Bondi Rescue episode that aired Mar. 17, 2013

[Bear Dale]

Anyone else watch this and remember the lifeguard cutting up the guys Compact flash disc?

I only watched it last night, my wife taped it last month.

This is what happened. An Asian guy with a Canon dSLR took some photos of some topless girls sunbaking in the middle of the sand. The lifeguard saw this happen, demanded the guys camera and then verbally went off at him, took the CF card out and walked to his dune buggy lifeguard thingo and took out a pair of shears and proceeded to cut the CF card in half.

Now I'm not condoning the 'tog, but the girls were in a public space.....but I wouldn't have thought the lifeguard had the right to do what he did either.


Interested to see what others thought who watched it.

[ameerat42]

No, I didn't watch it. Just as well, I think. I might have boiled!
Talk of being an upstart! Why doesn't he stick to more traditional duties?
(Lifeguards of AP, there's no malice here.)

What happened to the unsuspecting tourist?
I had a parallel incident with some ticket inspectors - actually, just one of the two - on a train a 2ple of years ago.
This, instead of duly checking validity of tickets, took to commenting on the age suitability of the ticketholder.
Really left field!!!

Upshot: letter of apology and loss of job.
Am.
PS: I don't think I would particularly condone what the tourist did - nor decry it much either.

[ricktas]

he doesnt have the right to do it. It is vandalism to someone's private property. My guess is that no-one has decided to take these sorts of things further and take them to court.

[William]

Did'nt see it either , Not condoning what the tourist did , But it would have been easier to delete the images from the card , In camera if it was a problem, Or wrong , I think there are some rules about taking photo's between the red and yellow flags , Which gives them some powers, Again I think, I'm open as well to anybody that has knowledge on this , I would'nt have taken the shot , But I'll take a heap of Bikini shots :D

[Lance B]

Sounds like a good way to get TV ratings. The Lifegurad seems to have let his life saving expertise extend beyond the realms of his duties and now he thinks he has the right to inflict his beliefs on all aspects of life. A case of a little authority going too far and trying to big note himself on TV, the sort of white knight hero if you like. I don't condone what the tourist has done, but the lifeguard way overstepped his mark. The fact of the matter is, it is a public place and these women have decided to put their breasts on view, so they can't be too concerned with people seeing them let alone taking photographs of them. Quite bizarre really. Was the tourist actually tking photos of them in close up to get his jollies, which is probably not the best thing to do, or were they taken from a distance in a wider angle shot with the beach as context in an effort to depict to his fellow countrymen back home that there are topless bathers on some Aussie beaches. Big difference and in the latter it seems that the women's rights to bare breasts outweigh a photographer's rights to take photos. A little topsy turvey in my books.

[Bear Dale]

Just did a Google search to see if I could find a clip of it. I did find a thread on Redbubble about the same episode -

http://www.redbubble.com/groups/redbubble/forums/4/topics/320412-bondi-rescue-gets-it-wrong

- - - Updated - - -

Here's a link to a YouTube video of the incident.

The part with the 'tog starts at 4.06 minutes in -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfP5HcHYRSM

[ricktas]

The other issue with these sort of events being screened, is that your 'average' viewer, now thinks it is OK to grab someone's camera and destroy their memory card.

I wonder if a film crew of this tv show had their gear destroyed for filming in public, if the reaction would be far swifter and harsher. Our commercial media is pathetic.

[Lance B]

The other issue with these sort of events being screened, is that your 'average' viewer, now thinks it is OK to grab someone's camera and destroy their memory card.

I wonder if a film crew of this tv show had their gear destroyed for filming in public, if the reaction would be far swifter and harsher. Our commercial media is pathetic.

Exactly. Vigilantism will run amok.

As one respondent states on one of the links above, "The irony of the TV crew filming half naked women whilst filming a confrontation involving a photographer shooting half naked women seems to have escaped the Lifesaver and I daresay most viewers of the program." Dopes that not show up how ridiculous the whole episode is.

[ameerat42]

Mental roughage! - That's the fare dished up daily to the many indignants who swallow it wholesale.
Well, I am glad we took action in the case referred to earlier. It had an effect - although beyond what I had expected.
A bit of standing up for yourself (the common you) doesn't go astray sometimes.

"Fuggery" comes in many guises. I suppose it always has.
Am.

[davsv1]

The cynic in me says its a setup for t.v, an actor paid to be a tourist, it is "reality" t.v after all. I don't believe "reality" t.v in case your wondering;)

[Kym]

Bondi has photo restrictions I think. But still badly handled by the LG

[geoffsta]

I was going to say the same as Kym. I thought places like Bondi you needed a permit to take photos. A DSLR could be mistaken as someone taking images commercially. I wonder how many P&S and phone cameras took the same images.:confused013 Lots of questions that need to be answered.

