London Student protests - Wed 8th Dec+ Thurs 9th

[GuerillaPhoto]

NIce pics and account on your blog. Should you maybe blur some of the faces in the pics? If you've got a caption on a photo saying 'protesters launching fence into police lines' and it shows the faces of the protesters - well, from the point of view of the police that's a criminal act and your photos might be used as evidence. I know they probably took all the photos they wanted themselves but still...

As I have said before, I was there to document, if the protester did not cover his face, that's his fault not mine, the police were filming the whole thing as well, if he is stupid enough to do it in the first place without covering his face, what does he expect?

 

[smokedout]

As I have said before, I was there to document, if the protester did not cover his face, that's his fault not mine, the police were filming the whole thing as well, if he is stupid enough to do it in the first place without covering his face, what does he expect?

any chance you could post up a picture of yourself then

 

[audiotech]

This needs to be viewed.

 

[steve0223]

gphoto: great images. But 'documenting' isn't an apolitical act. Its potentially evidence gathering. i am surprised you don't realise that. You have added captions to the images which give context. That context could potentially be used against the people involved as evidence. You have published the photos on the internet. You have a direct responsibility to those in the photos. If you don't accept that then make it clear, and then put up your photo so people know that it is not acceptable for you to take photos of them.

 

[cantsin]

As I have said before, I was there to document, if the protester did not cover his face, that's his fault not mine, the police were filming the whole thing as well, if he is stupid enough to do it in the first place without covering his face, what does he expect?

so maybe you'll understand if someone neutralises your camera next time ?

 

[dylans]

gphoto: great images. But 'documenting' isn't an apolitical act. Its potentially evidence gathering. i am surprised you don't realise that. You have added captions to the images which give context. That context could potentially be used against the people involved as evidence. You have published the photos on the internet. You have a direct responsibility to those in the photos. If you don't accept that then make it clear, and then put up your photo so people know that it is not acceptable for you to take photos of them.

I'm a little concerned about these demands for GP to doctor his images. It amounts to a demand for censorship and that makes me uneasy. Every person who engages in confrontation of a nature that puts them at risk of arrest KNOWS that they are being filmed and photographed in an unprecidented manner by state and civilian alike. It is their responsibility to take precautions. Be assured that if GP has a photo of someone breaking a window the cops do too. People have to take individual responsibility for their actions not act foolishly then bleat about the fact that they are recorded. Calling for GP to now censor his images is to demand that censorship replace common sense. I don't like that. I am opposed to censorship in all its forms and we do ourselves no favours by censoring ourselves because people are too foolish to THINK about their actions.

 

[dylans]

so maybe you'll understand if someone neutralises your camera next time ?

and that is just fucking stupid. You want to attack journalists instead of exercising some personal responsibility??

One of the justifications for supporting militant or violent confrontation is an understanding that peaceful protests are ignored. Now you are crying because they are NOT ignored.

 

[Spymaster]

You want to attack journalists instead of exercising some personal responsibility??

Only online.

Catshit's the internet hardman, dontchaknow????

 

[ferrelhadley]

This needs to be viewed.

Catches the clautrophobia very well.

 

[where to]

and that is just fucking stupid. You want to attack journalists instead of exercising some personal responsibility??

One of the justifications for supporting militant or violent confrontation is an understanding that peaceful protests are ignored. Now you are crying because they are NOT ignored.

ah, morality... that gets a bit complicated though doesn't it?

lets keep it simple. in his own words, "what does he expect".

(sorry GP but you've got to think this one through a bit more.)

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Did the Tahmeena Bax story get posted here?

At Guy's and St Thomas' hospital, Bax said, the same officer debated with her over the merits of tuition fees, telling her she was "narrow minded" and should stop reading the Guardian and read the Telegraph and the Daily Mail more often.

That would be just what I needed to hear from a representative of the force that had just beaten me unconscious, while I was in hospital recovering from it.

 

[cantsin]

and that is just fucking stupid. You want to attack journalists instead of exercising some personal responsibility??

One of the justifications for supporting militant or violent confrontation is an understanding that peaceful protests are ignored. Now you are crying because they are NOT ignored.

there''s a million camera's out there now, but if supposedly sympathetic people want to post up clips with people's faces visible in dodgy situations and then say "it's your responsibility to cover up " then they're no better than grasses / and deserve treating as such - nothing "internet hardman" about it, you can't always be scarved up without attracting heat, anyone who's ever actually been in at the sharp end of these situations ( ie: not you Spymaster you little creep ) knows the score.

