would you comply with this?

[keith_halsey]

As a long standing photographer of many years experience in London UK I feel like adding some observations to this debate.:The policy on photography in fraught situations in the UK has never been black or white.For instance in the 1970s Police routinely would seize onlookers cameras in Kings Road Punk demos open the backs on the pretext of searching them,rip out the film and chuck it.Dont know if this was "nice"or "legal"?But as far as I know complaints were not effective.In those days to photograph something like that was still fairly rare for an ordinary Joe and considered a bit "odd".Also most cameras accessible to teens/ordinary folks were absolute garbage.Many wouldnt take pictures below 2.0 F!We talk here os Kodak instamatics and the like.One of the reasons that public photography is becoming a huge issue is because 1)Cheap Digi Cams with huge ranges make everyone and his dog equipped for surveillance very cheaply and easily.2)In the UK the Govt started it with all their CCTV cams.Digi cams and mobile phone cams are the citizens CCTV.3)The camera is a potent weapon as long as the photos are accepted ina court of law.4)Increasingly in the UK although its technically legal to photo people in public places the law is being directed in petty ways to discourage public photgraphy.Hence cases of peeping toms featuring prominently on the national news.Many of these are very trivial and open to questionable interpretation-is a camera on a stairway 4cm under a skirt hem"voyeurism"?Does a woman have right not to expect "creeps and pervs"looking up her 18"micro suede mini skirt?What is in denial here is (male)human sexuality.The male human responds to the sight of a naked female appropriately,erection,urge to mount,leer,that is because the sight of a pretty naked female is hypnotising and beautiful even in wickedly so.What these people(Cyclists) are expecting is males will deny this heterosexuality and self censor themselves(ie not take photos)and they are trying to make the point in their confused fuzzy logic sort of way that lechery is wrong or morally questionable.They are right.But do they need to strip off and wiggle their bits in peoples faces to prove it?Their hatred and absolute paranoia of what they call "creeps and perverts"is truly narrow minded.No love here.These are the "no single males","lynch and castrate"brigade on their bikes!I do not think these folks really believe they will not be photographed.I think they are just bored and play this little game for something to do and something to carp about "oooo look theres a perv behind that wall-get them!!!!"In a way they are acting decoy to encourage "pervs""out"from their "hiding places"so they can confront them in public.For pervs are sneaky and they cannot be recognised any other way perhaps?To conclude you cannot have a nude bike ride and no "voyeurs",male erections and peeping.Its a lost cause like King Canute trying to stop the tide!

[worldnakedbikeride]

That last post... I disagree with it, but I'm truly speechless. The photo policy has worked well in the last two years and cut down the number of problematic incidents that didn't resolve well to just 3 that we've heard of (even though there were 250 riders in 2005 and 800 in 2006). The photographs on the internet show happy riders who aren't upset, so I think the policy worked well. We welcome all photographers who have good behaviour. It's a wonderfully photogenic event! In spite of criticism on this board, we'll continue with the policy, but there are slight updates as you can see:

 

http://wiki.worldnakedbikeride.org/index.php?title=London#Photography_and_filming_policy

[keith_halsey]

Well Herre Jesse Schust,All I can say is that because of your use of the words "pervert","creep"and characterisation sinsisterly of normal healthy adult males indulging in a bit of private thought fantasy and harmless self stimulation I have been put right off your ride!I did have initial sympathy for it.The ride so far has not had any trouble but riding through the largest city in Europe naked might spark some from less well educated amongst the bystanders eg.violent closet homosexual aggressors,true mental nutcases,batty women with umbrellas et al.The whole thing has the makings of sparks of conflict.Additionally one otehr very important point.I was reading an old interview with Stengl-the 70 year old Concentration Commander of Treblinka before he died.In it he states how when watching the crowds of naked prisoners being herded to the gas chambers he perceived them as non humans due to their nakedness and lost all empathy consequently.Both naked men and women were herded,not on bicycles granted,up a "tube(tunnel)"with whips to the gas chamber area.The nakedness allowed the guards to regard them as "non-human".Could not the same feeling be sparked in clothed onlookers

of your followers?If trouble did break out and say a nudie was attacked would the clothed(textiles as I believe they are called)photographers and bystanders come to the nudies aid or just stand and gawp?You might well want to ponder this question as its a very good one.the nakedness creates an us and them.Are you not bringing down public esteem for the participants to the point where they just cut off from the nude "freaks"or treat them as chimpanzees ina circus?Eh?