Another swimming pool that has banned photography...

[leek]

Dunno Birdy... I hope so... We'll see...

If they don't come to their senses, there will be a media blitz next week, and if that doesn't work, then I'll organise a d70users mini-meet on the steps of the Aquatic centre to collect signatures against the stupid decision...

[johndec]

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?

I'm sure they will when the Mayor utters the magic words "When is your lease up for renewal?"

[birddog114]

Dunno Birdy... I hope so... We'll see...

If they don't come to their senses, there will be a media blitz next week, and if that doesn't work, then I'll organise a d70users mini-meet on the steps of the Aquatic centre to collect signatures against the stupid decision...

Surely, I'll in the front row with my D2x + 200-400VR, G1325 and wimberley Sidekick + D2h with 70-200VR on left side and D100 + 80-400 on right hand side and the D70s with 28-70 on my chest and banners + banners.

[gleff]

Dunno Birdy... I hope so... We'll see...

If they don't come to their senses, there will be a media blitz next week, and if that doesn't work, then I'll organise a d70users mini-meet on the steps of the Aquatic centre to collect signatures against the stupid decision...

I'll be the one pointing my camera at the person making the decision, to get their facial expression from all the negative publicity.. Now that would be a 'Decisive Moment'

Geoff

[birddog114]

I don't know if it's a good ideas for leek to point this thread with his email to the Mayor and GM, to show them how the re-action is!

[leek]

Interesting...

I was doing some reading on this subject and discovered the following...

The main piece of legislation (in NSW) that governs this area is the NSW Summary Offences Act and in particular Section 21G

So taking a photo is only an offence if it is taken "to provide sexual arousal or sexual gratification"... How the hell do they prove that???

Also it's only an offence if the subject is in a state of undress and they don't consent to it... So I can take pics of my daughter (and anyone else who consents) without problems...

thaddeus also pointed me at this interesting page which discusses related issues.

[birddog114]

leek,
We all should send them those links, documents or perhaps refer them to any short courses in learning the way how to govern.
Or, they may not qualified to do their jobs without understanding and knowledgeable of the nature of their "gung ho".

[gleff]

Also it's only an offence if the subject is in a state of undress and they don't consent to it... So I can take pics of my daughter (and anyone else who consents) without problems...

But isn't the swimming pool still considered private property? If so, they have the right to dis-allow photography.. even if it is for a stupid reason.

On the other hand, if the pool complex comes under the same category of public property as standing on a sidewalk etc, then you're right.

I'd be interested to know which is correct though.

Geoff

[gstark]

If it's council property, then it's public property.

[dooda]

Yeah, same as Neeper. We don't get anything in Canada compared to what you guys get in Aus. People warning you about photographing sites and the pools, its ridiculous and lacks common sense.

Reminds me of 9-11. The Government had to look like they were taking measures, so they spend tons of money, change their immigration laws, and basically prohibit the rights of law abiding people...and terrorists can easily find ways around it all. Instead of simply letting common sense come into play, they institute all of these weird rules as if they want it to happen again.
So I ask myself, what are they trying to accomplish with a jackass rule like this one? Do they think that they're going to stop child porn, or lessen it in any way? Do they think that they are going to make potential child porn abusers think twice? Is there even any record of child porn abusers sneaking into pools to take these photos? Do they have so little confidence in their own cognitive abilities that they don't think they could decifer a parent taking pics at their own child's first lesson--or their ability to allow only the parents in with cameras?
If you ask me, this is a scary window into the perverted mind of the manager, looking at every child as potential victims of child porn, then assume that anyone holding a camera is going to potentially abuse. I shudder at the sheer magnitude of his mind-numbing intellect.

[stubbsy]

If it's council property, then it's public property.

In the link Thaddeus supplied is the following when talking about Randwick Council's attempt to ban photography at a council owned swim centre

they were smart enough to limit the prohibition this time to property they own, not general public land. This would have made it very difficult to challenge in court, since property owners have broad rights to control whatever happens on their land (as do shopping centres, supermarkets etc.).

I infer from this that councils CAN ban photography on land they own. Which BTW is scary when you think how much "public" land is council owned.

[r2160]

Hey Leek

Didnt mean to suggest that they were the problem. Simply suggesting that because they generally run the area and have some say in the governing of these properties, they would probably be the best people to put a sensible point of view too.

By presenting many of the classic photographs of the past, and our point of view being sensible adults, we may be able to keep them from following the hopeless point of view of the management of the pool

Didnt mean to suggest that they were the problem, but I also think that Australia is getting way out of hand with this sort of stuff.

Take for example in the media recently, the two men that buggered a heap of money and investments (HIH) got two and a half years gaol. Then the four guys that BEAT TO DEATH an 18 year old boy, that got two years, how does that figure???

Glenn

Glenn

[Matt. K]

Can I suggest to all forum members if you are approached by anyone...security, council or police and they ask you "What are you photographing?", then the correct reply is, "ANYTHING I DAMN WELL LIKE! IT'S A FREE COUNTRY!".

That then puts the onus on them to proceed further and they will have to act very cautiously because there are severe penalties if they act outside of the law...or their juristriction.

[leek]

Just to bring you all up to date...

I prompted the mayor for a response today and:

The matter has been taken up with the operators. There has been a policy since opening regarding this and apparently there have been arrests of people taking photos for the wrong purposes.

We are looking at a new policy and this is being compiled at present. It
will probably entail parents having to ask permission and show that they are
doing for legitimate purposes.

I wasn't aware that it was a long-standing policy - otherwise I would have complained much,much earlier. The signs are very definitely a recent addition...

I have taken several photos in the centre in the past and have seen many other parents doing the same thing...

I'm sorry to hear that some people have been arrested at the centre, but I don't think that cameras have very much to do with the problem... It makes very little difference to me whether these sick people are there deriving pleasure from watching little children or taking photos of them...
The focus should be on identifying inappropriate behaviour within the centre, not on penalising the majority...

I still think that this blanket ban is a very unfortunate over-reaction and does nothing to protect the rights of children.

Also, the world is heading in the wrong direction when someone has to ask permission to take photos of their own child.

I'll see what he has to say to that and will then start the wider media campaign...

We shall overcome...

[Glen]

John, like to take a bet the arrests part is bullshit? Seeing the guy on the beach was the first to be done? Good work keeping on to him, there seems a softening (towards the operators) from the initial response

[phillipb]

I agree Glen, if there had been arrests, it would have made the news.

[johndec]

John, Sounds to me that the Mayor is back peddling compared to his earlier correspondence to you. I smell a large stinky rat

[gleff]

I wonder if there is a way you can find out officially whether there were indeed any arrests.. Isn't this something that would be on public record or something you can get hold of. If so, would be brilliant to see their reaction when you show them proof that they lied.. Even more so if you went public with the information.

It really does sound like bull#$%^, and that they are making excuses to justify their action.

Geoff

[leek]

I would have thought that it would have made the news... Maybe they suppressed it... I'll call in at the local police station tomorrow and ask them...
I'm enjoying this... I can see me auditioning for the Australian version of Grumpy Old Men...

[Matt. K]

John
We are all supporting you and are proud of you for standing up and telling these poor trembling fools that their behaviour is almost as offensive as the perverts who have created this state of affairs.

If somebody steals something then you don't legislate that everybody must buy a padlock. You catch the thief and you punish him 3 times the crime...once for stealing, once for spoiling everybodys world, and once more so that others will not steal.

We are all behind you 100% and ready to give you any support you need.

[Glen]

Matt, great analogy

[gleff]

I don't know if this will help any, but here is a link to the Freedom of Information ACT of NSW.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/ ... ia1989222/

and

http://www.premiers.nsw.gov.au/NSWCommu ... formation/

Geoff

[Manta]

I'm not aware of any such shenanigans up here in Brisbane but it's certainly just a matter of time before we too are faced with the same bureaucratic buffoonery.

In that light, I fully support your stance, John, and look forward to you forcing these clowns to back down, in a very public forum.

My message to them: We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more. We're taking back our hard-won freedoms and you lot can go join your mates in the Taliban.

[gleff]

I know this is a little off topic.. but similar..

Apparently SACL have now banned photography aboard the Sydney Airport Tarmac Tours. This really has gone too far. It's kind of ironic that in a year whereby there is probably more cameras in society than any other year in history, and it's getting to the point where you aren't allowed to take pictures anywhere in public. What next.. banning photography of the opera house?

Geoff

[gstark]

John,

His comment regarding the arrests seems to me to be general in nature; he's not actually saying that the arrests occurred within the centre.

I'd be pressing that point, and also pointing out to him that, of the arrests that are known to be in the public domian, only one has actually resulted in a conviction, and in all of the others, charges were either dismissed or dropped.

And again, I would be asking him where the council thinks it gets the right to tell a parent when he or she can, or cannot, take photographes of his or children.

And I'd be asking him for his responses very bloody quickly, because his most recent response smacks of bureaucratic BS.

[thaddeus]

I would have thought that it would have made the news... Maybe they suppressed it... I'll call in at the local police station tomorrow and ask them...

no need - the arrests are completely irrelevant. if someone is doing something wrong, then call the police. if they aren't, let them take photos!

suggest you get a photo of your daughter looking very upset because daddy can't take her photo and send it into the local paper!

[Onyx]

Leek, I have the contact details of Nicholas Boot - a report for Today Tonight or ACA, one of those "current affair" type shows should you wish to involve the media.

[ozczecho]

I joined this thread late, but this incident must go right into the same basket as "lets ban all 4WD from in and around schools". How silly. Congratulations Australia, we have just become a nanny state.

Leek congrats on taking on the fight and I wish you all the best. Only a couple of years ago, my son went for his 1st swimming lesson and I took my little P&S c*non digital and never thought anything of it...now when my daughter starts swimming lessons in spring it will like "am i doing something wrong..."

[jethro]

guys and girls i believe we have lost sight of the general problem here these people have overidden our desire to take pics of our kids.this is bullshit! the new gen of adults and im being general here have lost sight of family values. im a dad and a father of 3 children and having a 16 yr old daughter i definately have a genuine understanding of todays so called values and understandind and ethics of taking photographic images of kids. GET F..king real! i myself and marcus take pics of kids every weekend we have been accredited by nsw sport and rec for working with children we are both family men. we are not the P word and we have great fun shooting all ages of sporting prowess. being in the print and media industry for a hell of a long time you become desensitised to the media who i believe are taking the nornal family values and distorting them to what the new generation belive are the norm. DONT TAKE PICS OF KIDS YOU WILL BE SUED! BULLSHIT why did i buy myD70? to be creative? and not to shoot images of my kids that will last forever and they can pass on to their kids, and if my desire comes MAKE A BUCK through my business. Is that a crime? i dont think so. forget the hype we see normal mums and dads taking even videos of their kids each weekend and no one bats an eyelid. to minority of incosiderate mums and dads that dont want some kind of memory of their sibilings achievements. F&*# YOU you need a life


Edited by gstark to remove profanities.

[pippin88]

I joined this thread late, but this incident must go right into the same basket as "lets ban all 4WD from in and around schools". How silly. Congratulations Australia, we have just become a nanny state.

I wouldn't lump that into the same basket, they are quite different issues. Photogrpahy does not harm anyone, other than a photographer being an idiot or similiar (which people without cameras do just as often), where as there is a safety / potential safety issue with 4WDs. (Not that I necessarily agree with banning nears schools, rather I think subsidies should be removed and a special licence required.)

[leek]

I think I might have a solution....

[johndec]

Jethro,

One of the great strengths of this forum in general and regarding this topic in particular is it's ability to robustly debate a point in a sensible and intelligent manner. I'm sure that if Leek felt it necessary to illustrate to Lane Cove Council the depth of feeling on this subject, all he had to do was point them in the direction of this topic and let them read all about it for themselves.

However, your use of profanities has removed his ability to take such a course of action. It has made this look like something you might read on a usenet group or *shudder* dpreview. Please edit or delete your post.....

[Matt. K]

Good call Johndec.

[PiroStitch]

I think I might have a solution....

Heheh I think you're onto something Leek

[birddog114]

leeks,
We need the march and demonstration, I have the big PA and we form in the front of the swimming pool, blast them!
Re# my earlier post of this thread:
- Send the Mayor the link of this thread.
I've told you when I read you earlier post about the "Mayor's going to see the GM tonight". They're in bed together finally

I think get to the media as soon as you can, we will fight for our rights, your rights of taking photos of your family, children in public places.

Who know he might got some "private bonus" from the operator, they're all crook nowaday.
They all have two faces:
- Very kind with you cos they want your vote.
- Stab behind you after they've found you're annoyance to them.

And my personal problems is standstill:

" The Mayor of Port Stephens Council is owner or major shareholder of my builder" I've just found out lately yesterday with some other local tradesmen. The builder had done heap of dodgies, non-compliance jobs but still received the Certificate of Occupancy same as other approval from the local Council. I'm going to fight to the end.

[jethro]

my sincere apologies to any i offended with my overbearing comments in my previous post. this issue is probably one of the more ridiculus stands that any person or department etc can make. this stance is generaly taken by few any affecting the genuine. very sad. my expletives will never appear here again

[stubbsy]

And my personal problems is standstill:

" The Mayor of Port Stephens Council is owner or major shareholder of my builder" I've just found out lately yesterday with some other local trademen. The builder had done heap of dodgies, non-compliance jobs but still received the Certificate of Occupancy same as other approval from the local Council. I'm going to fight to the end.

That's not good news. I thought this had all been sorted. Good luck.

[ozczecho]

pippin88 wrote
I wouldn't lump that into the same basket, they are quite different issues. Photogrpahy does not harm anyone, other than a photographer being an idiot or similiar (which people without cameras do just as often), where as there is a safety / potential safety issue with 4WDs. (Not that I necessarily agree with banning nears schools, rather I think subsidies should be removed and a special licence required.)

pippin88, I dont agree. An idiot with a camera might not kill someone, but can invade their privacy (just ask some famous people), and abuse in other ways. That doesnt make all people with a camera dangerous. Same as 4WD owners. There are some out there who dont have an idea, but accidents in and around schools can happen to 4WD, small cars, utes, panel vans, cars towing trailers, buses and trucks. Banning all 4wd in and around schools is as dumb as banning all people from using a camera in and around pools and beaches.

[birddog114]

All toys including all type of motor vehicle, foods etc... are not harm to anyone.

Only lack of experiences, mis-used, overdosed or stupidily actions will create problems to people around and yourself.

The 4WD and the cameras are toys also, mainly problems here are politics and over reaction from other authorities.

Perhaps in the near future, all of us have to hand the cameras to the local police stations in an operation " BUY BACK" as for the gun owners.

Let go back ask the Mayor and the GM of Lane Cove Council sort it out the ban of photography at the swimming pool issue.

[pippin88]

pippin88 wrote
I wouldn't lump that into the same basket, they are quite different issues. Photogrpahy does not harm anyone, other than a photographer being an idiot or similiar (which people without cameras do just as often), where as there is a safety / potential safety issue with 4WDs. (Not that I necessarily agree with banning nears schools, rather I think subsidies should be removed and a special licence required.)

pippin88, I dont agree. An idiot with a camera might not kill someone, but can invade their privacy (just ask some famous people), and abuse in other ways. That doesnt make all people with a camera dangerous. Same as 4WD owners. There are some out there who dont have an idea, but accidents in and around schools can happen to 4WD, small cars, utes, panel vans, cars towing trailers, buses and trucks. Banning all 4wd in and around schools is as dumb as banning all people from using a camera in and around pools and beaches.

Sorry to continue this OT, but I think it somewhat important:

That's why I don't support the banning around school's but rather a special licence. This allows all that can safely handle a vehicle of that size and bulk to do so, and might stop a few soccer mums who have no need from using them. 4WDs are a greater safety risk than cars, and unlike your camera / privacy example (which I don't think is analoguous - privacy is a pretty new "right" and overrated) it isn't just the user. 4WDs are heavier and harder to see the near vicinity of the vehicle from and you do feel disconnected with the road. In a skilled or trained drivers hands this is not a problem, but combine it with poorish driving skills (a lot of people on the road) or an idiot (again a lot of people on the road) and you have potential for disaster.

Your privacy analogy, is in my opinion, not a valid analogy. It would take intent to use a camera to abuse, to intentionally go out and take photos of someone that will do some harm to them. However, in a 4WD (or other vehicle for that matter) an accident can kill someone, there is rarely intent involved.

I'm not saying that 4WDs are the only risky vehicle, all vehicles can kill easily, just that the nature of 4WDs (and partly the demographic that buys them (or maybe it's the demographic they create)) means an increased risk.

I can also somewhat see the reasoning for the school ban - 4WDs are harder to handle in those situations where there are a million movements around - and the potential for sudden need to stop and kids running around everywhere, however I think that a special licence is a more appropriate way to do this. And I've thought the idea of a special licence a good idea for a long time, well before the number of 4WDs in schools, shopping centres, and on the roads became an issue.

[Killakoala]

'I own a camera and i vote.'


My new bumper sticker.

[Frankenstein]

'I own a camera and i vote.'


My new bumper sticker.

or what about "I own a camera and I shoot"

Frank

[Matt. K]

pippin88

If you are behind the wheel of a large 4X drive vehicle then you can not see small children standing directly in front or behind of the vehicle. No amount of driver training changes that fact. Little children and motor vehicles of any type do not mix....so seperate them and there will be no more tragic deaths. I do not advocate banning the vehicles...I would prefer a system where the children are dropped off at a place where they proceed directly through a gate to a vehicle safe area. I don't think that's rocket science.

[Killakoala]

Fence the road near school crossings and up to 100-200 metres either side.

Also put a little 'Schools In' sign underneath the 40 zone sign so those of us without kids know when school holidays are in or out.

[bender]

 btw

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/ ... 6702c.html

No ban on subway pix

Daily News Exclusive


By PETE DONOHUE
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Click away without fear, shutterbugs - a controversial proposal to ban photography in the subways is dead.

The Police Department recently told transit officials the photo ban is unnecessary, the Daily News has learned.

[birddog114]

bender,
Not here at Down Under

[bender]

but i am .. it was good news that it was stopped

[Wacky]

Hi Leek, I know this is dragging up an old thread, but has there been any news since your last post on it last month? Just curious, being a local, and I used to swim there as a kid...

[leek]

After much tooing and froing and many weeks of bureaucracy, Lane Cove Council have finally come back to me with their proposed new policy...

Thank you for your comments on the current restrictions on photography at Lane Cove Aquatic Centre. Council has contacted several other centres and has found that all centres have an ad hoc policy of approaching anyone taking photographs and asking them a series of questions to determine if their photos are being taken for legitimate reasons.

Under the existing arrangements, the management of Lane Cove Aquatic Centre has taken this one step further by placing notices advising customers that photography and video photography is not permitted. Their notices ask customers to talk to a Duty Manager for further information on the policy and if people choose to do so they are informed that photography is permitted provided that certain procedures are followed.

After consulting with the management of the Centre, Council would propose to clarify this procedure by placing signs that state that photography is not permitted without the permission of the Aquatic Centre General Manager or Duty Manager. This will then form part of the conditions of entry.

Having consulted with Council’s legal advisers, we have ascertained that Council has the power under s 632 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) to erect a notice requiring customers to request permission before taking photographs or videos.

The process of requesting permission to take photographs will be simple and will enable Lane Cove Council and the Lane Cove Aquatic Centre operators to meet their “duty of care” requirement to customers using the centre. We would hope that customers will recognise that this is a minor inconvenience and that it is a prudent measure given the increased requirements in the areas of child protection.

I have already responded to this letter:

Thank you kindly for the information that you provided. In short, however, I still find the proposed new policy unnacceptable.

The State Government has clearly identified in Law what is and isn't acceptable with regard to photography in public places and Lane Cove Council is now attempting to shift the line in the sand. I don't believe that Lane Cove or any other local council has any business in defining their own particular flavour of the State Law.

Also, for the record, the information that has been provided to you by the lessee is very misleading... I approached duty staff and the manager Mark Nicholls some months ago about this question and was told that photography was banned within the centre. There was no acknowledgement made to me that photography was possible with permission.

I repeat the statement made in one of my earlier communications to the mayor: No parent should have to ask anyone's permission to take a picture of their own child. Policies such as this should focus on identifying inappropriate behaviour and not on inconveniencing the majority of well meaning people.

While I still strongly object to having to ask permission to photograph my own daughter, their new policy makes it a little harder to attack them in the media, because they are not forbidding it outright...

My main concern is that the new signs will still contribute to the public opinion that photography is a bad thing...

In addition, I've found out that the same company also manages the Cook & Phillip and Andrew Boy Charlton Swimming pools (next to the cathedral and on the road to Lady Macquarie's Chair) and the total ban is still in place there... Does someone else want to take up the issue for those swim centres... They probably fall under Clover Moore's council territory...

[Glen]

John, maybe I should come with you one morning and say I want to take photos of my mates daughter? That will give the duty manager a quandry, especially if you are standing next to him me with your camera. He can ask is one camera enough, we can point out different perspectives etc. If he bans me you can take my photo being thrown out and send it to the North Shore Times!