 

[steve0223]

i'm sorry you feel 'uneasy'. I'm more concerned that kids don't get sent to prison. It's not about supporting 'militant violent protests' - i'm supporting comrades, showing solidarity. It's not neutral. And neither are you. 'Censorship is what the state does to supress freedom. What we are on about is making sure that we are not providing evidence to help send someone to prison.

Oh, and neutralising a camera owned by someone who says they are happy for the images to be used by the state is not 'attacking a journalist' i.e windows don't have feelings.

Gphoto: how will you feel if someone goes down because of one of your photos corroberating evidence? What if its one of the people you eloquently write about on your blog as being a 'normal' person who was driven to doing whatever they had to do to help them and their friends be safe?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

As I have said before, I was there to document, if the protester did not cover his face, that's his fault not mine, the police were filming the whole thing as well, if he is stupid enough to do it in the first place without covering his face, what does he expect?

So you're not a supporter of the protesters, then.

How disappointing.

 

[steve0223]

double post

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm a little concerned about these demands for GP to doctor his images. It amounts to a demand for censorship and that makes me uneasy. Every person who engages in confrontation of a nature that puts them at risk of arrest KNOWS that they are being filmed and photographed in an unprecidented manner by state and civilian alike. It is their responsibility to take precautions. Be assured that if GP has a photo of someone breaking a window the cops do too. People have to take individual responsibility for their actions not act foolishly then bleat about the fact that they are recorded. Calling for GP to now censor his images is to demand that censorship replace common sense. I don't like that. I am opposed to censorship in all its forms and we do ourselves no favours by censoring ourselves because people are too foolish to THINK about their actions.

I completely disagree with that. Of course protesters have to take responsibility upon themselves to protect their identities. That in no way takes away from the responsibility gp has not to expose their identities if he films them, if he is to present himself as a supporter of the protest. If he does not do that, he is not a supporter. He is a supporter of the state, in fact.

He should change his name, in fact. 'Guerrilla photo' is highly misleading.

 

[dylans]

there''s a million camera's out there now, but if supposedly sympathetic people want to post up clips with people's faces visible in dodgy situations and then say "it's your responsibility to cover up " then they're no better than grasses / and deserve treating as such - nothing "internet hardman" about it, anyone who's ever actually been in at the sharp end of these situations ( ie: not you Spymaster you little creep ) knows the score.

Believe me, I have been in the "sharp end of these situations far far more than you. What you are calling for amounts to a demand for censorship nothing less. Fuck you. You don't get to tell me what I can see or photograph or record. If we follow your logic we would have no footage of the poll tax riots, miners strike, greece, italy, the list goes on. We would have only heavily edited and heavily censored images of blacked out faces. That's utterly self defeating. Here is an idea. Wear a fucking mask.

 

[where to]

I'm a little concerned about these demands for GP to doctor his images. It amounts to a demand for censorship and that makes me uneasy. Every person who engages in confrontation of a nature that puts them at risk of arrest KNOWS that they are being filmed and photographed in an unprecidented manner by state and civilian alike. It is their responsibility to take precautions. Be assured that if GP has a photo of someone breaking a window the cops do too. People have to take individual responsibility for their actions not act foolishly then bleat about the fact that they are recorded. Calling for GP to now censor his images is to demand that censorship replace common sense. I don't like that. I am opposed to censorship in all its forms and we do ourselves no favours by censoring ourselves because people are too foolish to THINK about their actions.

who said solidarity was dead.

 

[Cobbles]

Oh, and VANDALISING a camera owned by someone who says they are happy for the images to be used by the state is not 'attacking a journalist' i.e windows don't have feelings.

There, I've corrected that for you - after all, we can't possibly have folk wandering around free to take piccies of whatever they want - can we?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Believe me, I have been in the "sharp end of these situations far far more than you. What you are calling for amounts to a demand for censorship nothing less. Fuck you. You don't get to tell me what I can see or photograph or record. If we follow your logic we would have no footage of the poll tax riots, miners strike, greece, italy, the list goes on. We would have only heavily edited and heavily censored images of blacked out faces. That's utterly self defeating. Here is an idea. Wear a fucking mask.