[Bear Dale]

Exactly. Vigilantism will run amok.

As one respondent states on one of the links above, "The irony of the TV crew filming half naked women whilst filming a confrontation involving a photographer shooting half naked women seems to have escaped the Lifesaver and I daresay most viewers of the program." Dopes that not show up how ridiculous the whole episode is.

Lance, I didn't pick that up myself, but now it's posted how obvious is that!

I just hate the message that it portrayed that photographers are creeps and it's ok to accost them and you have the right to demand to look at their cameras and even destroy their memory cards.

- - - Updated - - -


I thought places like Bondi you needed a permit to take photos. A DSLR could be mistaken as someone taking images commercially. I wonder how many P&S and phone cameras took the same images.:confused013 Lots of questions that need to be answered.

There's no rules forbidding photography on Bondi beach that I know of.

Bus loads of tourists pull up there all day everyday and they disgorge hundreds of tourists with cameras for their 1 hour on Bondi beach before they're bundled off to the next destination on their canned packaged oz holiday.

[Lance B]

Lance, I didn't pick that up myself, but now it's posted how obvious is that!

I just hate the message that it portrayed that photographers are creeps and it's ok to accost them and you have the right to demand to look at their cameras and even destroy their memory cards.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly. It really send the wrong message to people out there.




There's no rules forbidding photography on Bondi beach that I know of.


There are no rules forbidding photography on Bondi Beach except if it is for commercial reasons. Anyone can photograph there if the photos are not for profit purposes.

The thing that really burns me up is that if a photographer innocently takes photos of the beach but there happens to be topless women in the photograph and these women object to themselves being in the photo, then why is it that their rights to go topless outweigh the photographers rights to take photos? The problem is, you have to be seen to be trying to avoid taking their photo and this just shouldn't need to be the case. Shows like this really don't help, because now any person that pulls out a long lens at Bondi, or any beach for that matter, is deemed some sort of pervert. This sort of hysteria is so prevalent nowadays, that if I have my camera with me and I have to walk past a childrens' playground, I will put the camera in my backpack so as not even giving anyone the least opportunity to accuse me of anything.

[ricktas]

If you don't want your tits photographed, don't expose them in public...simple.

[Granville]

One of the women lay topless in front of thousands of people, but only felt "violated" when some guy took her photo. Give me a break.

[Bear Dale]

The girls didn't look to distraught when the production crew were filming them topless and they were waving to the camera.



As Lance said and I agree, it just really burns me up that because I own a 'big camera with a lens' I can be judged. And the attitude of that lifeguard destroying that guys compact flash card with the shears and miming to him that he would be put in handcuffs, arrested and put in a police cell.......really burns me up!

[geoffsta]

Were the two girls arrested for indecent exposure. :confused013 I'd bet if two women were breast feeding, they would be asked to cover up. :confused013 Would a bloke in a G-String or Mankini be laughed at and ridiculed by the lifegaurds. :confused013

[Doktaduck]

I found , somewhere in all the blogs and chatter regarding this OP a very good read.

Taking Photographs 'In Public': What's lawful and what's not?
written by Professor Mark Davidson and Mr Tobias Gattineau

http://www.ccp.org.au/docs/Davison-Legal-Manual.pdf

[Lance B]

I found , somewhere in all the blogs and chatter regarding this OP a very good read.

Taking Photographs 'In Public': What's lawful and what's not?
written by Professor Mark Davidson and Mr Tobias Gattineau

http://www.ccp.org.au/docs/Davison-Legal-Manual.pdf

I have seen this before and forgot about it, so thank you for the link.

The interesting part is on page 33 "Scenario 1f"

Where it states that: "There is no authority for the SLSA to confiscate cameras on the beach". So, the tourist would have a good case to sue the SLSA for the cost of a CF card from his camera.

[Bear Dale]

I found , somewhere in all the blogs and chatter regarding this OP a very good read.

Taking Photographs 'In Public': What's lawful and what's not?
written by Professor Mark Davidson and Mr Tobias Gattineau

http://www.ccp.org.au/docs/Davison-Legal-Manual.pdf


Thanks for the link.

[ameerat42]

Obviously, that LG was so full of himseff he thought a quick Bondi solution would fix the "problem". It probably didn't, and he may still be there.
(G:eek:sp!)

[geoffsta]

Taking Photographs 'In Public': What's lawful and what's not?
written by Professor Mark Davidson and Mr Tobias Gattineau
Just read Scenario 1f) as Lance suggested. Would it be the same if it was "John" not "Penny" taking the images? I do know that the law is the law. But is it same for men as it is for women? And could it be that men have less rights than females? That's why, in my age bracket (40 - 60) I'm very weary of taking people images.

[ricktas]

I have written to SLSA regarding this. Lets see what happens!

[Iscariot]

My understanding is that there are restrictions when taking photos at the beach (or any public place) where children are concerned but thats about it. I saw the episode and had the same thought at the time. Yes he walked right upto the girls and blantantly took a photo. Poor form? Yes, does the LS have the right tell him to leave the beach, not sure, take and destroy is memory card. Definitely not. What other images did the guy lose because of this?

[ricktas]

My understanding is that there are restrictions when taking photos at the beach (or any public place) where children are concerned but thats about it. I saw the episode and had the same thought at the time. Yes he walked right upto the girls and blantantly took a photo. Poor form? Yes, does the LS have the right tell him to leave the beach, not sure, take and destroy is memory card. Definitely not. What other images did the guy lose because of this?

No there are not. There are no laws in Australia that relate to age when photographing in public. If you are in public you should expect to be photographed. There is ZERO related to the age of the subject.

He walked up and was not trying to hide, or do it secretly.. I would be more worried about the person in the carpark behind a dark glass in a car with a telephoto, than someone who is open and up front about what they are doing.

[Iscariot]

No there are not. There are no laws in Australia that relate to age when photographing in public. If you are in public you should expect to be photographed. There is ZERO related to the age of the subject.

Interesting I thought I read something different. What you say makes sense though


He walked up and was not trying to hide, or do it secretly.. I would be more worried about the person in the carpark behind a dark glass in a car with a telephoto, than someone who is open and up front about what they are doing.

I agree.

[Lance B]

Just read Scenario 1f) That's why, in my age bracket (40 - 60) I'm very weary of taking people images.

You and me both.

[Bear Dale]

I have written to SLSA regarding this. Lets see what happens!

It will be very interesting to read their reply.

[Doktaduck]

I have written to SLSA regarding this. Lets see what happens!

No response yet I suppose Rick?

[garthyguts]

from the council website private photography ok only commercial need permits
http://www.waverley.nsw.gov.au/things_to_do/sport_and_recreation/use_of_public_open_space

[ricktas]

No response yet I suppose Rick?

Got an email saying my email would be forwarded to the appropriate person for a response..and nothing since.

[bricat]

Just the views expressed on this thread shows the perceptions held by different people with a lot lacking on anything factual. Even the individual police officers with all their training interpret the "rules" in varying degrees of acuraccy. Little doubt the general public don't understand the letter of the law. Hence the gungho attitude of a few individuals. cheers Brian

[ameerat42]

What do you expect, Brian? We live more in a EWEtopia than Utopia. Facts? How do we know them? Media? The pub? Your best friend?
Am(often wondering).

[Pixley]

I'd bet if two women were breast feeding, they would be asked to cover up Aint that the truth!

[Bear Dale]

It will be really interesting to see if Rick gets a reply.

[Warus]

The lifeguards on the show are Waverly council employees not SLSA staff so I'm not sure if the response will be correct even if you get one. I know Waverly council implemented a series of local laws restricting photography which caused a fuss a few years ago in response to the whole photographing of kids thing and I'm not sure if the lifeguards have the same powers as a council ranger in that regard.

[ricktas]

thanks Warus, got this response from SLSA today, confirming what you have stated:


Please be advised that Bondi Rescue has nothing to do with Surf Life Saving Australia.

Our surf life savers are unpaid volunteers who patrol on weekends and public holidays. They wear the iconic red and yellow uniform.

Bondi Rescue lifeguards wear the blue uniform and are paid professional lifeguards. They are employees of Waverly Council. Their professional association is called the Australian Professional Ocean Lifeguard Association (APOLA).

It is a common mistake that a lot of people make as they assume we are one in the same however we are two separate organisations.

Your best bet to have your concerns addressed is to contact Waverly Council who employ the Bondi Rescue Lifeguards: http://www.waverley.nsw.gov.au/

Alternatively you could go to the lifeguards parent organisation: http://www.apola.asn.au/

Or if you want a statement aired then perhaps contact Channel 10 who are responsible for the broadcast: http://ten.com.au/tvshows/bondirescue.htm

Surf Life Saving Australia makes it very clear to our volunteer surf life savers that photography in a public place is perfectly legal and that they have no right to confiscate or attempt to confiscate a photographer’s camera or equipment.