DSLRUsers.com

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 12:44 pm**

Last Saturday I found out that Lane Cove Aquatic Centre have banned the use of cameras throughout the whole centre... I specifically took my camera along to take pics of my daughter's first swimming lesson, so I was a little annoyed with this ban...

However, I decided to remain calm and asked the management who had taken the decision and on what grounds...
First they said it was "to protect peoples rights as you are not allowed to take photos of other people without their permission" - When I challenged the legal basis of that, they then changed their mind and said that it was actually to stop people taking pictures of little children.
When I asked if that was a crime too, the manager said - "well in this day and age you can't be too careful"... :evil:

I asked if the decision had been sanctioned by council (who actually own the centre) and he said that they didn't need council approval to make that sort of decision...
It was clear that I wasn't going to get anywhere with this manager, so I decided to write to the mayor of Lane Cove...

Here's the letter I just sent to the mayor:

Last Saturday, I was shocked to find that Lane Cove Aquatic Centre have banned the use of cameras throughout the whole Centre.
I know that you have an interest in photography yourself, so I'm hoping to enlist your support in this matter.

Talking to the management of the centre, it appears that this was a decision that they have taken themselves and it has not been sanctioned by Council.
They have done it "to protect the rights of children" and to "stop people taking photos of young children which could be misused"...
When I pointed out that this rule also stopped parents taking legitimate photos of their own children, this didn't seem to concern them. They do not seem to see anything wrong with the fact that they are effectively tarring everyone with the same brush by imposing such a ridiculous rule.

I'm sure that you are aware of the similar decisions that were taken by Randwick Council and Waverley Council which were subsequently reversed due to the weight of public opinion against them and a great deal of ridicule by the newspapers and radio stations.

The manager of the Centre (Mark ?) told me that the council has no say in the running of the Aquatic Centre and that they are free to take this sort of decision without consulting council. As the centre is owned by council, I sincerely hope that this is not a true statement.

As a keen photographer, I strongly object to this sort of intrusive rule / ban. I should not be made to feel guilty for taking my camera out of its bag.
Also, as a parent I have a right to take photos of key events in my child's life - this includes trips to the swimming pool and her first swimming lessons...

This sort of blanket ban is totally unnacceptable to me. The legitimate activities of the vast majority should not be restricted on the basis of what a small minority may or may not do...
The focus should be on spotting and addressing inappropriate behaviour rather than restricting the activities of everyone.

Before I involve the wider media in getting this ridiculous decision overturned, I thought I would check if there was anything you or Lane Cove Council could do to get the Aquatic Centre management to see sense...

Thanks in advance...

I'll keep you posted on my campaign... If I don't get any joy from council, I'll get the Daily Tele, SMH & radio involved... I'm not going to accept this...

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 12:48 pm**

Good luck John - you are 110% in the right and it is time that all of these little Hitler’s are put in their place

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 12:49 pm**

GO FOR IT!

Its about time people learned: While you are in public you are in BLOODY PUBLIC!

Your rates pay for that damn pool!

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 12:51 pm**

How's about get thadeus hovering his chopper over the swimming pool and take photos, will they shoot him down with the SAM?

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 12:57 pm**

John, behind you all the way, what an overreaction! Very interested to see the result.

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 1:07 pm**

Like the person in the Cessna 152 over DC yesterday?

John,

We're with you all the way on this one.

Did you send that by snailmail, or email? I'd certainly be looking for an urgent response to this.

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 1:09 pm**

Birddog114 wrote:How's about get thadeus hovering his chopper over the swimming pool and take photos, will they shoot him down with the SAM?

Nice!

They have any good reason for preventing it, so sock it to them!!

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 1:11 pm**

gstark wrote:Like the person in the Cessna 152 over DC yesterday?

One IP and one student! IP doesn't know the restricted airspace and it's from PA. :shock:

Perhaps, they want to test the power of Homeland Security :cry:

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 1:15 pm**

gstark wrote:Did you send that by snailmail, or email? I'd certainly be looking for an urgent response to this.

e-mail... The mayor is usually pretty good at responding, but he'll probably refer it to the council general manager in the first instance...

