yet another blog

Who remembers this little tale? Of course you do! Cos it was only a couple of days back that I was rumbling on about it.

About how our local Council plans on spending shedloads of public money on a snooping system for use outside schools in the area. In the hope of catching motorists parking illegally who thereby, so the Council claims, endanger the lives of the schoolkids.

(It’s always and inevitably the motorists’ fault of course. When I was a kid I was taught how to behave safely near roads. But that’s another matter entirely. And best I don’t get started on all the other things kids were taught in those days… that no-one seems to have heard about nowadays.)

I picked the story up from one of the local freebie papers, interest aroused by its relevance to a favourite soapbox topic of mine: the increasing surveillance of joe public by various “official” bodies.

I touched upon three general areas of concern about this particular instance. You can read the whole thing for yourself of course as it’s all in the immediately preceding post, but to briefly recap:

• The cost of the scheme, suggesting that this may not be the best or most sensible use of local taxpayers’ money in these difficult economic times
• The possibility of abuse of the system given it entails cameras being deployed in the vicinity of children
• The worrying trend of surveillance creeping into ever more areas of our lives and being regarded as acceptable

Now it could be that my concerns re the second point were misplaced, for it seems there’s a possibility that the kit the Council proposes to deploy may not function as I originally thought, but focus solely upon car registration plates. Maybe. Or maybe not. It’s not at all clear from that first report. And all this new-fangled technology confuses the hell out of me anyway.

Doesn’t change the fact though that whilst joe public’s accepting of various “official” bodies bringing ever-increasing numbers of different types of cameras into play, ordinary innocent photographers are still getting loads of harassment… often by those same “official” bodies.

Well, seems this little yarn has now been picked up by the second of our local freebies, the Bedfordshire on Sunday (of which the pic at the start of this post). And they have been obliging enough to publish the full article on-line as well (unlike the other freebie).

And provided some rather different figures to chew over. Like, for example, quoting an initial cost of £98,250. With an additional cost of £42,800 per year to run the damn system! Hmm.

Moreover, it seems I’m not the only one to be a tad concerned about this little project. Apparently Big Brother Watch has picked up on it too, and sums the whole thing up rather neatly in the following way:

Bedford’s bureaucrats have put more plainly than most their intent to use surveillance to force drivers to stop using their cars. Social engineering via snooping

Yes. Quite so.

(Also published at Adventures of an Idiot)

Share this...

Hide Sites

Just spotted in one of this week’s freebies (the Bedfordshire Times & Citizen) that the local Council is to splash out £100,000 on yet more snooping devices… adding to the constantly growing list of such stuff that already burdens our over-surveilled society.

Apparently this is a thing called a “Roadflow mobile camera” that they’re proposing to bung in a Council car to patrol outside schools. Not a police car be it noted, but a Council vehicle. Seems the plan is to monitor the parking of vehicles outside schools, with the intention of nabbing motorists that are parking illegally.

They say its to deal with an “anti-social menace” caused by such illegal parking that they say represents an “absolute disregard for the safety of the children.” Ah yes. So its nothing whatsoever to do with the extra dosh (quoted as being somewhere in the region of £2,600-£3,150 per year) that they’re hoping to raise from parking fines?

Well, obviously not. Cos if it were then it’d take (by my possibly faulty reckoning… for I’ve never been very handy with figures) at least 31+ years just to recover the initial outlay. And that’s not allowing for the wages of the people manning it. Or other admin costs. Well, no doubt all the Council Tax payers of the area will be highly delighted by the Council blowing their hard-earned money in this way.

And is the camera likely to last that long, I can’t avoid asking myself. Or will it need to be replaced in, what, say another 5-10 years? At even more expense. Hmm.

Just what’s needed in these difficult economic times.

