Police in UK continue to suffer from debilitating boredom.
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Bowser on 24 Jun 2010 16:40 On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:05:21 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:46:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> >wrote: >>So they do anything to fill their time. >>http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Police_stop_photographer_in_Trafalgar_Square_news_299484.html > > >"Amateur Photographer" should know that, in London, there are two >specific areas where most photography is banned. One is in Trafalgar >Square, where this incident occurred. The other is in Parliament >Square and Whitehall, around the Houses of Parliament and the main >offices of Government. > >Some exceptions are made for tourists with small P&S cameras, although >they are still liable to be stopped and asked about the end use of any >images they make. But anything other than tourists' snapshots are >banned, which means that anyone carrying a camera that looks like they >mean business (for which read: SLR) is likely to be stopped and >politely asked to desist. > >Away from these two areas, there are around 40 sites that are >designated as being of particular interest to potential terrorists, >and the police have enhanced powers under Section 44 of the Prevention >of Terrorism Acts 2005 and 2006 to stop and interview anyone using a >camera in these areas. There is no ban on photography but questions >about end use are to be expected. > >While the police do not have specific legal powers to ask for evidence >of identity in these areas, it is wise to co-operate as much as >possible, otherwise an arrest and a subsequent time-consuming >interview (at a police station) are likely to spoil your day. > >Outside the Section 44 areas you are still likely to be stopped if you >are carrying "professional-looking" gear and/or are photographing >buildings. The police tend not to differentiate between their greater >powers in Section 44 areas and their more restricted powers elsewhere. > >The reason for all this is the very high level of terrorist threat >from Islamists based in the UK. It is impossible to quantify the >overall risk of another terrorist attack (we had two in 2005) and the >additional risk posed by people photographing buildings, so the police >err on the side of caution and probably stop rather more people than >they need to. But we will never know if this has prevented any >further attacks. > >"Amateur Photographer" should know all this, however the magazine is >keen to be seen to supporting the freedom of photographers, especially >in London, and articles like this - which are a knee-jerk reaction to >something that they should already know - seem increasingly to be a >regular feature of the magazine. the Brits are amazingly stupid. Do they really think stopping photographers will stop terrorism? Now that the terrorists know this, they'll do what, go somewhere else where you can shoot pics? Amazing...
From: Peter on 24 Jun 2010 16:45 "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:2010062413314654666-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > On 2010-06-24 12:05:21 -0700, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> said: > >> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:46:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> So they do anything to fill their time. >>> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Police_stop_photographer_in_Trafalgar_Square_news_299484.html > > > "Amateur >>> >> Photographer" should know that, in London, there are two >> specific areas where most photography is banned. One is in Trafalgar >> Square, where this incident occurred. The other is in Parliament >> Square and Whitehall, around the Houses of Parliament and the main >> offices of Government. >> >> Some exceptions are made for tourists with small P&S cameras, although >> they are still liable to be stopped and asked about the end use of any >> images they make. But anything other than tourists' snapshots are >> banned, which means that anyone carrying a camera that looks like they >> mean business (for which read: SLR) is likely to be stopped and >> politely asked to desist. > > Why on Earth would tourists of any kind be restricted in the photographic > equipment they choose to travel with? > Do you mean to tell me that if I visited Trafalgar Square, as a tourist, > who is also a hobbyist photographer, with a DSLR and a bag with one or two > more lenses, I am going to be accused of being some sort of Pro-photog? > I am after all a tourist without a small P&S (I don't know if a G11 in the > bag with my other stuff would count). > Do these clowns understand some amateur photographers use DSLR's? > Sometimes more than one. > > What would I be told if I stated I was just a tourist taking shots of what > is supposed to be one of London's premier tourist attractions? That is how > it is presented in the brochures, isn't it? > > Boy! Are they going to have fun in 2012 with the Olympics. > > The UK is appearing less attractive as a travel destination lately. > Although there are some places other than London I really enjoy visiting. > > I don't take anything Bruce posts, seriously. Especially his interpretations of law. -- Peter