I'm looking forward to his response as I know that he likes to take photos of local events himself... He also runs the local village paper, so he'll have another angle on it as well...

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 1:20 pm**

leek wrote:
gstark wrote:Did you send that by snailmail, or email? I'd certainly be looking for an urgent response to this.

e-mail... The mayor is usually pretty good at responding, but he'll probably refer it to the council general manager in the first instance...

I'm looking forward to his response as I know that he likes to take photos of local events himself... He also runs the local village paper, so he'll have another angle on it as well...

Why don't you invite him to the mini meet and our AA?

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 1:20 pm**

Good luck John, I am with you on this one as well, its your own daughter, a milestone in her life...these rules are getting crazy. Sure, if they see someone looking dodgy and not belonging to anyone (child) then they can ask questions but if you are there documenting the first swimming lesson your daughter attends, then there is no wrong in this at all. Please keep us posted!!

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 1:45 pm**

John

Just a thought - why not just take the photos of your little girl in the meantime? What are they going to do - sue you for taking pictures of your own child? :roll:

I'm not a lawyer but have worked in law for many years and can't imagine they would want to go to Court over this, considering the cost of litigation and the hassle it involves. How much money does the Swimming Centre have or how much money would the Council want to throw into an argument such as this?

Good luck!

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 1:51 pm**

Good luck John. It's high time for people to get over their insecurity and paranoia. I'm not saying the potential for some sicko to abuse the photography rights isn't there, but why the heck make other genuine people suffer :evil:

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 1:53 pm**

Good Luck John, as u might not know i have been through this same scenario only it was a teacher who kicked me out basically at my young blokes first swim carnival at 1st year high school, so all i can say is have fun. Wish u all the best with it.
John
BBJ

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 1:59 pm**

BBJ wrote:Good Luck John, as u might not know i have been through this same scenario only it was a teacher who kicked me out basically at my young blokes first swim carnival at 1st year high school, so all i can say is have fun. Wish u all the best with it.
John
BBJ

I remember it well John... and I'll be using many of the same arguments that were raised in those threads months ago...

Whatever next - Stop everyone driving cars in case one bad driver has a serious accident??? This is thin end of the wedge stuff and has no legal basis...

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 2:02 pm**

Nikkofan wrote:John

Just a thought - why not just take the photos of your little girl in the meantime? What are they going to do - sue you for taking pictures of your own child? I'm not a lawyer but have worked in law for many years and can't imagine they would want to go to Court over this, considering the cost of litigation and the hassle it involves. How much money does the Swimming Centre have or how much money would the Council want to throw into an argument such as this?

Good luck!

I nearly did, but I was sitting right under the poster that stated the new rule... I felt the eyes of other parents on me... or maybe I was imagining it...

I'm afraid that people will start to see that this sort of decision is acceptable... I'd rather challenge it formally and get it overturned...

If people really want photos of kids in their undies / or swimmers, then they can look at any Target, K-Mart or Speedo catalogue anyway - so what's the big deal???

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 5:03 pm**

Just received an e-mail back from the mayor:

John, I agree wholeheartedly and will be taking it up with our General Manager tonight.

Yay!!! Maybe I won't need to get the press involved after all...

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 5:07 pm**

Fantastic response John, congratulations on a good reply so far. Nice to see a mayor (authority figure) with some good old fashioned common sense.

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 5:08 pm**

Are they living together? :shock:

Or perhaps take the GM out to the Malaysian Restaurant at Longueville Rd, Lane Cove for a lesson :lol:

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 5:10 pm**

Well done John

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 5:16 pm**

Birddog114 wrote::lol:
Are they living together?
Or perhaps take the GM out to the Malaysian Restaurant at Longueville Rd, Lane Cove for a lesson

They have a special relationship Birdy!!! ;-)

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 5:50 pm**

leek wrote:Just received an e-mail back from the mayor:

John, I agree wholeheartedly and will be taking it up with our General Manager tonight.

Yay!!! Maybe I won't need to get the press involved after all...

John,

That's certainly a positive start. Let's hope that the Mayor makes him personally remove these posters as a form of punishment, so that in future he will not be so damn stupid!

