Taking photographs like this one of the 1950s could become a thing of the past. That’s a shame, as images such as this make splendid social commentaries. Indeed, for all the right reasons, it’s no longer acceptable doing something like this where there are children present.
Points to note are, first, the headwear. These days, if anyone wears a hat, it’s a baseball cap, hoodie or beanie. And the clothes here are smart, not sloppy.
I cannot make up my mind whether this is a weekday before school or on a Saturday.
If it’s a weekday, then notice the mix of pupils and adult passengers. It seems unlikely that parents would be waiting with their children for a school journey. That tended not to happen as pupils were much more independent, then, even at primary age. There appears to be a family group to the left of the column and, further left still, a father is holding a child’s hand. This suggests it may be a Saturday, as a mixed queue waits for a service. Well-heeled fathers especially wouldn’t accompany their children to a bus stop before school. These days, it would be rare to see such middle aged assumedly businessmen at a bus stop in the peak.
Note that the queue is very orderly. There are no huddles like today. Few people are moving around.
There appears just one older person in the queue. These days, the highest proportion of passengers would be older people—perhaps even those children we see here, now in their later free travel years, sampling the bus service over 50 years later, perhaps in 2010 for the first time since this picture was taken. To see a family travelling on a bus nowadays seems odd and unusual. Imagine, too, this many passengers queuing at each suburban bus stop. Your average 40 seat SLF 12m single deck would be full after half a mile so, no doubt, that’s why most urban journeys were double decked back then.
The image is on display at the transport museum at Wythall, Worcestershre.
Sunday, 25 April 2010
Social Commentary
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
"..for all the right reasons, it’s no longer acceptable doing something like this where there are children present"
No. It is for all the wrong reasons that it has become unacceptable. It is because we have developed into a society that not only trusts no-one but also assumes the worst about everyone.
I don't want to turn this into yet another photography rant, but it makes me cross that we seem to have have simply accepted the present situation without questioning the reasoning at work behind it.
I know things have changed. I accept the restrictions that we now live under. But it is not right.
No. It is for all the wrong reasons that it has become unacceptable. It is because we have developed into a society that not only trusts no-one but also assumes the worst about everyone.
Hear, hear. Well said that man, I couldn't agree more. What a sorry state this country has come to. One could wonder if things might improve after 6th May, but I doubt it somehow. Sic transit gloria mundi.
Indeed, for all the right reasons, it’s no longer acceptable doing something like this where there are children present.
I am a Beaver Scout Leader and on Friday marched in the St Georges Day parade. As all the leaders parade I asked one of the parents to take photos for the group with my camera. He told me that he thought about bringing his camera but didn't because he didn't think you could take pictures of children.
It is a real shame that he wanted to take pictures of his son taking part in one of Scouting's most important events but didn't because there is a presumption of guilt about people taking photos of children. I have received looks of suspicion from parents when I am in leaders uniform taking photos of children in Beavers uniform.
I don't know the author's personal opinion on the matter but it only supports the view that taking photos where there are children about (not specifically of an unknown child on their own) is wrong and shouldn't be done.
Hear, hear indeed to anonymous @ 0914. We have tied ourselves in knots with "protective" legislation. The consequence of this in years to come will be a big hole in the recording of our social history.
There is also a major change in our concept of justice as there is the presumption of guilt (in someone taking a photograph) rather than of innocence.
"There appears just one older person in the queue. These days, the highest proportion of passengers would be older people—perhaps even those children we see here, now in their later free travel years, sampling the bus service over 50 years later, perhaps in 2010 for the first time since this picture was taken".
Are we reaching the peak of bus travel by older persons , given that there are rumours that to cut the national deficit the Tories will abandon free (at point of use) travel? If that happens will the industry continue to flourish or become a rump on the way to final decay, so pictures of even 30% of a queue like the on pictured are no more?
Just logged on and couldn't believe your statement about 'for all the right reasons........'
I've only now seen some people with common sense have already reacted similarly, thank goodness.
Why on earth should photographers not photograph anything they wish. How innocuous is a group of children just standing around at a bus stop?
I'm another one fed up with this 'nanny state' protectionism that stifles life as it used to be. I sincerely hope that someone soon wakes up to what is happening in this country and puts a stop to all this silliness.
I agree with the earlier comments about photography, and I fear that we may not only miss out on recording part of our social history, but, more seriously, we are spreading distrust in one another - which is bad news in every respect.
I look after the website of my church here in Germany, and there is a typically German bureaucratic rule covering the posting of such photographs on the website. Basically, everybody included in such a photograph has to sign a form (separate forms for each photo) indicating their consent, and these forms have to be retained on file by the owner of the website. As I said, typical German bureaucracy - however, there is an exception. The signatures, etc, are not required if there are more than 7 people on the photo. I'll leave you to decide whether that is barmier than the British attitude - my German friends see it as pretty silly - but a least a photo such as the one you show today could be published without such concerns.