From: Paul Heslop on 24 Jun 2010 16:52 Bowser wrote: > >"Amateur Photographer" should know all this, however the magazine is > >keen to be seen to supporting the freedom of photographers, especially > >in London, and articles like this - which are a knee-jerk reaction to > >something that they should already know - seem increasingly to be a > >regular feature of the magazine. > > the Brits are amazingly stupid. Do they really think stopping > photographers will stop terrorism? Now that the terrorists know this, > they'll do what, go somewhere else where you can shoot pics? > > Amazing... why do you say 'the brits'? I don't think I personally know of one person who thinks that people should be stopped photographing anywhere, except obviously rabid groups of morons who would try to hang you if you happen to have a camera within the same area as a child, even if it's your own. -- Paul (we break easy) ------------------------------------------------------- Stop and Look http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
From: tony cooper on 24 Jun 2010 17:11 On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 13:31:46 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >On 2010-06-24 12:05:21 -0700, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> said: > >> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:46:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> So they do anything to fill their time. >>> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Police_stop_photographer_in_Trafalgar_Square_news_299484.html > > >"Amateur >>> >> Photographer" should know that, in London, there are two >> specific areas where most photography is banned. One is in Trafalgar >> Square, where this incident occurred. The other is in Parliament >> Square and Whitehall, around the Houses of Parliament and the main >> offices of Government. >> >> Some exceptions are made for tourists with small P&S cameras, although >> they are still liable to be stopped and asked about the end use of any >> images they make. But anything other than tourists' snapshots are >> banned, which means that anyone carrying a camera that looks like they >> mean business (for which read: SLR) is likely to be stopped and >> politely asked to desist. > >Why on Earth would tourists of any kind be restricted in the >photographic equipment they choose to travel with? >Do you mean to tell me that if I visited Trafalgar Square, as a >tourist, who is also a hobbyist photographer, with a DSLR and a bag >with one or two more lenses, I am going to be accused of being some >sort of Pro-photog? You kinda jumped to a conclusion there. The information presented didn't say that tourists are restricted to the type of photographic equipment they have. The information says "is likely to be stopped". "Likely" means it can happen, not that it will happen. A person with "pro" appearing equipment is more likely to come to the attention of authorities. I would imagine that the general appearance of the tourist will also have to do with the likelihood of being stopped. It is a rather silly premise, however. For purposes of terrorism, a photograph taken by John Sisker will show just as much as a photograph taken by a pro with top drawer equipment. Terrorists are not interested in the detail of the feathers of a pigeon on a ledge. They want to capture the layout. John's photograph will provide that even if his camera changes the colors and misreads the temperature. (Does John's camera adjust for Celsius or Fahrenheit?) >What would I be told if I stated I was just a tourist taking shots of >what is supposed to be one of London's premier tourist attractions? >That is how it is presented in the brochures, isn't it? They'd send you off to take photographs of the changing of the guard. I took this photograph in 1984 at the Tower of London. (Scanned slide) This young man is probably now the Minister of Photography (note the camera in his hand) and reports to the Minister of Silly Rules. http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos/912417164_usuWV-L.jpg This photograph was taken the same day at the Tower by my daughter. The family to the left would probably be hauled off and questioned for hours if they were there today. That's my wife, me, my camera bag (Do I look like a pro?), my son, and a stranger in the background far right. The stranger is probably now the senior Met officer in charge of Suspicious Activities. http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos/912417144_NJWym-L.jpg -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Peter on 24 Jun 2010 17:34
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1lg7265feb4hmmn65ekaniqrrv0qljveok(a)4ax.com... > This photograph was taken the same day at the Tower by my daughter. > The family to the left would probably be hauled off and questioned for > hours if they were there today. That's my wife, me, my camera bag (Do > I look like a pro?), my son, and a stranger in the background far > right. The stranger is probably now the senior Met officer in charge > of Suspicious Activities. > > http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos/912417144_NJWym-L.jpg > Your son seems to be saying something like: "Hurry up and take the picture. Let's get on with the pub crawl." Your wife looks like a very nice person, who is happy to be with you. -- Peter |