Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Could This Be The End Of Our Hobby (in The UK)!  
User currently offlineLHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1343 posts, RR: 22
Posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 7108 times:

I have just read this post on one of the main UK lists. It makes terrible reading... Could this be the end of our hobby here in the UK !!!!!

It reads as follows.........

Hi All,
>
> There have been some articles in the press and specialist media recently
> concerning an extension of the Terrorism Act. The amendments would be
> introduced
> by Home Secretary David Blunkett MP in the Autumn in an announcement in
> the
> House of Commons.
>
> The Guardian had a piece on this planned legislation this morning and
> below is
> what I've taken from that article and some other articles in specialist
> magazines.
>
> Home Secretary David Blunkett may introduce a new offence of "Engaging
> in acts
> preparatory to terrorism" in the autumn.
>
> It is likely to include measures to ensure the security of Government
> Buildings,
> Military Installations and Facilities for mass transportation, such as
> Airports,
> Seaports and the Rail Network.
>
> A "Preparatory Act" would include, Taking notes, Making diagrams or
> models &
> Photography and/or recording them by any means i.e. written, electronic
> etc. for
> storage or transmission to others.
>
> I have not posted this for mass debate on the rights and wrongs of this
> on the
> e-groups. I have done it because I believe that we might through our
> MP's or by
> writing to the Home Office etc. be able to tell them the effect this
> might have
> on our harmless hobby enjoyed by many.
>
> I would suggest we all keep our eyes on the Press and TV to see if
> anything more
> of this 'leaks' before any formal announcement.
>
> Clearly, as laid out here and if adopted and incorporated in law, it
> would
> potentially affect "Spotters" of any kind i.e. Train Spotters, Civil and
> Military Aircraft Spotters etc. It would also prevent the posting of any
> information gained by either spotting or scanning on the internet or in
> magazines etc.


A very sorry day indeed if they act on the above... :-(



[Edited 2004-08-05 22:15:10]


Canon 1D Mk III,Canon 20D+17-40 L f4.0,70-200 L IS USM f2.8,400 L USM f5.6,135 mm L f2.0, 50 mm f1.8,1.4 x II extender
24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKC7MMI From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 854 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7058 times:

I'm not sure what you have there in terms of Representatives or Congressmen, but start writing them!!! ..and don't forget to mention a.net is a website with over a half-million photos of aircraft...and no security has been compromised from it.

User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 740 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7050 times:

This is of course proof that Blunkett has finally lost his mind - so far from what I've heard there is very little support for this proposal within the Labour party a) because its stupid and b) because its unenforceable.

The full scope of this legislation effectively means 90% of the male population of the UK would be imprisoned within a week  Smile

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineSpencer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1635 posts, RR: 17
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7037 times:

What sort of a threshold could this be maintained in? I mean, let's say for arguments' sake that it goes through, and we're all banned from shooting, (Oops, wrong word there!), how far from the airport fence would this extend before they could possibly try to enforce such measures??!! Myrtle Avenue (just for an example) can't have anything to do with the CAA, surely...? Enlighten me somebody, please.
Spencer.



EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
User currently offlineLHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1343 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7031 times:

Someone else has also answered regarding this on another site. This chap must have some legal background.... His answer to the original post was

"It wouldn`t even take a lawyer to get a charge against a
planespotter under such legislation laughed out of court. Looking at
the "mischief rule" as laid down in Heydon`s Case 1584 and reaffirmed
in Smith v Hughes 1960, it states that judges should consider what
problem or mischief the statute was trying to remedy. Clearly, this
wouldn`t include trying to prevent planespotters engaging in a
harmless hobby (and reference to Hansard would prove this!). "

Im starting to feel a little better now but am still concerned due to the fact that any policeman / airport security will start to quote this law as reason to move you on or even arrest you. OK i know after reading the above it nots going to get anywhere. But how many of you can afford to keep going to court !!!! Im not in a position (being a security manager at a cargo company at LHR) to risk anything like that !!!!!

Anyone fancy dealing drugs then robbing an old lady followed by stealing a car. Im sure we would be treated better by our so called MP Mr Blunkett if we did that !!!!!



[Edited 2004-08-05 22:50:36]


Canon 1D Mk III,Canon 20D+17-40 L f4.0,70-200 L IS USM f2.8,400 L USM f5.6,135 mm L f2.0, 50 mm f1.8,1.4 x II extender
User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 740 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7009 times:

Precisely - unenforceable. Taken to the letter, no one living on Myrtle Ave. could legally own a camera  Smile

Incidentally, have you ever wondered why no spotters seem to live there? I always thought that you could get great shots if you installed windows in the loft space of those houses.

The fact is current UK anti-terrorist legislation gives the authorities all the power they need - the fact that more of us aren't taken in for questioning is simply a tribute to the common sense of the vast majority of the police force.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineQantas744 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 246 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6982 times:

I live a mile from LHR and take pictures from my garden (some are Anet standard some are just for the personal collection) so I guess I would be prevented from taking pictures in the grounds of my own home if this nonsense were to become a reality.

Since I work for a railway company I presume I would also be criminalised if I take pictures at work too.


What a load of rubbish.




Matt



you can't buy time but you can sell your soul and the closest thing to heaven is to rock'n'roll
User currently offlineLHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1343 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6980 times:

Quote : "Incidentally, have you ever wondered why no spotters seem to live there? I always thought that you could get great shots if you installed windows in the loft space of those houses."

Thats a good point. What if all the photographers in the UK decided to club together and buy 1 or 2 of the houses in Myrtle. How would they be able to stop you then as i gather you would be on you own land !!!!

