Harassment on the streets of Middlesbrough
There’s been a bit of a brouhaha in the local press and in blogland about one Lawrence Windrush who has made a bit of a reputation for himself locally for taking close range photographs of people in the street and ridiculing them on the popular photosharing site Flickr.
Many of Windrush’s photographs are of elderly or overweight women, or of very young women, and the tags and titling often includes sarcasm and/or detrimental remarks and commentary.
There’s a thread going discussing Windrush’s recent tussle with a security guard on Boing Boing and another on Flickr. Flickr has taken their not unusal action of deleting the photograph of the security guard and its commentary. My comment:
I have studiously avoided commenting on any of Lawrence/Laurence Windrush’s activity since he aggressively pursued me and my elderly mother around Middlesbrough last year.
Whilst I would be among the many who would actively seek to encourage all of the recent campaigns to defend street photography and its photographers, I believe that there is also an responsibility for us, as photographers, to behave with due respect and integrity while out on the streets, and to treat our subjects humanely if we intend to publish the photographs.
Windrush’s photographs of the people of Middlesbrough are demeaning in themselves, but the context in which they are posted (tags, commentary etc) subject the people in them to extremes of ridicule that I find distasteful, and do nothing to further the cause of a) street photography in general or b) the many people who wish to take photographs in public, in the north-east.
The photograph/s of me and my mother, and the process of taking them, which involved Windrush jumping around on the pavement in front of us, hopping out of doorways and blocking our path, yes were abusive, harassing, and also defamatory in the subsequent tagging/titling and certainly objectionable.
That Windrush undertakes this activity on a regular basis in and around Middlesbrough may well explain much of the hostility he experiences on its streets. Just to be quite clear, I am certainly not objecting to the taking of photographs in a public place. The issues here are:
1. Chasing people in public streets as they are going about their business, blocking the pavement in front of them, impeding their progress and preventing them from going about their normal business.
2. Publishing the photographs without first seeking permission, and including sarcastic or ironic derogatory tags and titles, and seeking and allowing detrimental and mocking commentary on the people in the photographs.
Should I have the misfortune to encounter Windrush and his behaviour with his camera on the streets again, I will most certainly call the police.
I completely support Flickr’s action in this case.
That last sentence might make one or two readers chuckle. A more substantive post about ’street’ photography: ‘When is it better not to take the photograph‘.
If anyone has a photograph of Windrush that I can use in publicising this and in writing to the local press, please email it in to brenda@b13.co.uk.
Popularity: 20% [?]
comments
70 Responses to “Harassment on the streets of Middlesbrough”
[...] Go to the author’s original blog: Harassment on the streets of Middlesbrough [...]
[...] Harassment on the streets of Middlesbrough [...]
Brenda this is a complete and utter distortion of the truth, i still await your apology.
Windrush, I will allow you to post here, but only if you remain civil and respectful.
I felt compelled to comment in the thread on Flickr, because I agree with their position on your continued campaign of media harassment of the security guard. You have encouraged people to defame the man and he has had his picture and the video published all over the internet.
Security staff are amongst the poorest paid people in our community and have limited support or training. And Middlesbrough is a multi-deprived community - it’s streets are populated by people who do not have the resources, blogs, photography websites and whatnot, to defend themselves.
I have thought for a long period of time that your behaviour in and around Middlesbrough to be reprehensible. My own experience bears that out. I will be writing to the Gazette and any other of the media sources you have used in your ill-judged campaign of self promotion to try and put the other side of the story to them.
You are using your camera in attempts to harass people in the street and should be ashamed of yourself.
I have not undertaken an ill judged campaign of self promotion, i was very reluctant for the Gazette to interview me. I turned down an approach from BBC Look North and am not responsible for this photo appearing on any other website.
How is my behaviour reprehensible? And i never harass people with my camera.
You have lied about me on the PROT discussion saying i aggressively chased you and your elderly mother around the town and that i jumped out at you from a doorway and hopped around the pavement in front of you. i have explained why the photo was taken and that for over a year you had no objection to the photo.
So you agree its okay for security guards to unlawfully detain me for taking photos in public?
