Just vote with your feet, or dollars in this case. No more tourist dollars for London because you can't use a camera there. When that starts to happen and becomes known as a reason why, all the rules will relax. Regards, Bob S.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:04 PM, John Sessoms <jsessoms...@nc.rr.com> wrote: > From: Cotty >> >> On 30/11/09, Cotty, discombobulated, unleashed: >> >>> >video: >>> > >>> ><http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8384972.stm?ls> >> >> >> As an addendum to this, I would heavily suggest that if you're visiting >> London and will be photographing, print of this page and keep on your >> person: >> >> <http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm> >> > > It does raise some questions ... > > 1. "viewing is to determine whether the images contained in the camera or > mobile telephone are of a kind, which could be used in connection with > terrorism." > > What are the SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTICS of an image that makes it "of a kind > which could be used in connection with terrorism", as opposed to an image > that could NOT be "used in connection with terrorism"? > > Are the officers trained in image analysis so they can recognize the > difference? > > 2. "Officers also have the power to seize and retain any article found > during the search which the officer reasonably suspects is intended to be > used in connection with terrorism." > > What do I have to do to get my camera back after the idiots confiscate it? > > I mean, how do I get my camera back AFTER Cotty has to come down & bail me > out, 'cause you know if they start this stupid shit with me I'm going to be > RUDE at the very least. > > 3. Section 58a "There is however nothing preventing officers asking > questions of an individual who appears to be taking photographs of someone > who is or has been a member of Her Majesty’s Forces (HMF), Intelligence > Services or a constable." > > NSFW NSFW NSFW NSFW NSFW NSFW NSFW > > http://web.ripnet.com/~nimmos/images/next_to_queen.jpg > > NSFW NSFW NSFW NSFW NSFW NSFW NSFW > > > Here's a thought. Please don't dismiss it as complete nonsense before > hearing me out (even though that's exactly what it is). > > Do the English have what we here in the states call "class action lawsuits"? > > Here, if a "class" of people, for example "all photographers", are "injured" > by some organization or by the actions of that organization's > representatives, for example "the police" ... a member of that "class" can > file a "class action lawsuit", inviting any and all other members of the > "class" to join in, seeking to recover damages for the injury done, > aggregating all the individual claims. > > My proposal is that we, as "photographers" file a Class Action Lawsuit > against the Queen of England. > > It is, after all, representatives of "Her Majesty's Government" who have > promulgated this farce. As damages, I'd be willing to settle for a public > instruction to her myrmidons to "Cut that stupid shit out!" > > It is utter nonsense, but you "fight fire with fire". Apparently London's > police force is fighting terrorism with terrorism, so why not ... > > FIGHT NONSENSE WITH NONSENSE? > > Don't know why I'm bothering, this should all be sorted out long before I > have money enough to be a tourist in London. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
