" <p>

I AM surprised that a group of people wants to assemble in a public place and display

themselves. Prohibiting photography strikes me as a lost cause and contrary to their

logic. Exhibitionists generally crave the attention. Naturists in a private, secluded

setting generally do not want the attention and I can respect that. <p>

Go ahead! Test the law!

[ivan_dzo]

Interesting question. Tempting event to photo as I'm sure a lot of good candids will arise. I don't see how they can enforce this, but it would be interesting to ask a policeman on the day what advice they have been given. The English police seem to be developing a habit of arresting people for suspicion of taking obscene photos. A nude event certainly puts you at risk of this charge. I've never understood why they don't arrest the person doing the obscene act rather than the photographer, but that's another question. I'd personally click away and ignore it, but might run the risk of having my photography gear confiscated for a month or so and my house and computer searched. 1984 approaches ever nearer!

[mark_gay]

It is outrageous. It is the sort of petty, tidy-minded policy I would expect from a borough council but to get this from a supposedly open-minded environmental group is absurd and worrying.

 

I propose that people protest to the names given freely on worldnakedride's website.

 

As WNR provided the following info on a public web site I am sure there will be no objection to repeating it here:

 

CONTACT US:

For photos from 2004 or to schedule interviews with riders, please contact our UK Press Officer -

 

Graham

glee194584 [at] aol.com

0795 626 1902 or from outside the UK call (+44) 795 626 1902.

 

Alternatively, contact the UK Rides Coordinator

 

Jesse

uk [at] worldnakedride.org

0781 458 7361 or from outside the UK call (+44) 781 458 7361.

 

Finally, this seems almost comedic. People who propose to parade their bodies through a city centre - which will undoubtedly offend many parents and other adults - are taking exception to photographers snapping a shot!

 

Should the bike riders perhaps get the written consent of all those they propose to expose themselves to, before they get on their bikes?

 

Mark

[Alex_Es]

One needs to establish the ramifications of any permit granted to them by the City of London.

 

If general rules regarding public events apply, I cannot see how these people can make rules on photography in a public place. And even if it is remotely possible that they can, the rules will be impossible to enforce. If photographers want close-ups of nude cyclists they will get them via extreme telephoto lenses and aerial photography.

 

This aside, it strikes me as ironic (and altogether silly) that nude people riding bicycles through the middle of London should be this puritanical regarding photography. Somehow it defeates the whole moral purpose of riding nude through London if the purpose is to express personal liberation from the public shame of nudity.

[mark_gay]

On second thoughts, I think this is the flip side of political correctness.

 

One stated aim of politically correct language is to prevent the exclusion or the offending of people because of their differences or handicaps.

 

The flip side is to impose limits on language and the range of acceptable public debate. Or, in this case, photography as another language or means of communication.

 

So why don't we want pictures here?

 

What they are saying is, "We have the right to act as we please, to get in your face and if you object to our naked ride you are just showing yourself to be square and irrelevent.

 

"But we're going to do this within the boundaries of political correctness, so no pictures of naked women and no invasion of my personal space."

 

To get philosophical, PC is about relativism - every opinion is as good as another. Photography, fixed in time and place, is the enemy of relativism. In this instance, it would identify the rider as holding specific views and could force him to stand up and justify them.

 

I think that is the objection here. It is certainly not that you ride naked but are worried about people seeing you.

 

I'm not remotely interested but I might just turn up with three shooters round my neck just to p**s them off.

 

Mark

[dai_hunter]

Mark Gay , jun 12, 2005; 09:22 a.m.

It is outrageous. It is the sort of petty, tidy-minded policy I would expect from a borough council but to get this from a supposedly open-minded environmental group is absurd and worrying....

 

I am a journalist as well but based in the north of England. Had I been in London on the day I might have been inclined to buy 10 or 20 disposables and hand them out to people on the street just to test it out... WITH A COUNTER PROTEST - LOL

 

It is more than outrageous.

 

Hunter

[mark_gay]

My mother in law is coming from the States next week.

 

I can feel a 20-pack of disposables coming on!

 

Mark

[dai_hunter]

Meanwhile in Scotland...

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3800003.stm

 

Protest cyclists opt to cover up

 

"A group of campaigners has decided against riding naked through the centre of Edinburgh to protest about Britain's reliance on petrol.

 

The group had planned to strip off and cycle through the city as part of the World Naked Bike Ride Day against oil dependency and climate change.

 

But eventually they completed their ride with their clothing on....(break in text)

 

...Police were monitoring the event and had said that any naked cyclists would be arrested for indecent exposure.

 

The protest spokesman added: "There may have been people who got naked but they quickly disappeared on arrival of the police..." "

 

-----

RE: Mark Gay

 

Ahhhhhhh, so now we know who was on the wrong side of the law. As far as London was concerned, then, the event might be viewed as merely having been tolerated (by the police). That certainly moves the photographer's right to photograph it up a notch or two.

 

Here's another view then. They were breaking the law; they knew they were breaking the law; and they were trying to prevent others, including the "press," from photographing them doing it.

 

There is the whiff of a Carry-On film storyline about this.

 

Hunter

[michael s.]

- Mother-in-law

 

- States

 

- 20 pack of disposable cameras

 

- London

 

- Naked bike ride

 

Until just now, I'd have been willing to bet a decent amount of money that one couldn't come up with a sentence, or even a paragraph, using all these words/phrases together ... other than in a work of utter fantasy or fiction.

 

And here I see I'd have lost my bet !

[mark_gay]

Hunter, you've put your finger on it

 

Erm, sorry, I mean you have identified their true concerns more succinctly than I.

 

Michael, ROTFLMAO.

 

Mark

[dai_hunter]

Mark, I just knew that I would get to the... errrr... well... sort of... the "bottom" of it, sooner or later.

 

LOL

 

Hunter<div></div>

[beatrice_flowers]

People who don't want their naked ass photographed in unflattering ways probably shouldn't take off their clothes in public. I mean how stupid can you get! It's a protest, right? That's some lilly livered protesters then; I guess they don't feel very strongly about their cause. Real protesters are willing to take severe beatings, and won't whine about if their sexy parts will look good on camera.

[bill_thorlin]

No I wouldn't comply for at least 2 reasons :-

 

1.If they are frankly stupid enough to exhibit themselves in this way then they are "fair game" and deserve whatever "exposure" they get.

 

2.I am getting seriously fed up with all the jumped-up little people who feel they can tell me what to do without any visible sign of authority so to do.(It is not just what I can do but what I must say and think)

 

I feel very inclined to hope that it is freezing cold with strong winds and large hailstones.

[steve_unsworth1]

"I feel very inclined to hope that it is freezing cold with strong winds and large hailstones."

 

So obviously this isn't the first summer you've spent in the UK.

[jeff_drew4]

As it happens, I just came across this same news item in our regional newspaper.

Apparently this demonstration is possibly going to be done in several countries to

draw attention to conservation and world issues. The "why?" of this event outweighs

their little anti-lewd photo restrictions, IMHO. I think it's pretty risque to sacrifice the

political message by being arrested for public nudity, as they may be here in the U.S.

FWIW: they could even get "life" if arrested in Texas I'll bet! Both nudity AND lewd

photographs will incense Texas lawmakers! WOW! what an idea! :-)

[icuneko]

Somebody took those cows' photo above. They're nekkid! Did anybody

get arrested for that?

[chris_waller]

The law in England is quite clear. If you are in a public place you can be photographed. If they want to ride naked that's their choice and they must accept the consequences. If the participants object to being seen naked then what the hell are they doing it for?

[bill_thorlin]

I have every sympathy with their objectives (conservation,climate change et al) but I am not sure that these sort of tactics assist in any way - if anything they are counter-productive by giving people the opportunity to ridicule them and, by association, their objectives.They then make it worse by not having the courage of their convictions ( in both senses of the word ) and seeking to limit the rights of other people.