Are you going to apologize for the untruthful comments you have made?
i have emailed my friend who was with me the whole day and she will verify that what you have published on flickr is untrue.
Windrush, you are missing my meaning in several respects.
1. “I will allow you to post here only if you remain civil and respectful” means exactly that. Accusing me of lying is disrespectful.
2. You have engaged in, encouraged and promoted a campaign of hatred against the security guard.
3. Reluctantly, I have to I agree that it is helpful to detain someone who is preventing ordinary people from going about their normal business.
Please read my post When is it better not to take the photograph?, especially the final part. It applies to you.
test comment
1. accusing you of lying is from a point of his view, not disrespectful, as I read it his friend on the day backs up his story, so who is right and how do you prove it ?
2. as far as the thread went, he didnt encourage hatred at all, the security guard was entirely in the wrong and from a legal point of view was the one doing the harassment and assualt ( http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section5/chapter_c.html#06 )
3. the guard was the one stopping someone from going about their normal business. He had no right watsoever to attempt to detain or put his hands on anyone at all.
Mik (Mick ?)
Just to follow the conventions of the numbering:
1. Sure, you’d expect Windrush to say that he remembers things differently, as indeed he might. It is a long time ago now. You’ll probably understand that I’m more than happy to allow him to comment here as long as he’s respectful.
The friend and Windrush might try and get their stories to match. He says he didn’t recognise me, she says we said hello. I’m all for mates sticking up for each other, but neither of them are telling the truth. At least if they were saying the same thing, there might be a whiff of integrity about them. But you’re right, there is no proof at all, except of course for whatever the photograph itself shows.
2. You see, I’m not at all sure about this. Flickr is tough on anyone who contravenes their Terms of Use, and publishing someone’s photo and accusing them of anything is harassment, in their book.
As far as I can gather from what Windrush himself has said, it wasn’t the Northern security guard who ‘assaulted’ him, but a couple of blokes in tee shirts, who do not appear in the photo or video. So even on Windrush’s own evidence, he is pointing the finger at the wrong person.
3. Normally, I would agree with you. I do think that security guards can often overstep their authority, and I totally support the right for us to take photographs in public places. But I’m not at all sure from what I’ve seen that this is what happened. And there seems to have been a bit of a mob mentality pile-on, at a time when the issue of photography is news anyway ref the Met posters and all.
A sad business. I would hope that someone (maybe from your PROT group) could encourage Windrush to modify his behaviour. Encouraging all this self-righteous indignation doesn’t really help in that regard.
Thanks for persisting with the comment box, Mick. It does work with Firefox (my site is optimised for Firefox) but there has been a ton of traffic today and it’s all too slow and a bit broken. Very sorry about that.
it wouldn’t work for me because for some reason the link of the last comment in the box was attached to the “leave a reply”, but after your test comment the link seamed to be released !
but the video supports everyone’s views on what happened, the security guard for whatever reason was out of order and in fact the one infringing people’s rights.
I believe Flickr deleted the comments in a blanket way because it just doesn’t want to get involved with any litigation no matter what the rights and wrongs of the events.
Cool, I’m glad it’s working. :)
Mick, the thing is, the video doesn’t support even what Windrush has to say on the matter. We simply do not know what happened. And we have enough evidence from watching his behaviour over many months now, to believe that Windrush can shall we say, fit his own version of events to whatever it is he’s after at the time.
Rights are important, I agree. But photographers also have a responsibility to their subjects and to their profession (or hobby) to behave with respect. I can see no reason why Windrush behaves as he does, except possibly to create a controversy in order to draw attention to his work, but I don’t know.
If someone asks you to stop taking a photo, or enquires about what you’re doing, what do you yourself say to them, Mick?
Ooops, clicked submit too soon. I meant to add:
I agree completely with you about Flickr. I’m not a fan myself, although it was great when it first started. But I do agree that they don’t allow any finger-pointing.
Brendadada, I am bemused by your comments that the photos mr windrush posted on flickr were of a demeaning nature. My own recollection is that after seeing the story on boingboing.net, I spent a good hour going though his photo stream, enchanted by the unmistakably joyful and caring view of the photographer towards his subjects which oozed from the way he framed his photos. His photos were largely touching, and I felt a rare privilege in the opportunity to view the stream of pictures that flowed by on my web browser.
When I watched the video in that context, I was gratified and filled with admiration that he was determined to bring this beauty to the world and also filled with admiration that he would be unwilling to submit to the silly, bovine, self-important, oppressive demands and actions of the guard.
If you look at the video again, you will see that the guard resorted quite quickly and needlessly to violence, pushing the man down into a park bench. I was simply amazed that the photographer had the greatness of composure and humility to neither submit nor complain. He, rather, moved forward in life by asserting his right to freely roam the public streets with his camera by taking a picture of the guard.
The idea that 7 private citizens on public land (recall, they were MALL GUARDS, and the man was OUTSIDE) thought it either their right or a perfectly good idea to forcefully and painfully detain two photographers for insisting on the right to take pictures is profoundly absurd, and the idea that the photographers would not easily submit to it is warming. That the law is on the side of the photographers despite the idiocy of the guards and the ignorrance of the police officer in the story seems apparent, and that the guards and their employers are eventually taught a lesson, the lesson mostly consisting of that they must stop their awful, chilling, and oppressive behavior and policies is my logical hope.
Mr Windrush, I commisserate with your desire to lead a quiet life as evidenced by the refusal to talk to the press, and have nearly zero desire to ever appear on BBC or CNN run off to perform im a circus, but if you do decide to go forward with pressing charges or what have you, I am quite interested to know that you are successful.
Brenda,
Either i agressively followed your mother around the town and jumped out of you in front of you from a doorway or i didn’t?
Which is it to be?
My friend verifies what actually happen, i realise memories fade but you are accusing me of criminal acts.
I respect your opinions Brenda but to accuse me of things i have not done is below the belt.
Mark: we are clearly looking at two different photostreams. ;)
I am not defending any aggressive acts by security staff, but I think conclusions have been reached here that are not backed up by the video evidence. Flickr seems to agree with me.
Lawrence, numbering again, to make it simpler for you.
1. Yes you did. I was giving you/your friend the benefit of the doubt in terms of memory. I was an unpleasant afternoon which I have never forgotten.
2. You and your friend might take pains to get whatever story you are making up look roughly the same. You say you didn’t recognise me, she says we said hello. You also contradict yourself when you say you know me and met me in York. You do realise the conflicts inherent in those?
3. You are not blocked from commenting here. You will be if you are rude or disrespectful. It is the 3rd time I have had cause to say that.
4. You are again completely missing the point I am making that photographers have a moral obligation to behave respectfully in public spaces. Your tone and attitude here leave a lot to be desired. You put your making of a snapshot above your respect for the people who are your subject, and it shows.
I know that I am absolutely the last person you’d expect to back you Brenda but…
you are absolutely correct about Lawrence’s approach. I feel that he ridicules and demeans Middlesbrough and the people he claims to love. The pictures he takes are harmless in themselves, it is the comments and descriptions that do the damage. When someone adds a note to a picture of a girl asking what time her legs open then I think the photographer has a right to protect that child by deleting the note, something Lawrence repeatedly refused to do.
There has been a previous discussion previous discussion in PRoT on flickr http://www.flickr.com/groups/teessidephotographers/discuss/72157603692307142/
In the end I decided that I could no longer be associated with a group that condoned this behaviour and quit PRoT.
In mitigation since that thread Lawrence himself has definitely toned down his descriptions, even if he won’t delete inappropriate comments people leave because of his belief in free speech etc.
Regards
Cath
Cath - glad to hear that you think Windrush has toned things down. That’s a result we’d all want.
And thank you for speaking out. I have always appreciated your openness and insight.
Brenda you are accusing me of criminal acts, if i did stalk your mother and you last year and obstructed you aggressively, then i suggest you contact the police and make a formal complaint.
You can email me for my contact details to pass onto the police, you do not have the decency to admit you have lied.
Windrush:
1. Can you please clarify which of your statements you believe to be correct. Did you say hello to me in the street in Middlesbrough (or anywhere else), or did you fail to recognise me and not speak to me at all? Which version of events are you going for today?
2. You post pictures of people (including me) on the internet and mock and encourage ridicule of them. Do I look pleased to have my photograph taken by a stranger with your reputation? Does the photograph you have taken show that I am at all pleased to see you in front of me, or does it show the opposite?
3. I doubt your version of the events in the video. You assert that you were assaulted by people wearing tee shirts, and the photograph and video you have been showing to support your case shows a slender man in a navy blue uniform. Which is it?
Middlesbrough is a small and close knit community, and a friendly and welcoming town before you started this harassing behaviour. My mother and her friends and many of our family members have shopped in Boro for decades. I can guarantee that if any of my uncles or cousins catch you at this, or if you do this to me again, action will most certainly be taken.
You say the police and community support wardens are already stopping you from taking photographs, and that you are regularly warned about your behaviour. Can you take on board how objectionable it is to find yourself being mocked by complete strangers on the internet?
Try, make just a bit of an effort to see the point of view of your subjects.
You might even get better photographs that way.
why do you doubt what happened ? the security guard tries to detain them ( no right ) he then pushes Lawrence ( no right ) the guys in t shirts where from the Mall as Shutterfever described and when they crashed into him that is when the video stops, others then piled in, pictures of whom are on shutterfever’s photostream.
1. i took your photo in Middlesbrough after you paused on the pavement while i took my friends portrait. I have no recollection of speaking to you and i did not recognize you ( even though i saw you very briefly at the York meet)
only much later when i posted the photo did someone leave a comment identifying you. I sent you a polite message alerting you to the photo. At no stage did you ever contact me to voice your displeasure.
Explain to me with locations and times how i shadowed and stalked you and your mother?
An independent witness disproved your assertion that i jumped out in front of you. The photo quite clearly shows i was at least several metres away.
You further claimed that i regularly block, chase, harass people in Teesside, again give dates and times?
2 The photo of you, what comments and tags did i leave on the photo that encouraged people to mock you? you claim that you were not pleased to see me, yet state elsewhere you dont know me. So what if you have a sour expression in the photo?
3 A further video and photos taken, are currently being used as evidence and will not be appearing on flickr
Why do you keep defending the security guard and setting up fake flickr accounts to send me abusive emails?
I have no idea what your problem is, either go to the police or shut up and admit once and for all that you are a liar.
Mik G: Oh I have no doubt that something happened. If you read what I have written, you will see why I am in support of Flickr’s position. There is little point in repeating this over and over again.
Windrush: Your comment above is exactly what people who disagree with your behaviours have come to expect from you, full of contradictions of previous statements, and showing scant regard for my personal space. What is more, I am sure you haven’t bothered to read much or most of what I have written.
Read my responses, Windrush, and the original post. And think carefully about how your now quite personal attacks are making you look.
scant regard for your personal space?
Please provide the evidence or admit you are a liar?
i shall repost the photo on flickr it deserves a bigger audience
Windrush, I thought you immediately deleted a photo that its subject doesn’t like? Or is that also untrue?
Is it not enough that you pursue us in the town, that you also have to taunt us on the internet? Why does a photo of two clearly distressed old women, one of whom is very frail, deserve a bigger audience? Are you going to harass us even more?
I see that your friend still asserts that we spoke to each other that day. Are you also saying that she is a liar?
Brenda this is so silly beyond words, the photo has been online for over a year and at no stage have you ever objected to this.
i actually like the picture its a very nice portrait of some strangers i encountered in the town, none of my comments or tags are disrespectful. Nobody is distressed in the photo ( strangely you never objected at the time)
regarding my friends memory i don’t remember speaking to you, i might have done, this incident was very unimportant to me.
I am so sorry you have taken this attitude i bear you no ill will, found you quite amusing at York, enjoy your photos and believe or not wish you well.
okay so you don’t like my stream just very hurt that you accuse me of things i never did, i have no axe to grind.
Enjoy the rest of your Bank Holiday and if we ever meet again i will respect your wishes and cross over the road.
