Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Al,Al Patterson said:
You are proud to be illiberal?
Cheers,
R.
My fellow criminals...
- Thread starter BillP
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 181
- Views 8K
You are proud to be illiberal?
Cheers,
R.
parsec1
parsec1
ClaremontPhoto said:
Yep and all the pictures will come from 'Camera'phones.
Anyway if you want to blow up the houses of parliment why bother to photograph it....you can get a perfectly good 6x8 postcard from the shop next door.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Next time I will go to the UK I will stop shaving my face then don a galabeyya and a turban and roam around with my Mamiya C330 on the city streets with one eye partly closed.
I wonder how long will I last in the open fresh air before getting free room and board?
I am sure one can buy a 100% egyptian cotton galabeyya in the UK these days with ease.
I wonder how long will I last in the open fresh air before getting free room and board?
I am sure one can buy a 100% egyptian cotton galabeyya in the UK these days with ease.
Sparrow
Veteran
BillP said:
Speaking from experience; on a Saturday night I would rather take photos of Charlotte NC sp? than a market town in Surrey. However I agree with Bill, that it is the misconception of the rules that is the problem, not the rules themselves
DelDavis
.
Roger Hicks said:
Quite right. It's called the narrative fallacy. We're very good at making up stories after the fact. Any time the stock market goes up or down, CNBC and everyone else are right there with the cause: "Market down on fears of rising oil prices." "Market up as the sky is still blue." Contradictions come at the rate of several per hour.
All we can do is live our lives. We cannot predict the future.
Michiel Fokkema
Michiel Fokkema
About two years ago i was stopped making pictures in the underground already by an official. I was using a rolleicord! If any terrorist would use or even know what a rolleicord is!.
On the way back home I had to open all my film camera's at the airport to show there were no explosives in there. I must admit it was just after another bomb attack.
cheers,
Michiel fokkema
On the way back home I had to open all my film camera's at the airport to show there were no explosives in there. I must admit it was just after another bomb attack.
cheers,
Michiel fokkema
cosmonot
uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝʞ
Why don't they tell EVERYONE to carry cameras, and instruct EVERYONE to photograph EVERYTHING that is suspicous? Wouldn't that be better? Photo classes in elementary and junior and high schools could be underwritten by the Department of Homeland Security, or whatever the British equivalent is. Wouldn't that be GREAT?
Who wants to live in a world where only criminals have cameras?
Who wants to live in a world where only criminals have cameras?
Michiel Fokkema
Michiel Fokkema
Tuolumne said:
No problems for me to photograph in Iran. I had more problems in the London metro. I was not allowed to photograph in the metro with my Rolleicord!
Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema
bmattock
Veteran
Roger Hicks said:
I notice no one seems to want to answer a fairly simple question. Rather than press the issue, I'll retire; but I consider my point proven.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
cosmonot said:
that is the best idea I have heard of yet.
BillP
Rangefinder General
Michiel Fokkema said:
Why? By whom? The only restriction is on flash photography, for safety reasons.
Regards,
Bill
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Roger Hicks said:
Yes. I used to be a liberal when I was younger, but then I grew up.
MickH
Well-known
BillP said:
Unless you happen to be of an obvious non-English appearance?
Rules is rules and all that, but then some over zealous officials can go further.
I dunno really, just posing the question.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
I would argue that the bicyclist was deemed a "person of interest" (I love that euphamism; it means you're a suspect but they can't legally call you a suspect without further evidence) because he was seen in the field of view of a nearby surveillance camera. Mix that "official" statement with the nano-second spin-up hype of the media and the bicyclist becomes presumed guilty.
Of course, the bicyclist in question may have actually been the culprit; we won't know without further "evidence", will we? But asking the public to help in identifying the person on the video, especially via the media, is asking for trouble. The average private person is not a trained observer; we might as well be turning in our neighbors, like in the PRC prior to Walmart. And asking the media to deliver the request to the public is laughable, given the consistent track record of distortion, inaccuracy and outright lies that we've seen time and time again with corporate media.
I'll revert back to my previous post: real terrorists don't need to go out in public and "act suspicious" in order to plan a future attack; they use Google Earth. Coincidentally, I just saw this news article on Yahoo, about the Pentagon not allowing Google to video the roads inside military installations:
"...Michael Kucharek, spokesman for U.S. Northern Command, told The Associated Press on Thursday that the decision was made after crews were allowed access to at least one base. He said military officials were concerned that allowing the 360-degree, street-level video could provide sensitive information to potential adversaries and endanger base personnel.