 

In this case the ends ( I suspect mostly pretty ugly) do not justify the means.

[dai_hunter]

Well, it's Monday morning in Britain, and here is an interesting post mortem on the London nude bike ride event.

 

The BBC - right... and remember they are literally just down the street - has published several articles on the event - each one mentioning the London ride but accompanied by either photos or video of the MADRID [spain] companion event riders.

 

Methinks, but without direct evidence except the notable LACK of photos, that the regular London national and international press didn't like the photo restrictions either and just refused to give them any photo coverage.

 

The only evidence I can find that [editorial] photos were taken at all, in London, are some uncredited [and an unsorted mix of] London / Madrid images that appeared on the Times of India website. Interestingly there were also no quoted comments from the London event - tending to indicate that even on-the-scene written reportage wasn't any more extensive than a mere re-write of press releases by some AP hack.

 

If true... then something of an own goal for the protesters it seems... whose obvious objective should have been maximum "coverage of their uncoverage."

 

Did the London press corps effectively boycott the event? Enquiring minds want to know. I shall have to ask around.

 

Hunter

[mfeetham]

They just did this ride here in Toronto, on Saturday. They only had about a dozen riders. They had no signs or any display of what they were protesting. The only real public reaction was annoyance at a group of bikes blocking part of the street and the glare off so many white asses in the sun.

[george_sanderson]

Shades of Lady Godiva!

[bobatkins]

Just let me know when it's coming to New York...

[worldnakedbikeride]

Hi there. This is Jesse. I'm an amateur photographer (mostly landscape), and I'm also the 2005 London World Naked Bike Ride coordinator. I'm also a member of the planning collective that agreed to having the photo policy.

 

I noticed this thread, and I thought it would be helpful if I tried to clarify matters. This message is long, but hopefully will answer most of your questions. I hope that you will feel more welcome and less offended at the photo policy after reading this post.

 

We created the policy as one of a range of measures to create a safe enviroment and encourage new riders. We ended up with nearly 200 new riders, so the measures clearly worked.

 

It looks like this message list has gotten confused about the aims of our policy and the limitations it imposes. Just because you participate in a mass nude protest doesn't mean you are happy to be photographed close up in the nude. We asked photographers to get people's consent in order to take close ups. I'm not sure if you are legally required to do this ever, but it's clearly reasonable and friendly behaviour which most photographers would be happy to do. I speak as an experienced amateur darkroom photographer (particular interest - black and white landscape photography). If you wanted to photograph someone's baby, you would normally ask if the parent was ok with this before leaning into the baby carriage and snapping pictures. We put the policy into place because photographers at the 2004 ride were not all reasonably behaved. Certain other rides around the world have described similar problems.

 

At the ride, no photographers complained about the policy, even though quite a few knew about it. Most people DID comply with the policy - press included. We even had a 5 person documentary film crew riding/filming with the ride. They managed to comply with the policy as well even though they had 5 cameras and spent 2 hours filming us! As a result, we didn't have any of the complaints that came up last year.

 

Here's some background as to why we put the policy into place:

In 2004, nearly two dozen photographers created a very unwelcome atmosphere by surrounding and filming/photographing the female ride participants before the ride started. This was not ordinary photography, it looked more like paparazzi massing around the ladies. Some ladies didn't have much trouble with this, but others said that the photography was too much and that this would be the last time they ever participated in the ride. I have to say, as a male participant I was very unnerved by the photographers behaviour towards the women.

 

So, who were the 2004 photographers? They weren't members of the press, and they didn't seem to be pro/semi-pro photographers (all of the pros and press behaved really well in 2004). The problem photographers were a mix of tourists/ opportunists/ creeps who couldn't behave in a reasonable and agreeable manner towards the ride participants. I know it's a situation of you had to be there to know for sure what it was like, but this opinion of the photographers was widely shared by most ride participants I spoke to.