I will not post here again, you can delete all my posts on here if you wish, the whole thing is silly beyond words
Windrush, I can assure you that two of the three women in your photograph were distressed at your behaviour on that day, and the subsequent publication of the photograph. At the time, I ‘blocked’ you from engaging with my work, and ignored you, but that is all.
But I am glad to have had a chance to raise the issue with you further and I’m pleased that you seem to have softened your approach.
Make no mistake, this thread, your behaviour and your commentary here, will be reported to Middlesbrough Council and the police after the bank holiday tomorrow. It will be useful to be able point them to the photograph that you have reposted as evidence.
In the meantime, you might like to know that searches of your name on Google bring up this post and your comments.
It would be good to hear that you have thought through some of these issues and intend to modify your behaviour. Nobody wants street photography to be under the kind of media scrutiny that has characterised the debate to date, but we as photographers need to bear some responsibilty to our subjects and behave with respect and impunity in the public streets of our towns and cities.
You bare more grudges then lonely high court judges, to plagiarize Morrissey
Do you ever smile?
Hah!
Not when my path is being blocked in the street whilst being photographed by someone who doesn’t ask first, and not when my mother is obviously frightened. It’s bad news, and I suspect you know it.
Your mother appears to be smiling in the photo or maybe i don’t wear your rose tinted spectacles……….
You path was not blocked you just paused, finally i dont need your permission to take your photo.
You are very quite on this
http://www.flickr.com/photos/happyaslarry/491813179/
Windrush.
I believe you had a rule where you would delete any photo if the person/persons in the photo asked you to do so.
If thats still the case can you delete that photo you have linked above?
Yes it is me Windrush not someone pretending to be me.
CWR.
Brenda has never asked me to remove any photo.
I have NO problems with Brenda whatsover, i was stunned by her suggestion that i stalked her and her mother through the town and jumped in front of her to take a photo, which is untrue.
Chris you know me quite well, do i stalk and harass people with my camera?
After repeated warnings, a comment from Windrush has been removed. There’s a policy of zero tolerance of rudeness here. He is still allowed to post.
CWR: Windrush offered to delete the photograph of me and my mother and then posted it again on Flickr and yesterday posted a second copy.
It is not the photograph itself which is problematic, but Windrush’s harassing behaviour in taking the photograph, and the mocking tags, commentary and titling. That Windrush behaves in this way routinely is clear from his other photographs on the internet.
The photo has been deleted forever.
None of the tags or my caption was offensive to you or your mother whatsoever.
How did i harass you in taking the photo?
Your suggestion is that every photo on my stream is the result of harassment is untrue.
Fact, i am extremely shy and find street photography difficult, to jump, block or shove a camera in someones face is completely alien to me.
To suggest otherwise is untrue.
Either go to the police and make a formal complaint ( if you do email me for my contact details to pass on)
Windrush: please read what I have written in the post at the top of the page, and in the linked post beneath it entitled ‘When it is better not to take the photograph.’
I have already made my position abundantly clear.
this is the settling of some private grudge on your part, i wish to have nothing to do with this, please can you delete all my comments.
Windrush, you are extremely shy? I do not think so, arrogant is the correct description of you. You are petulant, manipulative and most definitely economic with the truth, this also has been noted by many PRoT members over the last few months.
Your constant abuse on flickr of the people of Stockton and Middlesbrough has been well documented. Your endless tub bashing about freedom of speech and your rights to take and post images on the internet is now boring. Decent ordinary people going about their business have the right not to be harassed or ridiculed on the net in order to increase your popularity.
Teeside has its social problems, name me a city in the Uk which doesn’t, however your constant onslaught of abuse and ridicule leaves a bad taste in my mouth. As for removing images when asked? This does not happen does it Windrush, you only remove images after long insulting debates have had to take place and you have taken the usual academic high ground.
Paul its a shame we cannot have this conversation in person, you can reach me on my flickr account.
Everyone is welcome to comment here, as long as they remain civil.
Just as a point of interest - several search engine robots (Google, AOL, Yahoo) and sites like Technorati and other blog aggregators index this website, the photographs, posts and comments here.
Google and of course Yahoo do index Flickr but its results don’t rank as highly, possibly because Flickr photos, pages and text are frequently deleted by users and the management.
Brenda, this discussion has now dropped to the level of personal abuse by anonymous posters.
I suggest if anyone has an issue of me they can reach me on
[telephone number deleted]
Brenda can you delete my comments.
None of the commenters here are anonymous, although like many websites, I do allow anonymity.
Please read my most recent post on the Comments Policy here.
I have nothing further to say here its just a forum of hate and abuse, anyone can reach me on my home number or contact me at flickr.
Freedom of speech Windrush, I am entitled to the same freedoms as you. I have stated my view, which you are not happy with, tough. For every action there is a reaction, fairly basic stuff really. You enjoy creating a drama suffer the consequences.
Have this conversation in person? Is that a threat Windrush?
I didn’t know Mr Windrush or his photos until this came up, but looking at his flickr photostream, I get the strong impression of someone wandering the streets pushing the shutter at random. They do absolutely nothing for me, either artistically or as a social record.
However that doesn’t make what happened on this occasion right. One of the things that has never been cleared up for me is whether this took place on private land or not. The fact that it isn’t a covered mall does not make it a public place. On private land, the owners have the right to ask you to stop taking photographs. They do not have the right to detain you.
Even so however, there is still a great deal of paranoia about photographers in both the UK and the US. To a large part this is just security theatre. The powers that be would rather be seen to be doing something - even if that is harassing innocent people - than appearing powerless. It is in the end about power - or rather its abuse.
Returning to Mr Windrush, I have no intention of getting into an argument with him, but pursuing people on the street, taking their picture in embarrassing or difficult situations and then publishing that photograph for all to see on the internet is also about power - and again the abuse of power.
[...] Comments ian on Harassment on the streets of MiddlesbroughPaul on Harassment on the streets of MiddlesbroughLawrence Windrush on Harassment on the streets of [...]
To clear one thing up, It was on a public Highway, Linthorpe Road Middlesbrough. The issue was whether a security guard had the right to try and detain someone for taking pictures. Unfortunately the issue has been lost here.
Mick, the issue is very much alive, and is an essential part of this whole discussion about photography in public spaces, which of course it is crucial to support and protect.
Sometimes I wonder if people are reading any of the words here in the right order.
as far as I can see the issue on here is about you and Lawrence !
You doubt what was reported happened, even though the two people that where there documented it, only because it was Lawrence. If this had happened to anyone else this thread here would not exists !
Uh, Mick, I’m not following your drift.
I don’t know what part of “The photo has been deleted forever.” was open to interpretation but the picture of you and your mother has been reposted publicly and is open to comments again.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/happyaslarry/2478312373/
Yes, very poor behaviour. And seemingly egged on by some Californians in a private Flickr group, according to the referral logs.
Paul said it best above, when he wrote: “Decent ordinary people going about their business have the right not to be harassed or ridiculed on the net in order to increase your popularity.”
But that’s Windrush’s sole trick, isn’t it?
Brenda.
Have you asked Windrush if he will remove that photo?
He has mentioned a few times about deleting photos the subjects were not happy about.
To quote Windrush “i do not mind deleting shots if a subject sees themselves online and dislikes the image.” - PRoT discussion on street photography 4 months ago.
The problem with Windrush is that he is a liar (sorry but i cannot think of any other word to describe him) and constantly contradicts himself.
I find he is easily led on by what others say, probably with the purpose of getting him into trouble with his photostream on flickr, he is nowhere near as intelligent as he makes out otherwise he would have a mind of his own.
CWR: Actually although the photograph is terrible, it’s his behaviour in taking it that I (and I suspect others) object to. It’s clear that we’re being hassled. It was a horrible experience. My mother is 80 and neither of us were well at the time. Windrush certainly knew who I was - it must have felt like a great find for him - well known Flickr dissenter looking poorly. Yeay! ;)
Tacit consent is important: it is clear from this photograph that we didn’t want to be photographed. Under those circumstances there’s a moral obligation to turn the camera away. And also, there’s an issue about whether or not model releases are appropriate - if by doing this sort of thing, a reputation is being created for the photographer, it is commercial use.
