Abuse and intimidation of London photographer

"Welcome To The Gulag" wrote in message
...
This is scary stuff - seriously, what has happened to a once proud and
free nation?

They imported stupid Chinese that speak bad English and feel very
important...


http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...nt-pictur.html


[click to play video]

Chris Savage wrote:
On 2008-03-27, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , John Ferguson
says...

I reckon I'll avoid London if I ever get to GB.
Same here - if this is how they treat you in the UK.

Lived here all my life. Never been treated that way, even in London. But
I only go there if I absolutely have to. Awful place, surrounded by a
shell of even-more-awful places.

Come, friendly bombs, and fall on Slough
It isn't fit for humans now,
There isn't grass to graze a cow
Swarm over, Death!

"Welcome To The Gulag" wrote in message
...
This is scary stuff - seriously, what has happened to a once proud and
free nation?


http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...nt-pictur.html


[click to play video]

Dammed if they do dammed if they don't.
Fair enough he probably looked suspicious. If he was a bomber then BANG! He
looked Sus that is why and he was in the middle of a place that has been
bombed! I bet someone else around that place had been filming just like him
and nothing was said.

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
On 2008-03-28, Mikia wrote:

"Welcome To The Gulag" wrote in message
...
This is scary stuff - seriously, what has happened to a once proud and
free nation?

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...e_photographer

Dammed if they do dammed if they don't.
Fair enough he probably looked suspicious. If he was a bomber then BANG! He
looked Sus that is why and he was in the middle of a place that has been
bombed! I bet someone else around that place had been filming just like him
and nothing was said.

What is 'suspicious' about using a video camera in a notorious tourist
trap? The last people to bomb London a couple of years ago were caught
on several CCTV cameras. None of the released footage shows them
standing around waving video cameras.

I'm not aware of any bomb in the place he was standing, but I couldn't
identify it too accurately, one of the 'circuses' in the west end is my
best guess. You obviously know better, care to share?

What is this connection you are drawing, that you appear to think is
obvious, between someone filming/photographing and a terrorist planting
a bomb? I know of no such association.

--
Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
- Billy Bragg

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , John Ferguson
says...

I reckon I'll avoid London if I ever get to GB.

Same here - if this is how they treat you in the UK.

If it was then nobody would have bothered making a fuss about it.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

On Mar 27, 11:36*am, John Ferguson wrote:
Welcome To The Gulag wrote: This is scary stuff - seriously, what has *happened to a once proud and free
nation?

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...tographer/2008...

[click to play video]

I reckon I'll avoid London if I ever get to GB.

Well, I spent several weeks in London immediately after the
Underground bombings. Parts of the line were still blocked and
security was quite heavy. My wife and I were carrying a camcorder, my
none-too-inconspicuous Panasonic FZ20, and another digital camera. We
took photos and video everywhere we went, including in the
underground. Not once were we stopped, questioned, or harrassed. We
did *ask* security personel if we could take their pictures before
doing so, and we were never refused.

My suspicion is that unless you are purposely trying to annoy someone,
or taking pictures in an obviously restricted area, you won't have any
trouble.

Dan (Woj...)
Dan (Woj...)

"dmaster" wrote in message
...
On Mar 27, 11:36 am, John Ferguson wrote:
Welcome To The Gulag wrote: This is scary stuff - seriously, what has
happened to a once proud and free
nation?

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...tographer/2008...

[click to play video]

I reckon I'll avoid London if I ever get to GB.

Well, I spent several weeks in London immediately after the
Underground bombings. Parts of the line were still blocked and
security was quite heavy. My wife and I were carrying a camcorder, my
none-too-inconspicuous Panasonic FZ20, and another digital camera. We
took photos and video everywhere we went, including in the
underground. Not once were we stopped, questioned, or harrassed. We
did *ask* security personel if we could take their pictures before
doing so, and we were never refused.

My suspicion is that unless you are purposely trying to annoy someone,
or taking pictures in an obviously restricted area, you won't have any
trouble.

Dan (Woj...)
Dan (Woj...)

dmaster:
Your response is so typical of the "gee if I get in trouble with the
authorities, then I must obviously be in the wrong and if they question me I
must bow my head so they can more accurately land their blows".
You must be Canadian, eh?
What in hell do you mean by "purposely trying" to annoy someone and
what, specifically, is an "obvious" restriction on an "area".
Total BS, it is. The video shows what happens when someone has
mistakenly interpreted their authority (racial comments aside) and is
challenged -- nothing more.
Those of us who have seen this Rent-A-Cop approach to Policing the
public are not at all surprised by the public's reaction, especially when
dealing with those in the public who have not accepted the Master VS. Peon
relationship.
Bob

Robert Brace wrote:

dmaster:
Your response is so typical of the "gee if I get in trouble with the
authorities, then I must obviously be in the wrong and if they question me I
must bow my head so they can more accurately land their blows".
You must be Canadian, eh?
At least you're objective..
What in hell do you mean by "purposely trying" to annoy someone and
what, specifically, is an "obvious" restriction on an "area".
Barb wire, electrical fencing, that sort of thing would be a fair
indicator.. In some cases, you might have to read signs.
Total BS, it is. The video shows what happens when someone has
mistakenly interpreted their authority (racial comments aside) and is
challenged -- nothing more.
Those of us who have seen this Rent-A-Cop approach to Policing the
public are not at all surprised by the public's reaction, especially when
dealing with those in the public who have not accepted the Master VS. Peon
relationship.
Master vs Peon? sorry, that doesn't sound like a Canadian concept so I'm
a little shy on it.. Can you expand a bit?

P.
Bob

dmaster wrote:

On Mar 27, 11:36*am, John Ferguson wrote:
Welcome To The Gulag wrote: This is scary stuff - seriously, what has *happened to a once proud and free
nation?

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...tographer/2008...

[click to play video]

I reckon I'll avoid London if I ever get to GB.

Well, I spent several weeks in London immediately after the
Underground bombings. Parts of the line were still blocked and
security was quite heavy. My wife and I were carrying a camcorder, my
none-too-inconspicuous Panasonic FZ20, and another digital camera. We
took photos and video everywhere we went, including in the
underground. Not once were we stopped, questioned, or harrassed. We
did *ask* security personel if we could take their pictures before
doing so, and we were never refused.

My suspicion is that unless you are purposely trying to annoy someone,
or taking pictures in an obviously restricted area, you won't have any
trouble.


That's a pretty accurate analysis of the situation. I shoot regularly
in London and have never had the slightest problem - except for trying
to get a shot of the London Eye. I found out very quickly that the
owners of the London Eye have asserted image rights to all shots taken
from within 200 metres (220 yards) in any direction.

But that is a commercial, not a security issue.

Tony Polson wrote:

That's a pretty accurate analysis of the situation. I shoot regularly
in London and have never had the slightest problem - except for trying
to get a shot of the London Eye. I found out very quickly that the
owners of the London Eye have asserted image rights to all shots taken
from within 200 metres (220 yards) in any direction.

But that is a commercial, not a security issue.


Does that cover shooting from the north bank of the Thames? I've seen it
in so many photo mags and even books.