Police in UK continue to suffer from debilitating boredom.
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Ofnuts on 24 Jun 2010 17:48 On 24/06/2010 22:52, Paul Heslop wrote: > Bowser wrote: >> 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'? Maybe because Bowser falls victim of exactly the same kind of generalization that make others think that anyone with a camera in hand is a terrorist. -- Bertrand
From: Poldie on 24 Jun 2010 18:00 On Jun 24, 8:05 pm, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:46:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > >So they do anything to fill their time. > >http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Police_stop_photographer_in... > > "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. This is untrue. I, along with literally dozens of tourists, took photographs in both locations recently, in full view of several police officers, and no such action was taken. I think you're confusing the occasional, pointless, inconsistent harassment of photographers in those and other locations with a permanent, blanket ban.
From: "Maroochy" BarbaraH*REMOVE on 24 Jun 2010 18:41 Bruce 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. Really? I spent some time in London last year and took many photos in those areas, I was carrying two DSL camera bodies, one with a 75-300mm lens and one with a 17-40mm, not once was I stopped though there were police present in all the areas. In fact at Westminster Bridge the police actually moved aside so I could get some photos of the water police trying to catch a chap in an inflatable boat, who was trying to come ashore near the bridge.
From: Rich on 24 Jun 2010 18:56 On Jun 24, 4:40 pm, Bowser <Ca...(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:05:21 +0100, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:46:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> > >wrote: > >>So they do anything to fill their time. > >>http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Police_stop_photographer_in.... > > >"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... That's assuming you buy the story about it being terrorism they want to stop. I like the other one, that sees their economy continue to decline until the idea of revolution begins to look attractive. That's when the politicos need a huge security infrastructure in-place to prevent this, and you can't build it overnight. They are slowly becoming the new Soviet Union.
From: tony cooper on 24 Jun 2010 19:17
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 17:34:54 -0400, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >"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." He was 14 (15 later that summer) at the time. We went to a crowded pub in Ireland on that trip and I decided to buy him a pint. He was across the room, and by the time I worked my way over to him I noticed that he already had a pint. He tried to act cool about it, but I know he was chuffed to have been able to be served. The legal age here is 21. >Your wife looks like a very nice person, who is happy to be with you. Thank you. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |