Speaking of food, more Brits involved in photography bans

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jun 15, 2012.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. David J Taylor, Jun 15, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Grimly Curmudgeon, Jun 15, 2012
    #3
  4. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Friday, June 15, 2012 1:26:15 PM UTC+1, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
    > On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:54:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18454800

    >
    > Utterly disgraceful censorship.


    Makes me wonder what elese they manage to keep quite about.
    I'd move to sack the concillers in question unless they can come up with a legal reason for banning the photos.
    Whisky-dave, Jun 15, 2012
    #4
  5. "Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
    news:...

    On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:54:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18454800


    Utterly disgraceful censorship.
    ===========================================

    Then you will be delighted to hear the ban has bee revoked.

    Storm. Teacup?
    David J Taylor, Jun 15, 2012
    #5
  6. "Mxsmanic" wrote in message
    news:...

    David J Taylor writes:

    > Then you will be delighted to hear the ban has bee revoked.


    Good. Has the party responsible for the ban been fired?
    ============================

    I haven't heard, but one can hardly fire the whole council.....? <G>

    David
    David J Taylor, Jun 15, 2012
    #6
  7. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:54:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18454800


    This wasn't a ban on photography. It was a ban on publicizing the
    food choices offered at the school. A photograph was only the means
    to show what the choices were. The board's objection was that the
    photographs presented only some of the choice. I didn't see that she
    was stopped from taking the photos, just from publishing them.

    It was stupid to ban the blog photographs, but it wasn't an act of
    suppression of photography.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jun 15, 2012
    #7
  8. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 15, 9:02 am, Graham <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:54:00 +0100, David J Taylor,
    > <news:jrfb98$f0n$> expounded this theory:
    >
    > >>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18454800

    >
    > > Utterly disgraceful censorship.
    > > ===========================================

    >
    > > Then you will be delighted to hear the ban has bee revoked.

    >
    > > Storm.  Teacup?

    >
    > Storms in teacups is RichA's Raison d'être.
    >
    > --
    > Graham
    > Comments and criticism welcomehttp://www.lodeway.com


    Storm? The food looked like s---. They needed to be outed for it.
    Kudos to the kid.
    RichA, Jun 15, 2012
    #8
  9. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    [SI] Re: Speaking of food, more Brits involved in photography bans

    On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:54:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> wrote:
    : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18454800

    I'm confident that I speak for many Shoot-In participants when I hereby call
    on The Committee to forthwith assure Ms Payne that should she elect to submit
    three pictures in response to the "Food" mandate, last Sunday's deadline will
    be officially waived. ;^)

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jun 15, 2012
    #9
  10. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:56:28 +0200, Mxsmanic <>
    wrote:

    >Elliott Roper writes:
    >
    >> It all turned out well. The ban was mostly lifted. The girl's charity
    >> fundraising efforts succeeded beyond expectations and a publicly funded
    >> buffoon was embarrassed. What's not to like?

    >
    >The buffoon needs to change jobs. Otherwise he will go on to make the same
    >mistake again, and again. Embarrassment does not transform incompetent bullies
    >into competent nice people.


    Who is "he"? The ban was imposed by the council. No single
    individual was named as responsible.

    I have to wonder about the competency of readers who can't pick out
    the salient details of a story.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jun 15, 2012
    #10
  11. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 03:53:19 +0200, Mxsmanic <>
    wrote:

    >tony cooper writes:
    >
    >> Who is "he"? The ban was imposed by the council. No single
    >> individual was named as responsible.

    >
    >The council is not a conscious entity. It's just a group of people, each of
    >whom makes decisions himself.


    Yes, it is a group...a group that could contain one or more women.
    The group is not a "he" even if it doesn't contain a woman.

    Normally, the group would vote, formally or just as an expression of
    opinion, on an action like this. The decision was most likely a
    decision made by, and agreed to, by the entire group.

    The decision of the group is then the ruling of an entity.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jun 16, 2012
    #11
  12. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 22:32:21 -0400, tony cooper <>
    wrote:
    : On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 03:53:19 +0200, Mxsmanic <>
    : wrote:
    :
    : >tony cooper writes:
    : >
    : >> Who is "he"? The ban was imposed by the council. No single
    : >> individual was named as responsible.
    : >
    : >The council is not a conscious entity. It's just a group of people,
    : >each of whom makes decisions himself.
    :
    : Yes, it is a group...a group that could contain one or more women.
    : The group is not a "he" even if it doesn't contain a woman.
    :
    : Normally, the group would vote, formally or just as an expression
    : of opinion, on an action like this. The decision was most likely
    : a decision made by, and agreed to, by the entire group.
    :
    : The decision of the group is then the ruling of an entity.

    I guess that's a pretty accurate statement of how things would be in Florida
    or Massachusetts. Are you sure it would be the same in Scotland?

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jun 16, 2012
    #12
  13. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 21:45:57 -0500, Rich <> wrote:

    >tony cooper <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:54:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18454800

    >>
    >> This wasn't a ban on photography. It was a ban on publicizing the
    >> food choices offered at the school. A photograph was only the means
    >> to show what the choices were. The board's objection was that the
    >> photographs presented only some of the choice. I didn't see that she
    >> was stopped from taking the photos, just from publishing them.
    >>
    >> It was stupid to ban the blog photographs, but it wasn't an act of
    >> suppression of photography.

    >
    >They banned ALL photography in the room where food was consumed.


    Don't make things up, Rich. It doesn't say that. It says they banned
    Martha from taking pictures of her school dinners and posting them to
    her blog.

    It was a stupid decision by the council based on what they perceived
    as bad publicity for the school and the catering staff. Let's not
    make it an oppressive act against photographers, though. It wasn't.

    I never can understand how people can read a short article and come up
    things that are not in the article and be outraged by what didn't
    happen.

    Back in grade school we played this game where one child would whisper
    something in another child's ear and then that child would do the same
    to the next one...and so on until each child in the room had heard it
    and passed it on. A statement like "It's raining outside" might have
    ended up "There's a tiger in cloakroom". Understandable with kids,
    but the readers of this newsgroup are adults.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jun 16, 2012
    #13
  14. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 12:52:21 +0200, Mxsmanic <>
    wrote:

    >tony cooper writes:
    >
    >> It was a stupid decision by the council based on what they perceived
    >> as bad publicity for the school and the catering staff. Let's not
    >> make it an oppressive act against photographers, though. It wasn't.

    >
    >Banning photography is invariably an oppressive act against photographers.


    Yeah, right. The guy that was arrested here a few weeks ago for
    "dropping" his phone in Wal-Mart so he could shoot pictures up women's
    skirts was a victim of an oppressive ban on photography.

    Let's ignore common sense when it comes to anything involving a
    camera.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jun 16, 2012
    #14
  15. On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 05:51:03 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
    <> wrote:

    >> Utterly disgraceful censorship.

    >
    >Makes me wonder what elese they manage to keep quite about.


    In times past; plenty. Previously, she'd have had to shut up and
    swallow it and her father wouldn't have had any outlet for his
    feelings on the matter. Many here can probably relate such small-town
    occurrences to their own experience.

    I'm really glad such a fuss was made about such a small thing - it
    sends the message to the small-minded arseholes in back-of-beyond
    places that they're not out of the reach of public opprobrium.
    The leader of the Council apparently said that no censorship would
    take place on his watch, so good on him for that - although there's
    always the possibility he's only being a politician about that, I'll
    cut him some slack.
    Grimly Curmudgeon, Jun 16, 2012
    #15
  16. On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:54:00 +0100, "David J Taylor"
    <> wrote:

    >Then you will be delighted to hear the ban has bee revoked.
    >
    >Storm. Teacup?


    Certainly a bit of bumbling.
    Grimly Curmudgeon, Jun 16, 2012
    #16
  17. RichA

    BartC Guest

    "Grimly Curmudgeon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 05:51:03 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>> Utterly disgraceful censorship.

    >>
    >>Makes me wonder what elese they manage to keep quite about.

    >
    > In times past; plenty. Previously, she'd have had to shut up and
    > swallow it and her father wouldn't have had any outlet for his
    > feelings on the matter. Many here can probably relate such small-town
    > occurrences to their own experience.
    >
    > I'm really glad such a fuss was made about such a small thing - it
    > sends the message to the small-minded arseholes in back-of-beyond
    > places that they're not out of the reach of public opprobrium.
    > The leader of the Council apparently said that no censorship would
    > take place on his watch, so good on him for that - although there's
    > always the possibility he's only being a politician about that, I'll
    > cut him some slack.


    I seem to be one of the very few not on the girl's side. I find it slightly
    disturbing that she should be allowed to do what she's doing in such a
    systematic way.

    I don't know what you do for a job, but how would you like it if whatever
    you produced or created each day, was photographed, criticised, rated and
    published by some ungrateful 9-year-old? Or you're her parent and every meal
    you struggled to provide each day was put on the internet for 3 million
    people to laugh at?

    It just doesn't seem right.

    --
    Bartc
    BartC, Jun 16, 2012
    #17
  18. On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 10:26:44 +0100, Neil Ellwood
    <> wrote:

    >As it is private property (even though in public ownership) the council
    >and school are legally entitled to do this.


    Yes, and if I happen to be a taxpayer of that country and the property
    in question isn't actually photographically-prohibited for some good
    reason, like MoD /nuclear /etc sites are, then I'd be pretty pissed
    off at that.

    It's a bloody school, for ****'s sake.
    Grimly Curmudgeon, Jun 16, 2012
    #18
  19. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 20:36:10 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
    <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 10:26:44 +0100, Neil Ellwood
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>As it is private property (even though in public ownership) the council
    >>and school are legally entitled to do this.

    >
    >Yes, and if I happen to be a taxpayer of that country and the property
    >in question isn't actually photographically-prohibited for some good
    >reason, like MoD /nuclear /etc sites are, then I'd be pretty pissed
    >off at that.
    >
    >It's a bloody school, for ****'s sake.


    Well, there is the question of the privacy of the students. (Not that
    they don't constantly post pics of themselves in school these days.)
    John A., Jun 16, 2012
    #19
  20. On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 20:06:40 +0100, "BartC" <> wrote:

    >I seem to be one of the very few not on the girl's side. I find it slightly
    >disturbing that she should be allowed to do what she's doing in such a
    >systematic way.


    Why? What do you have against freedom of expression?

    >I don't know what you do for a job, but how would you like it if whatever
    >you produced or created each day, was photographed, criticised, rated and
    >published by some ungrateful 9-year-old? Or you're her parent and every meal
    >you struggled to provide each day was put on the internet for 3 million
    >people to laugh at?


    I'd just shrug and get on with it. Frankly, some of the meals looked a
    bit scanty, but to be fair, she didn't adversely criticise all of
    them.

    >It just doesn't seem right.


    That's entirely your feeling. Get over it.
    Grimly Curmudgeon, Jun 17, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Simone Kerby

    AMERICAN FOOD vs EUROPEAN FOOD

    Simone Kerby, Mar 4, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    316
    Views:
    12,828
    Sheva Forever
    Apr 4, 2004
  2. SJH
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    938
    Tony Hwang
    Feb 6, 2005
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    560
  4. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    589
    Stewy
    Feb 8, 2005
  5. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    480
    Roger
    Feb 14, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page