Police in UK continue to suffer from debilitating boredom.
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Bruce on 24 Jun 2010 20:18 On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 08:41:46 +1000, "Maroochy" <BarbaraH*REMOVE THIS*@bigpond.net.au> wrote: >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. > Perhaps you don't understand the difference between "likely" and "always". If you were obviously a tourist, you would be less likely to be stopped and asked to desist. The powers are there to be used when thought necessary, not always. It isn't Australian tourists who need to be deterred, and let's face it, any London policeman could spot an Australian tourist at 200 metres, or they shouldn't be in the job. ;-)
From: Chris F.A. Johnson on 24 Jun 2010 20:22 On 2010-06-25, Bruce wrote: .... > You are in a completely different situation in Canada. Count yourself > lucky that Islamic terrorists have left Canada alone, at least so far. We catch them before they do anything: <http://www3.thestar.com/static/toronto18/index.html> -- Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfajohnson.com> Author: ======================= Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress) Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
From: Peter on 24 Jun 2010 20:49 "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:qgp726hg56f3p230653telf6vf6ud7niqm(a)4ax.com... > 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. > He's a big guy. -- Peter
From: Peter on 24 Jun 2010 20:52 "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:qgp726hg56f3p230653telf6vf6ud7niqm(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 17:34:54 -0400, "Peter" > <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > >>Your wife looks like a very nice person, who is happy to be with you. > > Thank you. I just calls 'em as I sees 'em. I'm comfortable that the Duck will back me up. Her body language is clear. I wish you guys many happy years together. -- Peter
From: tony cooper on 24 Jun 2010 21:24
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 01:18:51 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Perhaps you don't understand the difference between "likely" and >"always". If you were obviously a tourist, you would be less likely >to be stopped and asked to desist. The powers are there to be used >when thought necessary, not always. I would hope that the UK police are not making decisions about whom to stop based on whether or not they look like a tourist. If the terrorists found out that this was the practice, and tourists wouldn't be stopped, they'd add a day to the terrorist training program and teach them to carry give-away airline carry-alls (not from Etihad Airlines), Frommer guide books, and A-to-Zed maps. They could teach them to look left first when stepping off the kerb and prepare them by having their teeth whitened and straightened. >It isn't Australian tourists who need to be deterred, and let's face >it, any London policeman could spot an Australian tourist at 200 >metres, or they shouldn't be in the job. ;-) And wear a Wallabies or Barbarians tee shirt. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |