“You’re forcing my image on your camera!” – Manch Politician

In a ridiculous example of some people’s bizarre views about cameras being pointed at them in public, a Manchester “alderman”, Pat Long confronts independent newsman Dave Ridley:

Perhaps Pat does not understand that the photons captured by the camera’s sensor are not being forced there. Photography is a passive act, by nature. In public, there is no prohibition on it, nor should there be. Certainly, as a politician, Pat should understand that its his job to be accountable to the public, including independent media. Average people in public aren’t as interesting to record, in my opinion, but folks should still understand that cameras are everywhere – in stores, on the streets, and in peoples’ hands. Getting upset and making a scene – just makes that person all-of-a-sudden very interesting to record.

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


  1. You see, statist thugs have to convey a sense of confusion about force and violence. If they don’t, they have to confront the fact that it is they who use violence to force people to do things of which they approve or not do things of which they disapprove, but which harm no one. It is only in an environment where violence is not force, and exposure of misdeeds to light is force, where they can be the sanctimonious saviors of the universe and peaceful people can be evil.

    In that context, the free and natural movement of photons to a CCD sensor simply because the sensor is placed there can be construed as force, and their use of weapons and cages on the peaceful can be construed as justice. You simply need to see it the correct way. If not, your views can be adjusted.

    • Yep, 1984. Doublethink.

    • I”m pretty sure you’re yet another one of those Freetard pedophiles, right? You post sure makes you seem like you are.

    • I’m pretty sure you have no idea about what you spew. My first clue is your use of the term “pedophile” when I haven’t even posited a position on pedophilia. My second is that from your posts, you’ve claimed Ian is one based what he said he would or wouldn’t do to people OTHERS consider pedophiles. Your childish pretense at discussion falls below the lowest common denominator of human decency. Since you cannot discuss such issues as a rational human being would, you’re not worth any more than this formal dismissal.

    • oooo … a “formal dismissal”. Wow, I guess you told me.

      Aren’t you “lurking in the shadows” as well, you stupid douche? I’m still convinced you’re some sort of sex offender, most likely a pedophile.

    • Informal dismissal 😉

    • I was thinking about the name for the sex act I referenced. I suppose he could be called a master baiter, but I’d hardly put him on that level. :-)

    • Wow … a very snappy comeback. I thought you “dismissed” me, retard? LMAO.

    • …and yet you keep responding. My gosh, you are such a retard dog – kicked in the head and just keep coming back for more!

    • Dance my little douche puppet – dance!

      I thought you “dismissed” me? LoL.

    • LOL! pwnt

      Funny thing is I expected him to come back after I decided to blow him off entirely, and was going to post exactly the same thing. :-)

    • When someone goes around calling everyone pedophiles, I think we can guess who is obsessed with pedophilia. This is known as psychological projection.

    • Bane has got nothing against pedophiles. The reason he keeps talking about it is because he’s looking for other pedophiles he can converse with.

    • He’s clearly obsessed, and there’s about a 99.9% chance he’s “runningwolfkenpo” on youtube (who apparently owns a martial arts studio in or near Keene, according to his youtube profile) where he’s made even more stupid claims, and I’m sick of his bullshit, so I think I won’t be playing any more.

    • I think that’s who he wants us to think he is…

  2. Photography is a passive act, but putting it up on the Internet for worldwide dissemination is not…

    I think Mr. Long was being sincere here, diplomatic by speaking our language (using the word “force”), and raised an question worth discussion.

    I say its worth discussion because its clear that many people shown in these vids are uncomfortable or disturbed by the idea of being recorded in public. Yes, we live in a surveillance state and so should get used to it, but the state typically doesn’t put the video up on the Internet for worldwide dissemination…

    And yes… public officials should be recorded MORE and don’t have as much as a valid objection to it, but… what about everyone else?

    Aren’t there some non-forceful aggression or ethics issues to consider? Like telling someone to F— off, sure it may be legal, sure it may be fun, but it isn’t something you should necessarily go around doing for no reason.

    • Somewhat interestingly, they crave public attention when they want votes, but seem to run from it when criticized. Why should they get to run from their acts when they claim to “represent” the public? If they are public servants, should they not experience some form of discipline for misbehaving? Is public exposure of their deeds not the mildest form of it?

    • Oh I agree. I’m just saying that I think this article over-simplified the issue, and Mr. Long raised a topic worth discussion, although he could have stated it better.

    • I think his discomfort was in response to his shame, and little else. He’s undoubtedly not as uncomfortable when he’s looking for help of the media to gain supporters.

      I don’t recall ever being uncomfortable being photographed in public. Rather, it’s when I feel an expectation of privacy has been violated that I’m uncomfortable. The closest I can come in the context of public recording is if the state records the majority of your acts, so that it can piece together a fragment that looks unfavorable as though it represents a representative view of your character and/or allows for selective enforcement of victimless crime statutes.

  3. “it actually seems to me like he is maliciously reflecting light into the camera. He should be sued for defacing personal property ( the sd card) with the image of his face” -comment on reddit

  4. The last gentleman you interviewed may have been the most interesting. He seemed to be genuinely friendly and willing to discuss, until you asked whether something being mandatory implies punishment for failing to do that thing. Still friendly, he said he didn’t know. I found it interesting because it brought to mind two separate situations.

    The first situation it brought to mind was the response of a six-year-old when you ask him why he hit his little sister. “I don’t know.” I think that was probably the extent to which the response was actually genuine, though what he really seemed to mean was “I don’t want to think about that.”

    The second situation it brought to mind was when someone “misbehaves.” I’ll be he can come up with some really good ideas after someone repeatedly refuses to recycle. Yeah, I’ll bet he can even come up with a list of punishments, ranked by the severity of the “misbehavior.”

    Of course, nothing is mandatory if there are not consequences for not doing it. The consequence is and always will be government aggression.

  5. Why does he get to smoke cigarettes but someone who wants to smoke another plant isn’t allowed?


Care to comment?

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!