Utter rubbish. It is no different from changing a person's name if you're writing a report. If you are on the side of the protesters, you do not publicise film of them breaking any laws with their faces uncovered.

 

[Spymaster]

.... anyone who's ever actually been in at the sharp end of these situations knows the score.

The only "sharp end" you've been in at is the sharp end of a dogs cock, you bullshitting wanker.

Still threatening people by PM, cunt?

 

[Citizen66]

As I have said before, I was there to document, if the protester did not cover his face, that's his fault not mine, the police were filming the whole thing as well, if he is stupid enough to do it in the first place without covering his face, what does he expect?

Any chance you might want to help the security services for nowt, mister 'guerilla' (lol) intelligence tool?

 

[cantsin]

Believe me, I have been in the "sharp end of these situations far far more than you. What you are calling for amounts to a demand for censorship nothing less. Fuck you. You don't get to tell me what I can see or photograph or record. If we follow your logic we would have no footage of the poll tax riots, miners strike, greece, italy, the list goes on. We would have only heavily edited and heavily censored images of blacked out faces. That's utterly self defeating. Here is an idea. Wear a fucking mask.

are you drunk or something ? Me personally,I'm not going to be on camera up to all sorts with my ugly mug on display to all and sundry, but if some enthusiastic kids are, then yes, GP and the like need to be thinking about blanking out faces etc afterwards. If not, then all active participants need to be thinking about preventing the likes of GP filming at the time, as they are a dangerous liability. And if this happens to mean your riot porn stash of the future suffers, tough shit sunshine - now how about you get a grip and drop this one, it's not constructive.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Censorship is what the state does to supress freedom. What we are on about is making sure that we are not providing evidence to help send someone to prison.?

This is the point. I'm surprised by you, dylans, shouting censorship.

 

[where to]

Poll tax riots, miners strike...

Here is an idea. Wear a fucking mask.

20 yrs since poll tax and people still doing it. most of them on thursday are kids who probably never thought they'd end the day defending themselves from/ fighting the police. and you're basically saying, fuck them. fuck their futures.

if you were simply against the rioters per se that would be a logical position and more stomach-able, but if you think you're on their side, well with that position, you're just not.

 

[dylans]

are you drunk or something ? Me personally,I'm not going to be on camera up to all sorts with my ugly mug on display to all and sundry, but if some enthusiastic kids are, then yes, GP and the like need to be thinking about blanking out faces etc afterwards. If not, then all active participants need to be thinking about preventing the likes of GP filming at the time, as they are a dangerous liability. And if this happens to mean your riot porn stash of the future suffers, tough shit sunshine - now how about you get a grip and drop this one, it's not constructive.

And threatening to attack journalists is constructive? Uncensored images by sympathetic journo's help our side. They tell our side of the story and (as the footage of the kettle above shows) go someway to rebalancing the bullshit in the mainstream media. Start demanding censorship and we lose that weapon.

It is absurd to claim that images shot by sympathetic journo's will be used to prosecute rioters. As the press will no doubt demonstrate in the coming days. They have all the images they want. Better to emphasise a simple fact. Rioting without a mask will get you caught, end of.

 

[Citizen66]

Believe me, I have been in the "sharp end of these situations far far more than you.

Seems rather unlikely, given this bizarre stance you have about encouraging photographers to do the state's work for them. What is more probable is that you masturbate over such stuff and need to see their faces to bring you to a climax.

 

[dylans]

This is the point. I'm surprised by you, dylans, shouting censorship.

Read anything I have ever written. I am entirely consistent. I believe the truth is ALWAYS our ally.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It is absurd to claim that images shot by sympathetic journo's will be used to prosecute rioters.

It is? You seem to think that the coppers will have caught every act on camera, every face clearly seen. You overestimate the competence of the police.

 

[dylans]

Seems rather unlikely, given this bizarre stance you have about encouraging photographers to do the state's work for them. What is more probable is that you masturbate over such stuff and need to see their faces to bring you to a climax.

Poll Tax riot. Miners strike. Wapping. Bangkok. Phnom Penh. Gaza. West Bank. I have nothing to prove to you.