But, and this is the thing my mind keeps coming back to… these cameras are going to be monitored by Council people are they? Outside schools. Where kids are. So does this mean kids are going to be caught on camera as well? Now I wonder how parents will be feeling about some faceless anonymous Council snooper capturing their kids on camera when parents themselves are all too frequently prevented from or hindered in photographing their own children?

And presumably these anonymous Council people will be fully trained/qualified and, hopefully, trustworthy around children?

In fairness it is mentioned that motorists will be informed of this mobile snooping operation by the erection of road signs at the appropriate places… but how many non-motoring parents will actually notice those signs? Thus being unaware that their kids could appear in camera footage.

What I’m actually seeing here is yet more evidence that our society is encouraging of the deployment of cameras by local authorities, agencies of the State and suchlike, whilst at the same time hindering to an ever greater extent the activities of ordinary innocent photographers.

Unfortunately, the freebie reporting this story doesn’t appear to have included it in their on-line edition so I can’t provide a link to it… not at the moment! But they do invite local residents to contribute their views on the matter via email… just send ’em to editorial(at)timesandcitizen.co.uk

(Also published at Adventures of an Idiot)

Share this...

Hide Sites

Football? Let me say straight off that I have absolutely no interest in it whatsoever. Doesn’t stir the blood at all. I simply can’t understand what there is about it that people find so fascinating, or why it appears to arouse so much passion. As far as I’m concerned it’s purely opiate for the masses… and a huge money-spinner of course.

Quite bizarre then that I should find myself taking a modicum of interest in the Slovenia vs England match yesterday… Wednesday 23rd. Although I’m not sure it actually qualified as an interest in football per se.

I was in town on another mission entirely, totally oblivious of any football matches that may have been occurring, and noticed that the Bankers Draft pub, on the High Street, had placed doormen outside.

During daytime? Midweek? How very curious.

How I came to spot this strange development was because I just happened to be in The Bear pub (also on the High Street, directly opposite the Bankers Draft), a favoured haunt of mine when in town. It could almost be regarded as my town centre base. And it’s the bar manager there who informs me about the football.

Seemingly this game, the Slovenia vs England one, was quite a major event; certainly for the fans in this country. For apparently, had the game been lost, the England team would have been kicked out of the tournament or Cup or whatever series of matches it was a part of. All completely meaningless to me of course.

But not entirely meaningless. For I know full well how football fans can behave in town centres if their favoured team loses; angry, frustrated, and disappointed football fans this would be.

So, apparently, do the police. For it seems they’d approached the various licensed establishments in the town centre, some weeks earlier, with the recommendation that whichever such establishments would be screening the match should, on the day, have door staff on duty.

And, sat in The Bear pub, I’m looking out the window watching vans-full of police driving along the High Street.

As I said, I have absolutely no interest in football at all. But I do have an interest in photography. Well, I would, wouldn’t I? What with being a photographer and everything. And more specifically, a photojournalist-type photographer.

If there’s anything happening in town that’s likely to turn “eventful” shall we say, and if I just happen to be in town at the right time (a rare combination of circumstances), well, surely the opportunity is too good to miss?

But I was undecided. Did I really want to be in town when it was all “kicking off”, and run the risk of having violence visited upon my person, or my camera kit trashed or whatever?
On the other hand, mercenary instincts to the fore, did I want to bypass the chance of getting some news-worthy and saleable photos?

An hour later and I was still undecided, so thought I’d take a wander around the town. See what the atmosphere felt like; have a chat with a few police perhaps. Try to get a sense of possible outcomes.

Quite a few police deployed along the High Street. Groups of three or so outside the Bankers Draft, the Litten Tree, and Harveys. And foot patrols in teams of two.
But little else. Nothing elsewhere in the town centre at all… either in terms of police presence, pub door staff, or anything. Very relaxed atmosphere; everyone going about their normal business (just one shop on Greyfriars with a notice in the window to the effect that it would be closing at 15:00 because of the match); market traders all carrying on as normal.