His comments came just a few days after published reports suggested that protesters used Google Earth to help plot their access to the roof of the Parliament building in London..."
Just a coincidence, eh?
I continue to maintain that terror is a psychological condition; international law defines terrorism as acts designed to illicit terror for political purposes. In that context governments who exploit terror in their populace for political purposes (like propping up the regime; securing foreign sources of petroleum; securing state power over individual liberty) are playing from the same deck of cards.
~Joe
Of course, the bicyclist in question may have actually been the culprit; we won't know without further "evidence", will we? But asking the public to help in identifying the person on the video, especially via the media, is asking for trouble. The average private person is not a trained observer; we might as well be turning in our neighbors, like in the PRC prior to Walmart. And asking the media to deliver the request to the public is laughable, given the consistent track record of distortion, inaccuracy and outright lies that we've seen time and time again with corporate media.
I'll revert back to my previous post: real terrorists don't need to go out in public and "act suspicious" in order to plan a future attack; they use Google Earth. Coincidentally, I just saw this news article on Yahoo, about the Pentagon not allowing Google to video the roads inside military installations:
"...Michael Kucharek, spokesman for U.S. Northern Command, told The Associated Press on Thursday that the decision was made after crews were allowed access to at least one base. He said military officials were concerned that allowing the 360-degree, street-level video could provide sensitive information to potential adversaries and endanger base personnel.
His comments came just a few days after published reports suggested that protesters used Google Earth to help plot their access to the roof of the Parliament building in London..."
Just a coincidence, eh?
I continue to maintain that terror is a psychological condition; international law defines terrorism as acts designed to illicit terror for political purposes. In that context governments who exploit terror in their populace for political purposes (like propping up the regime; securing foreign sources of petroleum; securing state power over individual liberty) are playing from the same deck of cards.
~Joe
Last edited:
parsec1
parsec1
Bought my 9yr old grandaughter a nice little Rollie digi for Christmas. She shoots all and everything with it and loves doing so.
Worried now.
Wonder which prison they will put her in.
Worried now.
Wonder which prison they will put her in.
BillP
Rangefinder General
bmattock said:
An absence of response does not prove your point, Bill.
I will make an attempt to answer your question to your satisfaction. If I saw someone acting suspiciously, I would call the police. There you go.
If I saw someone "loitering with intent" around a cashpoint, or the door of a closed shop, or a car door, if I saw someone threatening or stalking another, if I saw a crime in progress, I would act.
But I will not act when I see someone take a picture in a public place. I would not expect anyone to act when I take a picture in a public place.
If I am approached by a PCSO to ask me why I have taken a photo in a public place I shall respond with courtesy, but if my rights are infringed I shall cease to co-operate until a full-fledged police officer is summoned. The PCSO has no power to arrest, only detain for 30 minutes while awaiting a police officer. After that time the individual may leave.
I am not a criminal. I am legally pursuing my pastime.
End of story.
Regards,
Bill
parsec1
parsec1
Al Patterson said:
Into what ? and how many M16s in your collection
bmattock
Veteran
Michiel Fokkema said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zahra_Kazemi
I don't want to hear about how wonderful it is to take photographs in Iran.
Ever.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
parsec1 said:
There you go. Just because I profess to be not liberal means I'm a gun nut? I don't even own a gun. But I do believe I have the right to self-protection and I want to be allowed to own a gun if I think I need one.
And I do NOT need your permission either.
And for the record, I'm a registered Independent who votes for whomever I feel is going to represent my interests.
bmattock
Veteran
BillP said:
Dancing and squirming and pounce-trifling do, however.
I will make an attempt to answer your question to your satisfaction. If I saw someone acting suspiciously, I would call the police. There you go. [/QUOTE]
Very good. Your compatriots have stated in so many words that people who are not trained observers should stifle themselves and not make such reports. I gave them a real-life scenario that happened today and involved a real bombing and away they dance, twirl, and avoid actually answering the question. Because not one of them is willing to actually say 'Yes, I believe the witness should not have reported the suspicious bicyclist, because he is not a trained observer.'
This to anyone who thinks not calling the police when they see something dodgy is the appropriate response.
People organize 'Neighborhood Watch' groups and put up signs, but they never attend meetings and don't actually do anything. It's all the Kitty Genovese syndrome of a) not wanting to get involved and b) not thinking anyone one else should get involved either.
And now I am done with this thread. Time for dinner, and time for me to cool off.