Nunhead cemetery strange man with DSLR camera taking photos of dow owners and dog walkers

[angel_lemarchand]

The only ASB I have experienced in Nunhead Cemetery was coming from a member of FONC. Twice from that person in fact. I also know of other people who have been victim of similar aggressive behavior that I have been unfortunate enough to be victim of. As for your comment, this post is here to help people being aware and staying safe.

[angel_lemarchand]

I will talk about this in a new thread, the (not so friendly) FONC have been bullying dog owners and walkers for many years. I have personally experienced some aggressive behavior from a member of FONC which left me shaken for days and in tears. I am not an isolate case.

[angel_lemarchand]

I agree, the great majority of us are responsible, and we should not be penalized for a very small minority of people who aren't. FONC should not have a say in who uses public spaces which are maintained by our council tax just because they seem to think that they own the place, which they do not. It is their extreme campaign that encourages the unpleasant behavior of some characters such as the man feeling justified to point his camera in the face of people who have dogs and claiming to post those pictures online, without their permission.

[Rosetta]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "The dog walker would be paid an hourly fee, say

> ?10, while the owner raked in ?70/?80 if eight

> dogs were being supposedly walked."

>

> *yawns

This is very true, sadly. Why do you find it unbelievable? I Know several people who were employed by a dog walker under precisely these conditions. And by supposedly being walked, I meant when the walkers weren't sunbathing on the grass, or having a fag break.

[Rosetta]

I haven't seen any dog haters posting on here.

[angel_lemarchand]

At Rosetta:

the reason why professional dog walkers go to the cemetery is because other councils/ parks etc... have enforced extreme and unreasonable rules (so many rules... all the time, new rules...) and can't go anywhere else. If a ban is enforced (and I, as well as many others, am going to campaign against it), the problem will be displaced elsewhere and someone else will then impose rules etc... This is not the solution. Professional dog walkers are needed, if they disappear, animal shelters, which are already full, will be the first to suffer as people who work will give up their dogs for adoption. Responsible professional dog walkers have a reputation to maintain which means they are often the ones cleaning up irresponsible dog owners' dog mess as they don't want to have a bad name. They also know about dog behavior and if a dog does not respond off lead, it is in their interest to keep that dog on lead, i.e. under control, which they then do. They also have dog walking insurances, which cover (I think) usually for up to 6 dogs, so this should be the reasonable maximum amount of dogs allowed (as per their legal documents). Targeting professional dog walker is not the answer. People who aren't responsible are the ones giving responsible dog owners/ walkers a bad name, and are the ones who will continue to ignore any rules set up. As I said, banning dog walkers is not the answer, it will create more issues, and irresponsible dog owners will continue to be the cause of problems. Finally, I know many dog walkers, and the majority (who work for themselves) don't earn as much money as people think, as they have costs (vehicles, petrol, insurances, taxes etc...). And those who employ walkers contribute to society by creating jobs. All this is beneficial to the economy. Not to mention that they keep themselves actively in employment and are brave enough to create their own jobs. Hope this helps!

[Loz]

angel_lemarchand Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Dogkennelhillbilly and Loz

> I'm a professional photographer and I have to carry consent forms and get them signed to release

> photographs of members of the public. It's also expected to ask permission (and also courtesy!). I

> am getting tired of people waving cameras and phones in my/ other people's faces as they please.

Yes, but you wish to use the photos for commercial reasons, which changes things as far as the law is concerned, but even then there are many limitations (else every press photographer would have an almost impossible job).

If you are taking them on a commercial basis, you need no consent in a public place. Nor can you stop them posting them to social media. You might get them on libel, depending on context. You might get them on a charge of harassment. But trying to get someone charged with taking a photo of you in a public place will get pretty short shrift.

As you are a professional photographer, I'm really surprised you don't know this.

[angel_lemarchand]

at Loz: so I take it that I am talking to a professional photographer then? I do not have time for passive aggressive behavior I'm afraid.

*********

Dogkennelhillbilly and Loz

> I'm a professional photographer and I have to carry consent forms and get them signed to release

> photographs of members of the public. It's also expected to ask permission (and also courtesy!). I

> am getting tired of people waving cameras and phones in my/ other people's faces as they please.

Yes, but you wish to use the photos for commercial reasons, which changes things as far as the law is concerned, but even then there are many limitations (else every press photographer would have an almost impossible job).

If you are taking them on a commercial basis, you need no consent in a public place. Nor can you stop them posting them to social media. You might get them on libel, depending on context. You might get them on a charge of harassment. But trying to get someone charged with taking a photo of you in a public place will get pretty short shrift.

As you are a professional photographer, I'm really surprised you don't know this.

[angel_lemarchand]

At edam:

'This thread is remarkably sensible for this forum. Reasoned and realistic posting. What's happening?!"

*****************

actually, this is my first time posting on this site ever, and I'm finding myself facing passive aggressive behavior and being trolled, which is a shame as I was only trying to help people. So this new experience has been a bit unpleasant. Thank you to the kind people who have shown sympathy and support, but I will be closing my account after this last comment. Some people need to find a more constructive pastime. How very sad. It's no wander we live in the stressful world that we live in... and my faith in humanity, which already is rather faint, is fading even more quickly...

PS Hurray for dogs!

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

angel_lemarchand Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Dogkennelhillbilly and Loz

> I'm a professional photographer and I have to

> carry consent forms and get them signed to release

> photographs of members of the public. It's also

> expected to ask permission (and also courtesy!). I

> am getting tired of people waving cameras and

> phones in my/ other people's faces as they please.

Good for you - but you don't have to get consent to take photos of people in a public place. This is not a police matter. They have much better things to do than mediate the squabbles of misinformed dog lovers and camera-wielding dog moaners.

[Loz]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> angel_lemarchand Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Dogkennelhillbilly and Loz

> > I'm a professional photographer and I have to

> > carry consent forms and get them signed to

> release

> > photographs of members of the public. It's also

> > expected to ask permission (and also courtesy!).

> I

> > am getting tired of people waving cameras and

> > phones in my/ other people's faces as they

> please.

>

> Good for you - but you don't have to get consent

> to take photos of people in a public place. This

> is not a police matter. They have much better

> things to do than mediate the squabbles of

> misinformed dog lovers and camera-wielding dog

> moaners.

Careful DKB, pointing out that the OP is wrong and perhaps should know the law concerning their profession apparently constitutes 'passive aggressive behaviour'.

Presumably this is based in the same logic that says pointing a camera at someone in a public place constitutes a criminal offence.

[bonniebird]

Well, I have to say, that I do not want and would not be comfortable, if someone pointed a camera at my dogs, without asking if its ok. I don't care if its for their personal collection or for Southwark Council. I would confront them. Out of order.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

How would you propose to confront them?

[bonniebird]

I'd go up to them and ask them why are they taking photo's of me and my dogs.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

And then if you didn't like their answer, what would you do?

[tigerranks]

in reply to angel_lemarchand

maybe the lady who lives opposite is subject to all the dog walking companies turning up with there dogs 2,3,4,times a day with them barking constantly some of which are uncontrollable (one dog got off the lead and was run over and died by Nunhead station recently) after a while it would get on anybody's nerves.

See it from her side maybe she could have a young child who she may have just got to sleep and to be woke up to barking dogs she has a right to view her point maybe not out of the window but video evidence may be the only way of showing the local authority the issue with the dog walking companies

Dog walking companies should be stopped from walking in this cemetery i have no issue with normal public walking there dogs that's my view on this

or introduce some sort of law that 2 dogs max per person and if found with more they would face a fine

i am sure it will be interesting in what our Councillors have to say about this

[tigerranks]

I would encourage you to have your say by completing the online consultation form and letting others know about it.

PLEASE CLICK ON LINK BELOW

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/lets-talk-about-dogs/LE

There?s also a discussion about the consultation happening on the Nunhead Rocks Facebook Group

https://www.facebook.com/groups/nunheadrocks/10155438014388846/?comment_id=10155440897008846&notif_t=group_comment_follow&notif_id=1494851018859048

[Rosetta]

The woman who lives opposite is on the Facebook page. That discussion is well balanced.

[Earl Aelfheah]

It pretty difficult to sit and read a book or have a picnic in local parks now without getting bothered by dogs. I've on more than one occasion had my picnic turned over by out of control canines. It irritating and often the owners (who inappropriately personify their pooches, are quite unapologetic... "they are just trying to say hello". Really? You think?)

It seems perfectly reasonable to ask for dogs to be kept on a lead in a grave yard imo. This isn't 'anti dog'. Dogs are not equal citizens and whilst it's great to own a pet, you've no right to impose on others. Keep your dog under control, pick up its sh*t and don't expect it to be able to tear around wherever it's wants regardless of other people and everyone will be cool.

[robbin]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'd ask what they intend to do with the

> photographs. If they plan to post on social media,

> print, etc. then they'd need your consent.

Why? Under what law? Have I missed some new statute?

[nununoolio]

taper Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That FONC link is an eye-opener. Very anti-dog.

> Is it a problem dogs running over old graves? I

> absolutely agree that dogs should be on leads near

> the new internments, but dogs on leads elsewhere

> is an extreme measure.

An eye opener? Wanting people to treat a cemetery with the respect a cemetery deserves? And that is before we get to the random destruction of the flora and fauna in a nature reserve!

[nununoolio]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> FONC Should fence off the 'sacred' areas from the

> area where dogs are allowed to run about off lead.

> Dogs can't read signs and it's unrealistic to

> expect every dog to obey every command from its

> owner, that's just not realistic (however

> desirable it may be).

> 'Pooing in graves' is the worst possible instance

> which is being focussed on, dogs poo everywhere -

> and usually at the start of their walk when

> they're with the owners from what I've seen.

> I think the 'danger to children' angle is also

> being over-egged, the webpage reads like EDF

> poster (was it 'DadOnAbike' ?) who recently

> started a thread with the same kind of thrust.

> Be interesting to see what the cemetery becomes if

> such proposals materialise.

Having seen a child knocked over by a large dog, a toddler fall and land in faeces, and received complaints from many concerned/upset parents and a local school that uses the cemetery for forest school activities, I would suggest the 'danger to children' 'angle' is not being over-egged.

[nununoolio]

taper Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Then ban professional dog walkers from Nunhead or

> license them. Easily done. But don't stop people

> who have for years walked their own dogs in

> Nunhead with no trouble whatsoever. What FONC

> are proposing is not in the public interest.

There are many individual dog owners who pay no attention to the requests to keep dogs on lead where requested. There are also many who pay scant attention to what their dog is doing once they let it off lead, allowing for the likelihood of fouling and/or unwanted interactions with people and other dogs in the cemetery. There are also an incredible number of dog walkers who are unable to control/recall their dogs when necessary.

PS. Commercial, not professional.

[nununoolio]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 7 dogs being walked.

> 8 dogs being walked.

> Why do people have to use absolute extremes and

> exaggerations to try to make a point - it betrays

> the true situation as not being as dire as made

> out and being in need of over-cooking to achieve

> the agenda intended by the poster.

> Let's see the evidence of that wild claim !

> 7/8 dogs my arse.

>

> BTW - I saw a dog pooing a 3-tonne poo on a grave

> you know, I did, I did, honest. It was the size

> of a skip lorry, bloody dog walkers !

> (get it ?)

The record for me in Nunhead Cemetery is 10 dogs with one walker. The person they usually worked with was sick that day. That person didn't see it as a problem.

[nununoolio]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "The dog walker would be paid an hourly fee, say

> ?10, while the owner raked in ?70/?80 if eight

> dogs were being supposedly walked."

>

> *yawns*

A commercial walker I spoke to received ?28 to walk four dogs for four hours. I can't remember the exact amount but the owner of the dog walking operation receives considerably more than that. Instead of yawning, why don't you ask some of the commercial walkers how much they earn?