David Cameron's personal photographer

[wednesday1]

It doesn't. It DOES pay to do some research into a matter you're slating so you don't look an ass.

 

The material is out there which details the loss of 287 jobs (announced 3rd August), but I can't be bothered doing your work when the thread is yet another anti-government rant and blind to anything but Cameron hate.

 

 

Any reader of the OP and subsequent posts would not be aware of the '287 jobs which are to be axed in the communications and publicity department' as nobody mentioned it before you did, which you did without providing a source, so how am I or anyone else to know what the hell you are on about!

 

There's only person looking like an ass I'm afraid to say is YOU!!!

[unuspromulti]

Yes there will be security issues. He will have privileged access to members of the government and buildings.

As well as press and public relations photography he will almost certainly be involved other photographic tasks.

He will almost certainly need to be positive vetted on a regular basis.

 

You miss the point there completely, these 'security issues' are part and parcel of working in the media close to government. The previous poster was trying to say that if press shots arent owned by the government there are security issues supposedly validating the need for a personal photographer to the PM. My point is that the press have long been able to take press shots and there are plenty of photographers out there with the ability that pass the vetting. This has previously served governments well as they've never needed to employ one full time, <insert government claiming to be tightening spending with us quote here>.

[harvey19]

You miss the point there completely, these 'security issues' are part and parcel of working in the media close to government. The previous poster was trying to say that if press shots arent owned by the government there are security issues supposedly validating the need for a personal photographer to the PM. My point is that the press have long been able to take press shots and there are plenty of photographers out there with the ability that pass the vetting. This has previously served governments well as they've never needed to employ one full time, <insert government claiming to be tightening spending with us quote here>.

 

I see where you are coming from but there are occasions when an in house photographer is needed. One who is on call at all times and undertakes tasks from which the press are excluded.

I would imagine there has always been a photographer undertaking this role.

[CottonTop]

It should be pointed out that this photographer, as a civil servant, must be impartial to the different parties and he is to be used by the entire cabinet. Maybe he can do some flattering pics of Ed Milliband cause heaven knows he needs all the help he can get.

[unuspromulti]

I see where you are coming from but there are occasions when an in house photographer is needed. One who is on call at all times and undertakes tasks from which the press are excluded.

I would imagine there has always been a photographer undertaking this role.

 

From what I can gather we've never had the need for one before although they have an official White House Photographer across the pond. I cant think of many things that the press would be excluded from that we'd want to see images of though, especially in a time when transparency was a one of the buzzwords used to get into government. I think most media/photo work is planned in advance also, it's not as if DC's going to call him at 3am to take a photo of him watching Babestation!

[harvey19]

From what I can gather we've never had the need for one before although they have an official White House Photographer across the pond. I cant think of many things that the press would be excluded from that we'd want to see images of though, especially in a time when transparency was a one of the buzzwords used to get into government. I think most media/photo work is planned in advance also, it's not as if DC's going to call him at 3am to take a photo of him watching Babestation!

 

Not all photographs are taken for public release, and there are times when a photographer is required without prior warning.

Maybe the position has now been clarified and it is a photographer given a specific title.

[Berberis]

Did Tony Blair not have one? Did Gordon Brown not have one?

[unuspromulti]

Did Tony Blair not have one? Did Gordon Brown not have one?

 

Apparently not

[unuspromulti]

Not all photographs are taken for public release, and there are times when a photographer is required without prior warning.

Maybe the position has now been clarified and it is a photographer given a specific title.

 

If it's a proper position like what they have in the states and it's warranted then I dont mind, it's just when it's a random unadvertised role in the civil service not related to photography that it's a problem. Same with the CameronCam video man who's been brought in, are we to get more cheesey videos from inside No10? If so, I hope it's worth the salary.

[Berberis]

Apparently not

 

In which case I can see the reason why people are unhappy. However if you look at the amount of money spent on what was called communications by Labour, which did much the same thing, this appointment is a drop in the ocean compared.

 

Still, if I were DC, I would not have done this.