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 7:36 pm**

Go for them John. This kind of crap really steams me up :evil:

. You're so right when you say you shouldn't have to feel guilty when you take your camera out of your bag, especially when you have a very good reason - your daughter - for doing so...not that you need any reason to take pictures in public anyway. I'm sure the pool manager has got stacks of his own family and holiday pics and videos at home, but he probably wouldn't see the hypocrisy of his actions.

Frank

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 8:11 pm**

Call me Naive, but can someone please tell me what damage can be done to a child by having their photo taken?
Maybe I just don't think like a paedophile, but I can't see it.

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 8:19 pm**

That why the GM will be invited to see the Mayor this evening, can't wait to see what's the outcome.

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 8:23 pm**

gstark wrote:
leek wrote:Just received an e-mail back from the mayor:

John, I agree wholeheartedly and will be taking it up with our General Manager tonight.

Yay!!! Maybe I won't need to get the press involved after all...

John,

That's certainly a positive start. Let's hope that the Mayor makes him personally remove these posters as a form of punishment, so that in future he will not be so damn stupid!

And you can photograph him doing it!

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 8:32 pm**

Birddog114 wrote:That why the GM will be invited to see the Mayor this evening, can't wait to see what's the outcome.

Just to clarify... I don't think that the GM of the council is at fault here... He's usually a very reasonable chap too...

The council subcontracts the operation of the Aquatic Centre to a private company and it is the management of this private company that have taken this stupid decision... (without consulting the council).

I'm sure that it will be resolved soon and I look forward to displaying photos of my daughter doing her best attempt at the butterfly stroke :lol:

I might be able to take photos at this Saturday's swimming lesson - but I think it's more likely to be next weekend...

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 8:34 pm**

leek,
If you have the photo of the guy who remove the sign from the pool, it will be great and will be in the history of D70User.com, POTW, POTY or POTD.

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 8:53 pm**

phillipb wrote:Call me Naive, but can someone please tell me what damage can be done to a child by having their photo taken?
Maybe I just don't think like a paedophile, but I can't see it.

Good question philipb... I think that someone once said that photos of the paedophilic kind were a victimless crime... I'm not sure that I would agree...

I don't profess to understand what motivates people of that sort, or to know what turns them on, but I can imagine that a photo that would appear innocent and normal to many of us would excite and stimulate people of that persuasion... That doesn't make the photo or the photographer bad...

While it doesn't harm the child directly (as long as there is no direct physical contact with the child), if that child (or their parents) were ever to find out that they had been the object of stimulation for a paedophile, I'm sure it would affect them adversely...

People seem to be developing an unhealthy paranoia on this subject and I feel that it is my duty to challenge... If you look back at some of the iconic photos of the last 100 years, many of them would not have been possible / acceptable under the current norms...

Is this acceptable??? Not if Waverley council had got their way :evil:

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 9:20 pm**

Birddog114 wrote:leek,
If you have the photo of the guy who remove the sign from the pool, it will be great and will be in the history of D70User.com, POTW, POTY or POTD.

Perhaps that can be a Decisive Moment

Geoff

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 10:19 pm**

approach is everything be professional be discreet offer your services

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 10:37 pm**

jethro wrote:approach is everything be professional be discreet offer your services

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 10:44 pm**

business is busines johndec put the right protocol in place and its not a problem

Posted: **Thu May 12, 2005 11:00 pm**

What the...

Posted: **Fri May 13, 2005 2:05 am**

Me be confused too!

Wha? :?:

In direct response though...

I moved back to Australia in Oct last year after living in England for 3 years. All I can say is we do NOT want these things to go down the same path that they have taken. Video/Still cameras are confiscated at school plays/carnivals/fete's etc and I was even harassed by a "bobby" for taking photo's of Buckingham Palace - to which I said "What about that guy? And that guy, and THAT guy?". The response.."you have a longer lens" - f...........i'll let you imagine how that sentence ended.

Parents today are up in arms that they can't record these momentous occasions (my parents treasure video's of me at Rock Eisteddfod and doing speeches at school functions!!) but what bloody hope do us 15-25 year olds have??! By the time we have kids it will be illegal to BE a kid, damnit!

This is why I support whole-heartedly; sorting these problems now and keeping on top of them. What's next? Execute every teenager that says "i wish you were dead" to a parent cos they MIGHT kill them?!! As someone mentioned, if a paedophile wants photo's of kids, they don't need to go to the local swimming pool..they're publicly available.

Why punish model citizens for the deeds of a few?

So there..two bobs and all that..wow is that the time?! Damn Pale Ale's snuck into my stomach again!

Liam =]

edit: fixed some grammar..blame the beer

Posted: **Fri May 13, 2005 5:00 am**

I can understand the concerns involved with photographing children. But.... I absolutely do not understand how a parent with a child in tow attending an event in which that child is participating can be banned from using a camera. I could understand if someone was asked to pack it up if they appeared to have no legitimate excuse for photographing children. Blanket bans just penalise the majority for the poor behaviour of the minority. Sanity must prevail.

Beetleboy, the Buckingham Palace thing might just be a secutity thing... you know... war on terror and all. Interesting that many P&S cameras have 200mm equiv. lenses these days.

Cheers

Matt

Posted: **Fri May 13, 2005 7:23 am**

Summary:
They didn't learn the lesson from one to the other and they want to reign their territory with their own policies.

I still do not see the harmful of having a camera and taking photos of my children and nephews in the public places, I still argue with myself why my candid photos make the young kids less safer.

Back to the past:
Anyone on this board should remember the photo of the nude young girl named KIM PHUC, running, crying, sufferring with the burn after she had been hit by the napalm bomb and lost her relatives.

That photos has been awarded many prizes in that era and made the world paid more attention, why? if it's taken in this time, then that photogs will be awarded with the name of "Porn..."

In the war torn countries, you're able to see many of those scenes and feel sorry for them.

I've been down that road long, ferried wounded soldiers, civillian, babies, young kids back to the rear and seen, heard many awful stories, slept with the dead bodies wrapped in ponchos, smell the stinch of dried blood, decomposed bodies.

That what made me wish to become a war corresspondence when my first step onto the land of America.

I still do not see the lost or any harmful of security when taking photos of buildings or landmarks.

Well, the dangerous part is not the camera, not the photogs, it's from the politicians and their "gung ho" attitudes, why don't we have a chance, face to face to confront that GM, the Mayor, the manager of the swimming pool.
Can we get the right answer from them? can they justify their action? and that why should we vote for them? and we did, didn't we?

It seems to me sometimes I'm still living under the Communist regime which I fled nearly 30 years ago.

Posted: **Fri May 13, 2005 7:27 am**

Very nicely put Birddog

Posted: **Fri May 13, 2005 8:53 am**

beetleboy wrote:...after living in England for 3 years. All I can say is we do NOT want these things to go down the same path that they have taken.

Things got way out of hand in the UK ages ago... I remember a story about a poor woman who had to move house, because people were protesting outside her home day and night, then they sprayed graffitti all over her home ..

Why??? Because someone had found out that she was a paediatrician and they were too stupid to know that that wasn't the same thing as a paedophile...

The poor woman was hounded out of her home by paranoia... That's why I think that its important to challenge each and every instance of this... before it becomes accepted as the norm...

Posted: **Fri May 13, 2005 12:01 pm**

Here here Leek!

Birddog made an interesting point(s) about photographing buildings. I find it ridiculous that you can't take photos on planes/train bridges etc. Seriously, and I'm sure many of you war buffs can back me on this, if terrorists want to blow something up THEY can EASILY get the information they need; blue prints, photos, video..the whole shebang. That's why they call it "intelligence"..obviously what these paranoid people are lacking!

I was also once taking photos, tripod and all, of Charing Cross Station at night time when I was told to bugger off cos they were afraid of terrorists. I asked the guy, do you think a terrorist would walk up to this station, set up his tripod and stand here for an hour? Chances are there was a terrorist sitting in an office window somewhere at that moment with a telescopic lens taking photo's of me and having a good giggle!!!!

Liam =]

Posted: **Fri May 13, 2005 12:29 pm**

bettleboy,
The way terrorist today doing their jobs not much requiring taking photos and study the case thru all the photos.
They may got all the weaker points and vital infos of where they want to strike thru their insiders and supporters.
The reactions from those security guys or laws enforcement bodies just are the "gung ho" actions, which want to scare off everyone.
I don't see the photogs can harm anyone nor making suffering to the building, landscape etc. in our own wills, of course there're some bad guys but they will act diffently, especially at the swimming pool with your children or nephews.

Look back to the past, say: 9-11 did all the terrorists in three planes have all the photos of their targets? I don't think they need those photos.

In the VN War, most the bases or offices has been struck by bad guys via the insiders, perhaps all sources came from senior officers, staffs or one of our closest allies.

History proved us many incidents:
At the last moment, prior to the Fall of South VN, wherever the American were, they never got hit by rockets or artillery, but our poor men and women got hit wherever we went, and that wasn't only in the last moment, happened thru out the time we fought, escpecially after Pres. Nixon paid a trip to China. We were SOLD.

Posted: **Fri May 13, 2005 12:36 pm**

OK Let's take off the kid gloves! If they don't let us take pictures at their swimming pool...then we don't let them swim at our camera clubs! :lol:

Posted: **Fri May 13, 2005 1:19 pm**

Wow, you guys have some weird rules there. Fortunately, here in Canada, I have not heard anything about photographing children. I feel sorry for you guys. Fight the power!

Posted: **Fri May 13, 2005 8:06 pm**

leek,
Any update news of this thread? we're waiting.

Posted: **Fri May 13, 2005 8:39 pm**

Not yet... I'll be going to the swimming pool again tomorrow morning, so I'll see if there has been any action... If not, then I will e-mail the mayor and GM again...

Posted: **Fri May 13, 2005 8:43 pm**

Maybe thats a better idea.

What about we, the d70 users group, organise an evening meeting with the mayor and general manager.

It will give us the opportunity to present our point of view, and to sensibly explain to these people the error of their ways.

Perhaps even present a slide show of famous photos, such as the ones Birddog is suggesting, to show that PORN ISNT ART!!!

What do we all think?

Glenn

Posted: **Fri May 13, 2005 8:51 pm**

r2160 wrote:Maybe thats a better idea.

What about we, the d70 users group, organise an evening meeting with the mayor and general manager.

It will give us the opportunity to present our point of view, and to sensibly explain to these people the error of their ways.

Perhaps even present a slide show of famous photos, such as the ones Birddog is suggesting, to show that PORN ISNT ART!!!

What do we all think?

Glenn

WHOA!!! Please can we correct this now... The mayor and GM are not the problem here...

The mayor was very supportive of my point of view and will be taking action to ensure something is done about it... That's the way he works...

The problem is the private company that manages the swimming pool... They are the one's that took the decision...

Posted: **Fri May 13, 2005 8:55 pm**

But that company who 's running the swimming pool is still under the "supervision" or "instruction" or at least in the territory of the local council.
If the Mayor or GM says: "remove it", will they remove the sign?

Posted: **Fri May 13, 2005 8:59 pm**

Birddog114 wrote:But that company who 's running the swimming pool is still under the "supervision" or "instruction" or at least in the territory of the local council.
If the Mayor or GM says: "remove it", will they remove the sign?

Very probably... but I guess it depends on the nature of the contract they have...

Posted: **Fri May 13, 2005 9:03 pm**

leek wrote:
Birddog114 wrote:But that company who 's running the swimming pool is still under the "supervision" or "instruction" or at least in the territory of the local council.
If the Mayor or GM says: "remove it", will they remove the sign?

Very probably... but I guess it depends on the nature of the contract they have...

What my thoughts are if any illegal signs, against the local council wills, it can be removed by the order of council.

If the sign of :"Photography is prohibited in this swimming pool" against the local council will, it can be removed as well.

The contract do not bind to non approved sign from council.

DSLRUsers.com

Another swimming pool that has banned photography...

Another swimming pool that has banned photography...