Police in UK continue to suffer from debilitating boredom.
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: alex slater on 24 Jun 2010 19:52 On Jun 24, 11:27 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > On 2010-06-24 15:00:46 -0700, Poldie <pol...(a)gmail.com> said: > > > > > 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. > > ...but were you armed with that badge of the photo-terrorist, the DSLR? Guilty, your honour. In my battle against democracy I was armed with one 50mm prime and a highly dangerous 18-55 zoom on my EOS 400.
From: Bruce on 24 Jun 2010 20:00 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? >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. It is nowhere near as bad as it sounds. The people it affects most are pro shooters who make images of buildings. I know several fellow Brits who have been harassed by police in New York and Washington in similar circumstances. One was arrested twice in Chicago for taking pictures of the L and subjected to an intrusive search and interrogation, during which he was threatened with deportation. I don't see much difference between the US and UK in that respect; both our countries are known terrorist targets. Don't be deterred from visiting the UK. We need dollars like we need all foreign currency, and US tourists are made more welcome here than in most other European capitals. I'm glad you know parts of the UK other than London, because London is in so many ways the least British city of all. ;-)
From: Bruce on 24 Jun 2010 20:04 On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:40:56 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote: >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... It's not so different in the USA, I think. See my reply to Savageduck. In both countries, our governments perceive a need to be seen to be doing something about the terrorist threat. I think that drives most of the police's attitude to photography. The two terrorist attacks on London in 2005 both had an element of photographic reconnaissance, so that explains some of the apparent paranoia.
From: Bruce on 24 Jun 2010 20:13 On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:56:29 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >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. Interesting how "the new Soviet Union" has just elected a right of centre government with a mandate for free market policies including the overturning of most of the draconian legislation enacted during the last 13 years of a left of centre government. The new government is a coalition between the part of the right and a centrist party, and both are dedicated to the restoration of personal freedoms insofar as the security situation allows. It could not be further from "the new Soviet Union". The threat of home grown Islamist terrorism is high in the UK because we have a large ethnic minority whose roots lie in India and Pakistan. The vast majority of people here recognise that there will be some restrictions in personal freedom because of the threat level, which is very high. A similar situation existed during the Irish Republican terror campaigns - this is something that we are used to, and there is really no choice. The situation in the USA is not so different - see my reply to Savageduck. You are in a completely different situation in Canada. Count yourself lucky that Islamic terrorists have left Canada alone, at least so far.
From: Bruce on 24 Jun 2010 20:15
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:00:46 -0700 (PDT), Poldie <poldie(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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. Interesting how you managed to snip my next paragraph which explained why tourists escape the ban. Had you read it, you would have realised that you were wasting your time with that reply. ;-) |