Police in UK continue to suffer from debilitating boredom.
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Gary Edstrom on 25 Jun 2010 13:34 On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 17:31:37 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:18:47 -0700, Gary Edstrom ><GEdstrom(a)PacBell.Net> wrote: >>On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:05:21 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>"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. >> >>That's interesting...I just got back from a week in London. I shot >>pictures all around Parliament, Big Ben, and Westminster Abby with >>professional looking camera (Canon 50D), a telephoto lens, a >>photographer's vest, a bag of camera accessories, and a tripod. I did >>this on multiple occasions. I walked all around Parliament, shooting it >>from many angles. Nobody ever said anything. >> >>I also shot pictures in Trafalgar Square, although not nearly as many >>since the weather was quite overcas. > >Perhaps you are another person who doesn't understand the difference >between "likely" and "always". On the other hand, maybe there are people who WANT to provoke a confrontation and then complain when they get one. Hey...I could provoke a confrontation if I wanted too. The city's power generating plant is located only about a mile from where I live. I could walk around the perimeter fence and shoot all sorts of close-up pictures of their facilities, security setup, security checkpoints, and security guards. I'm sure it would not take long to have the police arrive and question me about what I was doing. Likewise, in London, if I had been shooting close-ups of the security fence, the locks on the fence, the guards, security posts, security cameras, etc. I am sure it would not have taken long to have someone stop me.
From: Bowser on 25 Jun 2010 13:53 On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:09:25 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 08:02:48 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote: >> >>Right. That would make me a terrorist. Look, I get your point, but >>like I said in my other reply, is there any other civilized western >>country where this is happening? Seems to be a problem unique to the >>island. Is that wrong? Are other countries detaining people if they >>simply shoot pics in a public place? With a "pro" camera? I haven't >>heard of any. > > >The USA? Friends of mine have had similar treatment in New York, >Washington and Chicago, as I explained earlier in the thread. > >In the UK, outside London, and in the USA, outside those cities, the >problem seems not to exist. But those cities are known to be prime >targets for Islamic terrorists. I've tramped all over Washington DC and New York and have never been stopped or questioned. I've never heard of anyone who has. I even shoot with a 5D II in airports with no problem whatsoever.
From: Bowser on 25 Jun 2010 13:54 On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 17:09:42 +0100, Paul Heslop <paul.heslop(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >Bowser wrote: >> >> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 21:52:16 +0100, Paul Heslop >> <paul.heslop(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >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. >> >> I say "the brits" because I don't see this type of harrassment >> anywhere else. At lease not in a "free and civilized" country. Is >> there any other free western country where people are detained for >> shooting pics in public places, like Trafalgar? > >Was he detained? have we heard that this actually happened? has he >been charged with something? > >We, the Brits, don't make the rules. people in power are using anti >terror laws to excuse all sorts of things. they even use them to >combat dog poo on the streets apparently. Our govt and our local >councils are full of people who like nothing more than to restrict >freedom for the average Joe. Since Thatcher and through the Bliar >years things have gone from bad to worse. > >But please, don't label all of us with these power crazed bastards. Point taken, I meant no insult to the "real people" only to those who insist of over-excercising what little power they might have to harass innocents. "Brits" comment withdrawn, apologies offered.
From: tony cooper on 25 Jun 2010 14:00 On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:53:12 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote: >On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:09:25 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> >wrote: > >>On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 08:02:48 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote: >>> >>>Right. That would make me a terrorist. Look, I get your point, but >>>like I said in my other reply, is there any other civilized western >>>country where this is happening? Seems to be a problem unique to the >>>island. Is that wrong? Are other countries detaining people if they >>>simply shoot pics in a public place? With a "pro" camera? I haven't >>>heard of any. >> >> >>The USA? Friends of mine have had similar treatment in New York, >>Washington and Chicago, as I explained earlier in the thread. >> >>In the UK, outside London, and in the USA, outside those cities, the >>problem seems not to exist. But those cities are known to be prime >>targets for Islamic terrorists. > >I've tramped all over Washington DC and New York and have never been >stopped or questioned. I've never heard of anyone who has. I even >shoot with a 5D II in airports with no problem whatsoever. On the other hand, I was approached by a security guard in the industrial park next to the airport in Sanford, Florida. There was a large petroleum tank with a circular iron staircase around it. I thought the stairs and the shadows made an interesting photo. The guard asked me what I doing photographing the tank, and I told him why it interested me. He told me photography of the tank was not allowed and stood there until I left. He didn't ask me to delete the photos, though. I think he wrote down my license plate number. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Peter on 25 Jun 2010 14:36
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:sdr926praq2t6564sqa2rn3ukiebpel4ak(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:53:12 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote: > >>On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:09:25 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> >>wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 08:02:48 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote: >>>> >>>>Right. That would make me a terrorist. Look, I get your point, but >>>>like I said in my other reply, is there any other civilized western >>>>country where this is happening? Seems to be a problem unique to the >>>>island. Is that wrong? Are other countries detaining people if they >>>>simply shoot pics in a public place? With a "pro" camera? I haven't >>>>heard of any. >>> >>> >>>The USA? Friends of mine have had similar treatment in New York, >>>Washington and Chicago, as I explained earlier in the thread. >>> >>>In the UK, outside London, and in the USA, outside those cities, the >>>problem seems not to exist. But those cities are known to be prime >>>targets for Islamic terrorists. >> >>I've tramped all over Washington DC and New York and have never been >>stopped or questioned. I've never heard of anyone who has. I even >>shoot with a 5D II in airports with no problem whatsoever. > > On the other hand, I was approached by a security guard in the > industrial park next to the airport in Sanford, Florida. There was a > large petroleum tank with a circular iron staircase around it. I > thought the stairs and the shadows made an interesting photo. > > The guard asked me what I doing photographing the tank, and I told him > why it interested me. He told me photography of the tank was not > allowed and stood there until I left. He didn't ask me to delete the > photos, though. I think he wrote down my license plate number. > You get individuals like that,everywhere. We have some interesting local buildings. At one, which is in the same complex as Nikon, the security guards can be sticky. I asked the building management for permission and they had absolutely no issue. They told me to just let security know I had permission and they backed it up with a written note. Armed with the note I went back and wasn't even challenged. I just smiled at the security guard. -- Peter |