With no definite decision one way or another reached, come five o’ clock and I was still in town. And by that time I believe the match was over, or possibly playing into extra time, so back onto the High Street to see what’s happening.

No longer police outside the Bankers Draft… they all appeared to have moved toward the southern end of the High Street, outside the Litten Tree and Harveys. So that’s where I stationed myself as well.

Apparently England won… Slovenia 0, England 1. Much jubilation from the patrons of the High Street pubs, and everyone completely well-behaved.

Not that I like to see violence or vandalism or whatever but, to be honest, a crowd of happy football fans dancing and cheering and obediently staying on the pavement whilst a loose line of police ensure no-one strays into the path of passing vehicles (many of which were loudly tooting their horns) doesn’t really make for terribly exciting photographs.

Oh well.

Share this...

Hide Sites

Given that the UK is claimed to be one of the most surveilled countrys compared to other industrialised Western states, with upwards of 4.2m CCTV cameras (about one for every 14 people!) and almost certainly increasing daily, its quite bizarre that there should be such paranoia about folk innocently taking photographs in public places.

Yet there is. A paranoia, moreover, deliberately fostered by State agencies and the Police. (See this post)

What’s even more worrying is when the Police actively obstruct Press photographers, photojournalists and the like, from performing their legitimate and legal function of documenting newsworthy events.
And not just actively obstruct them, but treat them as though they are criminals or even terrorists!

Well, the British Journal of Photography has now decided to help in the fight back against this ridiculous and, it has to be said, sinister situation with the launch of its “Not a crime” campaign.

In their words…

Increasing concerns about terrorism, paedophilia, health and safety, personal privacy and plain old paranoia about pretty much anything Her Majesty’s subjects get up to has resulted in a deep mistrust of photographers.

Police routinely invoke anti-terror legislation to prevent photographers from carrying out their work, and photojournalists are constantly filmed at public gatherings and their details kept on an ever-growing database. Tourists, particularly foreign tourists, are also targeted by police, as was the case with an Austrian father and son recently who made the mistake of photographing a building of an extremely sensitive nature—Walthamstow bus station.
Put simply, Britain has become a no-photo zone, and so if you fail to comply, you may find yourself liable to attack, arrest or harassment. Recognising that Britain is not the only country where such a draconian anti-photographer culture is developing, the British Journal of Photography is beginning an international visual campaign to raise awareness.

Over the next year we hope to gather thousands of self-portraits of photographers – professional and amateur – from around the world, each holding up a white card with the words, “Not a crime” or “I am not a terrorist”.

Check it out now, before its too late and you have to forever mothball your cameras or risk incarceration.

P.S.: The banner heading this post is downloadable in two different sizes from the “Not a crime” campaign website. I’ve also created a new dedicated set on Flickr that I may well add to periodically!

This article’s also been posted on my photography blog

Share this...

Hide Sites

Many years ago I used to be an avid reader of Private Eye. Not so much in recent times, admittedly (variety of reasons: availability, time, blah blah blah). But I’ve always held  a fondness for it in my heart, and it still ranks fairly high on my list of “worthwhile reading”. But I think its finally been nudged out of that position by a recent find… the Daily Mash!

One particular article in the latest offering from this… er… “journal” especially caught my eye:

POLICE TO TARGET HIPPIES WITH VIDEO CAMERAS

POLICE officers on crowd control duty have been ordered to give priority beatings to anyone holding a video camera.

going on to say, in a… hmm… “quote” from an “ACPO spokesman”…

The police have a very difficult job to do while at the same time preserving the democratic right to knock the absolute living shit out of communists and hippies without some bastard filming it on their phone.

In future officers will refrain from unprovoked and indiscriminate attacks and instead focus their violence very precisely on anyone holding a camera.

You can read the full article here.

Only problem is, I get this rather uncomfortable feeling that this spoof article could turn out to be all too prophetic.

Share this...

Hide Sites