|
|
|
-
 Originally Posted by Anscojohn
*******
Ahh, I see that the IRA-wannabees would not be scoping out a vacant wreck of a building. Here, I was under the impression the building was something other than a derelict.
If you saw it you'd probably recognise it. Battersea power station is the building on the cover of Pink Floyd's 'Animals' album.
----------- My Flickr-----------
Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.
✯
-
There is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that the officers, and certainly the senior officer do know and understand the law. It's either not being communicated to the beat officers - or it's being ignored. Either which way it's a problem. Andy K was talking about the whole totalitarianism thing. I know the U.K. decided to implement the Total Information Awareness thing. Here, it was officially withdrawn due to 1.) public outcry and 2.) the fact that Admiral John Poindexter, (yes he of Irangate conviction) was running it. It's in DARPA now - so, like everything else in DARPA it's not really happening! I believe it's Poindexter's company that's doing it for the U.K. Nice to know we're all in the hands of a convicted, (but pardoned, of course) felon. Plus, we all know how good our governments are at safeguarding the information in their charge!!
You're getting me going guys!!!!!!!!!
Bob H
"Why is there always a better way?"
-
In the past, Posts from the UK on this subject usually talked about film being fogged or just destroyed, camera seized, and photographers being arrested. The fact that the OP was handled civilly is an improvement. Not perfect, but an improvement.
Steve
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
-
"Why is there always a better way?"
-
But let's get practical: How to react?
Starting a campaign against that kind of control?
We should not forget that many people want that control, so it's not just the authority.
Just have oneself checked and go further as long as they don't stop you taking photographs?
Well, I have nothing to hide at a police control, but they might think, that guy has been mangled that often through the computer, there must be something wrong with him.
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
Originally Posted by AgX
But let's get practical: How to react?
Starting a campaign against that kind of control?
We should not forget that many people want that control, so it's not just the authority.
Just have oneself checked and go further as long as they don't stop you taking photographs?
Well, I have nothing to hide at a police control, but they might think, that guy has been mangled that often through the computer, there must be something wrong with him.
That's the big question - and an excellent one to ask. And you're right - many people want the control because somehow it makes them feel safe. I used to commute daily into London in the early seventies in the middle of the big IRA bombing campaign and there was a sense then, that if we allowed things to change because of the terrorism we would, in effect, be surrendering. The police had everyone's cooperation and mutual respect prevailed - and it worked. This time around it's so very different.
I agree, I have nothing to hide, let them search me; but random search and seizure was outlawed for a reason - the power it afforded was abused. We've seen too many countries where civil rights were sacrificed in the name of security, and it's always gone tubular. It never starts without some sort of apparently reasoning, but it nearly always degenerates bit by tiny bit until it's just too damned late.
Perhaps the U.S. Bill of Rights, or the U.N. Bill of Rights or the European Bill of Rights would be a good start. They're all good documents and perhaps if we really stood for that (as we say we do) then personal "security" may, in some instances be at odds. It's a choice - and one which we should be permitted to make. As it is we are instructed as to which of our rights we will forgo and it becomes a fait accompli
It's become either unpatriotic, naive or just plain stupid to promote rights over security, but to my mind too many people have died fighting for those rights over too many years to just surrender to people who no better than us what liberties we deserve.
I'll just go format my hard drive now
Bob H
"Why is there always a better way?"
-
The bottom line is:
You are pissed that this cost you money. If they had gone away and not come back, you would have chalked it up to whatever. But t cost you money. I have felt that way many times before, I am of Irish heritage a it carries with it.
They left you alone to do wht you wanted. After the incidents of last week, all police in GB are gonna err on the investigative side. Is it right? Nope. But it is how it is. And apparently legal.
You screwed up.
Face the music and pay the fine. I haven't been stopped by police indamn time. But when I was, I said thing. They always caught me fair and square and I paid the fine. The number of times I have gotten away with it justified the price.
And yes, I have been stopped in Germany by the polizei for shooting after midnight on the streets of Bitburg, asked many questions, and let go. I did nothing wrong, but they thouit was worth while checking out.
It's not right, but it is.
tim in san jose
Where ever you are, there you be.
-
This post has split in to two threads, I don't disagree that being disturbed or prevented from photographing in legal places
is a PITA and an infringement of my rights as a citizen, blah, blah, blah,, but you did screw up, sorry, breaking the law is breaking the law.
If you had crashed into my car and had no insurance I would have been well pissed off. 
-
In Germany the insurance companies inform the authority who registered a car when an insurance expires. I'm not sure if there is any fine but you will loose your car registration.
I don't care because I don't have a driving licence. But I care if the police poses me questions when I'm carrying my camera in a rucksack or am photographing.
And I see a problem if the police is checking number plates for an expired insurance because somebody is photographing and not because they are stopping and checking cars on a random basis. The consequence will be that it's more likely for a photographer to get a fine than for a non-photographer. I wouldn't call this equality before the law.
Markus
-
I'm in total agreement with Mourr. In my (apparently quaint) opinion, the police have no business whatsoever asking questions of someone taking photos of a derelict building. The question of whether he is a professional or not seems quite irrelevant, also (they were probably buying time to think up a reason to be asking questions). They asked for ID?! Even a former head of MI5 (Stella Rimington) recently accused the Government of using terrorism threats to scare the public into accepting this sort of treatment.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7893890.stm
|
|
Adv Reply