 

So what was the 2005 policy? How could we enforce it?

 

Well, first of all... it wasn't a legally binding policy. I am told that there is some privacy law that is similar to our photo policy, but we weren't basing our policy on law, it was just criteria for participation in the event as riders/observers. It was like saying "we're having a community barbeque in the park, but we have a no alcohol policy." You wouldn't call the cops if someone showed up drinking a bottle of liquor at the barbeque, but you WOULD ask them to take their drinking somewhere else.

 

We notified people of the policy on the website and on leaflets we handed out at the event. For the text of the policy, visit:

http://www.worldnakedbikeride.org/uk/london/policy/

 

Our policy was just there to encourage riders to assert themselves and feel confident that other riders/supporters would support them if they asked a photographer not to photograph in a harrassing/intrusive manner. In fact, no photographers were a big problem this time.

 

Why weren't the photographers a problem this time?

1. We had larger numbers (58 riders in 2004, and 250 riders in 2005).

2. We chose a better starting point (which allowed riders to "hide" from photos if they wanted).

3. The photo policy was in place.

 

The press took some brilliant photos (including a front page photo on the cover of the national paper The Observer). There are also some great photos by participants.

 

Here are the terrific photos which were made while there was still mass compliance with the photo policy. These photos are probably not work friendly, but they are also not particularly explicit/offensive.

 

To see some photos of the ride-

 

Participant's photos:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/bodygital

http://there.is/photos/WNBR2005

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/london/2005/06/313113.html

 

Press photos:

For the following sites do a search for "world naked bike ride"-

http://pro.corbis.com

http://editorial.gettyimages.com

http://www.flickr.com

http://www.rexfeatures.com

 

And finally, here's my brief explanation of the ride:

 

The World Naked Bike Ride in London (UK) was a tremendous success! It was an important event in London Sustainability Weeks (LSW), and national Bike Week. The police agreed to it, and even persuaded the council to allow the assembly at Wellington Arch. The public was very supportive as we rode past them, some grasped what we were protesting about, some were just delighted to witness such an astonishing sight, and some were thrilled to see our courage in expressing opposition to oil dependency.

 

The participants were from all sorts of backgrounds. Many participants said they enjoyed the protest, and that it was their first time protesting in the nude (for many it was their first time being nude outdoors).

 

The only unfortunate incident was when a driver of a very expensive car became frustrated with the protest and agressed one of the cyclists - crushing the back wheel of his bike in the process. Fortunately the cyclist was unharmed and the bike frame was ok. The driver then drove off straight away while the cyclist phoned the police. Police are now looking for the driver because crushing bicycles and driving off is neither civil conduct, nor legal.

 

The media coverage of the naked bike ride was extraordinary. We made the cover of the Observer, and were featured in 6 of the newspapers on Sunday 12 June. We appeared on numerous TV news programmes, and had countless radio interviews. Every report or photo noted that the ride was a protest against oil dependency (even the Sunday Sport and News of the World!)

 

The numbers alone indicate the ride's huge success. In 2004 the official count at the end of the ride was 58 (about a dozen people joined us on the way, so we probably started with around 45). In 2005, the official count was 212 at the start and 250 at the finish (with another independent counter confirming the LSW result). This means that we had more than 4 times the number of event participants in 2005 as we had in 2004. If we continue at this rate, we'll have the entire country participating by the end of the decade!

 

Next year's ride will probably take the same route and have the same departure time. The date will be Saturday 10 June 2006. We will again welcome photographers, but the photo policy will remain in place. Behave in a reasonable manner towards the participants, and you shouldn't have any trouble getting extraordinary photos while still complying with our policy.

 

---

 

I hope that clarifies things.

 

Cheers,

Jesse

[bill_thorlin]

To summarise then :-

 

1.You had/have no legal justification for your policy of prohibition.

 

2.You were determined on a course of action and were seeking to limit the consequences of such action.

 

The remainder is a justification of your actions.You are of course entitled to your view just as those who differ are.