Police in UK continue to suffer from debilitating boredom.
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: thepixelfreak on 25 Jun 2010 16:11 On 2010-06-24 14:11:05 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said: > "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. And a "Pro" is more likely to be a terrorist casing a joint? I fail to see the logic. -- thepixelfreak
From: Bruce on 25 Jun 2010 16:29 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. Then you could visit London without fear, because your cloak of invisibility is obviously working very well. Just make sure to bring a spare set of batteries and a charger. ;-)
From: Bruce on 25 Jun 2010 16:37 On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:11:00 -0700, thepixelfreak <not(a)dot.com> wrote: >On 2010-06-24 14:11:05 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said: > >> "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. > >And a "Pro" is more likely to be a terrorist casing a joint? I fail to >see the logic. That's probably because you are taking it all just a little too seriously. You are falling into the same trap as the author of the magazine article. It isn't difficult. The "logic" behind the police action, if there is any, is concerned with being seen by the public to be doing something about the terrorist threat. Think of it as being more about PR than about counter-terrorism.
From: Paul Heslop on 25 Jun 2010 17:36 Bowser wrote: > > 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. thanks, and yeah, I know exactly what you mean. -- Paul (we break easy) ------------------------------------------------------- Stop and Look http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
From: tony cooper on 25 Jun 2010 19:39
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:11:00 -0700, thepixelfreak <not(a)dot.com> wrote: >On 2010-06-24 14:11:05 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said: > >> "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. > >And a "Pro" is more likely to be a terrorist casing a joint? I fail to >see the logic. Where did you get the impression that logic is involved? -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |