bbraf said:As I am swiss, I clearly understood what the police woman said in her
report. She asked you very politely to stop filming the accident. The
film prooves that you simply ignored her.
I sure did! But if she said in her report she asked it polite, then she
lied twice. Grammer-wise it was a command, and not in a polite tone.
And if I would touch her the way she did, the situation for sure would
have escalated.
But after I walked away she said to a bystander -she asumed to be
Dutch-:
"Hollander? [confirmed. Followed by her not friendly targeted]
Godverdomme!".
Just like the person she addressed her frustrations to, I'd say that's
5 reasons why she is not suitable for any police job.
But for me, the main reason I called her [censored], is because she censored
me. I verified with 3 other pro journalists in Swiss, and the rules are
just like in civilized countries: I am allowed to film everything. Even
if it was a militairy operation. Even if there was only 1 single victom
bleeding till dead. But I'm not allowed to publish the victom faces
recognizable.
Now as you already saw; I told her I was not going to.
Even if there were 3,000 victoms and the law allows me, I would not
publish anyones face. And usually I'm even more carefull at publishing
faces of police and alike to. Cause as matter of fact sometimes I work
for a photograper for police and firebrigade. I've entered many scenes
in uniform. Besides that I'm regular in touch with SWAT and RIOT
police, special forces of army, special forces of navy, even with the
higest top security bodyguards of the country, discussing media issues.
I've got experience and knowledge of what can and can't be published.
Still I've been stopped 3x times for filming, even arrested. And at all
times released before charged, all for the same reason: Filming is
legal. And cops don't make the law, they only should enforce it.
bbraf said:I find, that calling the police woman a [censored] for stopping an action
that shows bad taste in swiss sense is way over the top!
Too bad. I think something else was over the top: enforcing
non-existant laws. Or premature acusing me of something I did not do,
and was not planning to do.
Or maybe I misunderstoot your perspective when you said "over the
top".
Anyay; I'd like to sincerely apologize to all dogs (especially Saint
Bernards of the red cross).
bbraf said:If I am in a foreign country, I try to understand the locals and give my
best not to offend them.
Aha. I don't. And I'm happy there is press (for example in Russia) that
doesn't mind to offend locals.
But just pure (off-topic) curiousity; I wonder...
if you are in Turkey, and a man in front of you hits his wife in
public, and smiles to you while enjoying his dominant position he was
given by national law...
...would you return his smile to not offend him?
Would your opinion on him be a variant for '[censored]'?
If so, do you think even the human rights allow you to have and express
that opinion in informal media like a internet-newsgroup?
--
leo
Leo Vandewoestijne
1 866-UNI-CYCL
*| 'unicycle.net' (http://www.unicycle.net/) | 'unicycle.biz'
(http://www.unicycle.biz/) | 'unicyclist.org'
(http://www.unicyclist.org/) | 'uniconnews.com'
(http://www.uniconnews.com/) |*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
leo's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/224
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/51581