Looking at the photo in detail, you would be hard pressed to identify any individual at the size published, although perhaps the original is larger. But I have to wonder if they are waiting for a bus at all. You say "Note that the queue is very orderly." - but it's on both sides of the bus stop! I agree, it appears orderly, but is it a queue? It seems to me they are looking in the wrong direction - I think there must be something interesting on the other side of the fence. As for the demographics, I think that would depend on what the occasion was, and without knowing, it's difficult to say whether it is really representative of the era in general.
I suggest a quick trip to any decent sized suburban centre in London and you will quickly observe bus queues with that many people in them with a big spread of age, wealth, race etc.
I recently witnessed such a queue of about 20 people waiting for a 78 to Nunhead at Liverpool St Stn - on a Sunday afternoon! Who says the City is dead at weekends?
PS - I agree with the other respondents about photographic "restrictions". The world's gone mad.
"Are we reaching the peak of bus travel by older persons , given that there are rumours that to cut the national deficit the Tories will abandon free (at point of use) travel? If that happens will the industry continue to flourish or become a rump on the way to final decay, so pictures of even 30% of a queue like the on pictured are no more?"
I don't agree with money going into transport being any part of cuts, though it seems like exactly the sort of thing the tories would do. However, I fully agree with the idea of cutting blanket free bus travel for older people.
On a purely practical level, free travel for older people targets what previously was the largest market anyway, and a group of society that will never progress onto being fare paying passengers.
And on a social level, a lot of older people don't do so badly; those with occupational pensions and savings. Even the basic state pension is better than jobseeker's allowance or student maintenance loans.
Meanwhile, youth unemployment is at level not seen in decades, and for some ridiculous reason, those under 25 are expected to survive on even less than standard JSA; just over £50 per week - in outer Leeds, that would make weekly bus passes amount to over a fifth of the allowance. As a result, young people walk long distances in Leeds; often distances of several miles, often burdened with food shopping and such.
Therefore, while those only receiving a basic state pension ought to have free bus travel, the rest of the money spent should go on those on the lower rate of JSA and those ages which presently receive free travel in London.
As users have a better perception of public transport than non-users, this would prepare a generation of people to go on to be satisfied paying bus passengers, and truly provide a future for the industry. An additional benefit of this would be extending some the choice of schools presently enjoyed by the car-owning middle classes, and allowing strategic cuts to school bus services paralleling paying bus services.
This post wasn’t designed as one specifically on photography. I nevertheless accept what most people have been saying about the limits of photography but, regarding children, I have to say that it is no longer deemed acceptable to do this in public places. This is for well meaning reasons. Even so, I think even Esther Rantzen would agree with most of you. Rightly or wrongly, we are where we are an we cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube…
"and a group of society that will never progress onto being fare paying passengers."
Err.....perhaps fare paying at point of use might be better.
Anyhow, if rumour does prove true, will the result be good or be bad for the industry?
Something for someone to start a discussion on?
Busing said...
".. but, regarding children, I have to say that it is no longer deemed acceptable to do this in public places. This is for well meaning reasons. "
I would agree that by describing the reasons as 'well meaning' rather than 'right' you are probably correct, but I think that the level of acceptability of this viewpoint is not as universal as you suggest. The comment from 'Turquoisefish' illustrates this very clearly - there are plenty of such occasions when many people (parents in particular) might perfectly reasonably want to take photos of their children in public. 'Well meaning' as you say, but then the road to hell is paved with good intentions!
Perhaps it would be helpful if the appropriate organisation could provide statistics on the number of peaedophiles who have been found to have used photography in public places as a means of finding their victims - somehow, I suspect it would be very low, if any at all. I would imagine their methods are rather more secretive.
At the end of the day, we should not be expected to give up a right or privilege just because a few people abuse that right. Some people abuse their right to drive a car by driving dangerously, or when drunk - but nobody is suggesting we should stop everybody from driving cars because of such 'abuse' - even if it would boost bus operators' revenue!
Can I have a huge grant please to explore how many bus photographers are likely to abuse children, or have been prosecuted for the offence in the past ?
Then can I have another one to find out how many clergy have abused children.
Oh, and one more to see if those who work in CCTV rooms across the country are a risk too.
If we are not careful,everyone will have to prove they are not abusing children, apart from people like the parents of Baby P who actually did, for many months, and where already on the radar. Nuff said ?
A slight veering OT, but my wife 73 and three quarters, with a daughter and two grandsons, who go to church with us, has had to complete a CRB form.
That's despite having already helped with youngsters there for seven years. I don't think it's a local requirement; most likely the insurers.
Farewell commonsense!
Sorry Busing, I agree with the later post from RC169.
Although it may be 'well meaning' it totally misses the point that photography in public places is perfectly legal. Some of us are getting totally fed up with do-gooders trying to stop us living our lives as we are entitled to do. Your comments go to show that many people are only too prepared to just give in for a quiet life - why should we?. Our freedom was hard fought for and I'm sure that those who died in various wars believed they were fighting for freedom.
It's about time we all stopped pandering to this 'nanny state' fear culture.
Well said, Anon 21:29. It's perfectly possible to "put the toothpaste back in the tube". Remember too that CRB checks are all very well and good but they only show up people who've been caught.
Post a Comment