Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Shots fired outside Houses of Parliament

People don't view reality through their smartphones. They film it, but don't address the real situation. Like watching a distant war on TV. You aren't there. You won't get harmed - it doesn't affect you.

Those of us watching on the internet are probably closer to the truth than the person filming in a way. Other sources are conveying much more information for us to build the truth from. Things correlate, it makes sense. The person filming won't be receiving nearly as much background info'.

That and the fact that all smartphone users know they have to film events to prove they were there on Facebook later.
Wow, you get thicker and thicker. What about a regular photojournalist - are they the same? Are they not "addressing the real situation"? Are they not affected?

Actually don't bother replying.
 
Just listening to May on the itv news. Utterly predictable statement with her voice cracking at the 'right moments'. But it was a speech by numbers, police who protect us, value our freedoms, even 'mother of all parliaments'. :rolleyes: Can't manage to say anything direct and human about the victims - and in the bit I heard, almost ignores the victims on the bridge. I'm not making some cheap anticapitalist point, she just had completely the wrong tone.
 
Not sure where you draw the line with this tbh. That photo of Alan the poor little refugee lad dead on a beach prompted similar comments here initially. ''I don't want to see that on my FB page'' etc. But I think that photo started to change people's minds about the refugee crisis and ultimately did a lot of good. Can't see any of the photos mentioned above having a similar impact tbh but the photographer who took Alan's photo may have appeared incredibly callous at the time too.
 
I saw a distressed-looking man on top of a building in central London a couple of years ago and loads of twats had their mobiles out filming him. I can kind of understand the situations that you describe above, but that was sheer prurience at someone's evident distress and potential suicide.
Yeah agree, in the situation you describe you'd have to be a cunt in my book to start filming.
 
People in Syria want us to see their photos and film of atrocities to spread awareness. That isn't the case here, we are all aware of what happened today. At least the mainstream news blur people's faces so they can't be identified. People sharing it on social media have no idea who will see it and what kind of upset it can cause.
 
There was a really bad one I saw from Reuters (retweeted by the @nytimesphoto account on Twitter, which has a number of them) with an injured women lying on the ground, being helped by somebody, looking at the camera. That particularly got to me. I still don't think those sort of pictures should be restricted in any way though.

That pic was posted on here earlier by editor but seems to have been deleted
 
Middle paragraph is okay. The others are rubbish.

I was being a little flippant around the edges there. Flippant about important stuff mind. Go ask the majority of younger people with smartphones what they think about what's happening in Syria. Listen to their replies.
 
there's no set number, but at least one bomb has to go off or an automatic weapon used. this sort of thing's in the great british jihadi tradition of incompetence, which has seen numerous attempts to emulate 7/7 but have met with such scant success.

Tell that to the families of the maimed and dead on the bridge, who are reported to possibly include school children from France. This cannot be played down because the terrorist mindset will see it as a coup due to the symbolic nature of the target, ie, houses of parliemant, where the killer got into the grounds. It cannot be measured by size of bomb or number of victims.
 
That pic was posted on here earlier by editor but seems to have been deleted
It was still on the NYT photo page when I wrote the post - might not be on the twitter feed. They have a gallery of London pics. They're all agency shots of course, I think all Reuters.
 
Wow, you get thicker and thicker. What about a regular photojournalist - are they the same? Are they not "addressing the real situation"? Are they not affected?

Actually don't bother replying.

I'm replying.

'Regular' photo-journalists as you call them have spent years learning. They rarely just find themselves in a sporadic situation, they travel to find what needs to be recorded from the viewpoint of themselves, or the people they work for. They are much more aware of the reality and have a great deal of background information to work from.
 
Assistant commissioner talking live now confirms now 5 dead and around forty injured including two police officers in serious condition
 
Just listening to May on the itv news. Utterly predictable statement with her voice cracking at the 'right moments'. But it was a speech by numbers, police who protect us, value our freedoms, even 'mother of all parliaments'. :rolleyes: Can't manage to say anything direct and human about the victims - and in the bit I heard, almost ignores the victims on the bridge. I'm not making some cheap anticapitalist point, she just had completely the wrong tone.
May is truly horrible but it is amazing that corbyn appears even worse. He was terrible.
 
It was still on the NYT photo page when I wrote the post - might not be on the twitter feed. They have a gallery of London pics. They're all agency shots of course, I think all Reuters.

Most news outlets have pixelated her face. It wasn't here. The one posted here had her staring at the camera in what can only be described as a dead eyed way. Not fair on the young lady imo to be posting shit like that, pixelated or not.
 
Just listening to May on the itv news. Utterly predictable statement with her voice cracking at the 'right moments'. But it was a speech by numbers, police who protect us, value our freedoms, even 'mother of all parliaments'. :rolleyes: Can't manage to say anything direct and human about the victims - and in the bit I heard, almost ignores the victims on the bridge. I'm not making some cheap anticapitalist point, she just had completely the wrong tone.

Her and Amber Rudd both listed the official "fundamental British values" that schools are forced to promote word for word as if learnt by rote.
 
This cannot be played down because the terrorist mindset will see it as a coup due to the symbolic nature of the target, ie, houses of parliemant, where the killer got into the grounds. It cannot be measured by size of bomb or number of victims.
Ffs, the countryside alliance got into the chamber of the house of commons, yer man today only got a few yards into some outer courtyard. Catch yourself on, if you can.
 
Reuters have posted some indefensible pictures of this on their Instagram account.
I honestly detest the people who go about photographing people in their moments of distress, crisis and vulnerability. Detest them. There's something altogether callous which makes people think they have the right to photograph others in such states and to spread them online when they can't possibly have their consent is fucking low. If I saw it happening I'd like to think I'd fuck their phones off the bridge.
But I'm probably too mild mannered to do that
As the law stands if you're in a public place you're considered to be 'fair game' and no consent needed.
 
Back
Top Bottom