Having the photo back on the internet is a good thing though. As you say, it shows where the truth of the matter resides. It’s saved to my Newswire, with its previous copies.
“Sweetness” !!
It’s apparent from the tags he’s added that this is a deliberate move to gain views and kudos. For me this shows that he is completely amoral and has absolutely no respect for the people in middlesbrough, no matter what he says.
… and it also reflects badly on the people’s republic of teesside flickr group nd they allow it in their pool
Cath… Those tags about lack of respect and the 2 following i added.
along with a note but that was deleted.
Can Cath, Paul, CWR, others commenting and reading here contact me off-blog and we’ll organise a meeting over a cup of tea in Boro about this? Couple of week’s time, something like that? Ta.
Thanks for clearing that up Chris. I’ll apologise to stoke for thinking he added the tags himself the next time i bump into him… perhaps i’ll get his picture as well ;-)
how does it “reflects badly on the people’s republic of teesside flickr group”
they have no control over content, that as you know is under the control of the admins. If you are having a go at the admins say so. You cannot monitor the group continually .
Is the picture in the PRoT stream ? how long did it exist there ?
Thanks for all the abusive emails and death threats i have been receiving on the phone.
The photo in question was reposted in response to this. The original photo has appeared on flickr for over a year with nobody objecting, at no stage has Brenda asked me to remove it. very sorry to hear your mother and you were unwell at the time. its a shame none of you have the guts to continue this harassment on flickr
Physically if anything happens to me, all the emails and these posts are evidence.
Windrush, I am very sorry to hear that. Nobody should be sending you death threats. Under no circumstances is that right, whatever else is going on.
I would urge you to report all threats you’ve received to the police, as a matter of urgency, along with any emails. That is appalling.
I agree that it is a shame that a civil discussion doesn’t seem to be allowed on your Flickr groups. The thread locking and deletions are among my reasons for not using the service.
Brenda the photo is deleted for good, i apologize for any upset i cause you and your mother unwittingly. please let this be the end of this discussion.
Thank you for that, those words are much appreciated.
I think there are lots of lessons to be learned here on all sides of the story. We will be organising an event around photography, rights and responsibilities, with the Side Gallery in Newcastle. I’ll post details here when we’ve sorted out the date.
Thank goodness thats all over and your photo has been removed, and lets hope for good!
Stoke would be better advised next time not ot post his personal details on the net there are some very strange people out there, i think he is maybe too trusting or maybe he has just made up the threats for sympathy……………….
Sorry Brenda for the above comment, I am probably only saying what most people are thinking.
I am glad that there has been a resolution to this dreadful image posting.
Integrity will always win and you are as from what i can see from your stream a lady of integrity!
A meet sounds good, count me in!
@ mik g “how does it “reflects badly on the people’s republic of teesside flickr etc”
Yes, it was posted to the group pool at the weekend when Stoke re-uploaded it to flickr and was the image found when searching for PRoT at the weekend.
When taken in context of the now locked discussion in ProT and this thread I do think that it reflects badly on the group that it was allowed to remain in the pool. But that’s my opinion and the reason why I am no longer an admin for that group so my opinion is irrelevant anyhow.
And yes, it is up to the admins to police the pool; at least one of them was aware it was posted at the weekend and presumably thought it was perfectly acceptable for it to be in the pool as it there until Stoke deleted the image.
I think that the original point of this discussion has been lost, and that is what is reasonable to photograph in a public place? I think that things have become increasingly confused after the Met’s mis-information poster campaign and it is something that we do need some definition on.
It is lost now after the thread on a later post here was made private, but I posted this link to my own blog, looking at some of the issues around public vs private space and why private streets are a threat to democracy.
Cath wrote: “I think that the original point of this discussion has been lost, and that is what is reasonable to photograph in a public place?”
That’s a good discussion to have, definitely. My own point wasn’t so much about the photograph itself, but the methods deployed in making it, but there are many issues involved here.
Ian: thanks for that useful addition.