Quote : "The fact is current UK anti-terrorist legislation gives the authorities all the power they need - the fact that more of us aren't taken in for questioning is simply a tribute to the common sense of the vast majority of the police force."

Again a good point. So it begs the question why does Blunkett feel that its required to waste more time and money putting in yet more laws that no one can Police !!!!!





Canon 1D Mk III,Canon 20D+17-40 L f4.0,70-200 L IS USM f2.8,400 L USM f5.6,135 mm L f2.0, 50 mm f1.8,1.4 x II extender
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6981 times:

I wouldn't even begin to worry about something like this. There's plenty of grounds for police being able to "lift" enthusiasts from around airports already, if they have a mind to, but for the most part they don't. This week, we've heard on the news that a terrorist attack on Heathrow was being planned. I'm pretty sure that what this change will do, if it comes into force, is give the police grounds to hold someone they suspect of planning terrorist activities, on the basis of any notes, photographs and models found in their possession. If there's no grounds for suspicion (as there isn't with enthusiasts at airports right now), there'll be no problems with taking photographs or writing down registrations.

Andy


User currently offlineSpencer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1635 posts, RR: 17
Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6966 times:

I don't know how many of you guys in Britain have been forced to hand over personal details about yourselves under the new Terrorist Act, (I've done it twice now, LGW and MAN), but it seems the general consensus regarding the Police is that they a) like us, b) treat us, well fairly, providing we don't push it, c) actually would like us to help them by keeping an eye open. The latter seems to be the most used excuse so far, for coming up to me, for which I haven't got a problem with. And to tell the truth, it's security that has caused me most hassle over the years, not the Bill.
Spencer.



EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6961 times:

More nonsense from Blunket. Ignore it.

User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 740 posts, RR: 16
Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6926 times:

I agree with Andy - this is nonsense, and probably not going to happen ... however, I wouldn't simply ignore it and assume it will go away. Blunket IS a senior minister, and this government has shown it is capable of doing stupid things for stupid and unrelated reasons.

The fact that the legislation has been proposed is itself a risk. If there were to be a terrorist incident tomorrow, and the media chose to spin it as a result of government incompetence, I think you could see this becoming law so Blair could be seen to be "doing something".

So I'd suggest don't worry about it - yet. But keep one eye on the news, and don't let Tony get away with another stupidity through apathy and complancence.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineWoody001 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 529 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6898 times:

In all honesty I don't think we stand a chance of being heard if this goes through. The government cannot afford to let air travel slump again, they will pursue this at a fair rate.

Another thought - what if the airlines decide that they will employ more security staff...? How many of these will be as courteous and friendly as your local bobby...?

Lets just wait and hope.

Ian.



If I could just get the afterburner working...
User currently offlineChris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2820 posts, RR: 50
Reply 13, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6836 times:

Without meaning to sound rude/arrogant/stupid or whatever my opinion is that i will continue to take pictures until they come and arrest me if that is the case! If anything our hobby is a benefit to them, while there are the odd few that insist on climbing fences and such, most are sensible and just take pictures in areas around the perimeter. Whilst being at the airport we are more pairs of eyes for the authorities and are likely to see anything dodgy going on before the authorities would.

I will quite happily campaign/protest and whatnot for this hobby!

I will continue shooting till i carted off to the cells!!! Colin's the lucky one here, he's got his speedy previa to get away in!  Big thumbs up

Chris



5D2/7D/1D2(soon to be a 1Dx) 17-40L/24-105L/70-200F2.8L/100-400L/24F1.4LII/50F1.2L/85F1.2LII
User currently offlineKereru From New Zealand, joined Jun 2003, 873 posts, RR: 45
Reply 14, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6833 times:

Never the end of our hobby.

Perhaps this presents an opportunity whereby we become a collective or members of an association that can act as a sort of neighborhood watch group and work with the authorities in preventing terriosm. Lets turn it to our advantage and as we are at highly visible parts of an airport we are another set of eyes and ears to monitor what is happening. The mere fact that we are present taking photos is a deterrent to anyone trying to break the law for whatever reason. We are all responsible citizens with a keen interest in aviation and I am sure we can contribute in some small way to the security of our local airports just by being there. What do others think?

Colin H



Good things take Time.
User currently offlineGPHOTO From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 829 posts, RR: 25
Reply 15, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 6782 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

I was at Birmingham International (BHX) yesterday and photographed from the car-park. Drove in, never left the car-park for four hours, drove out again. There was another photographer who had been there before me and he said the police had been around earlier handing out cards and talking about keeping an eye out for anything unusual. I guess this gives them the chance to check you out and also get you on their side. I can only say what a very sensible approach this seems to be. Terrorists are more likely to act very much more discreetly than we do - they won't want to draw attention to themselves. Later on, while I was on my own, a police vehicle drew up a short distance away and hung around for several minutes. Could be just part of their routine work, could be checking on me. I don't care if they do watch me, ask for my details, even search my car, they are doing their job and one that is necessary these days. It's something we have got to accept - as long as they let me stay, I don't feel I'm being disadvantaged in any way.

The whole experience was very positive, the police were visibly doing their job professionally and treating enthusiasts in a sensible manner. Long may it stay that way!



Erm, is this thing on?
User currently offlineLGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6722 times:

Hi all,

"don't let Tony get away with another stupidity through apathy and complancence"

Too true! Big grin

I can't belive this anyway, a stupid law/regulation from our Labour government? Never  Nuts

I hear this guy who was arrested in Pakistan earlier this week who is apparently linked with a plot to attack LHR had 2/3 photos of LHR taken 3 years ago on his PC!

God forbid anyone who searches our PC's! We would all be locked up for planning an attack on every airport we go to!  Wink/being sarcastic

Cheers

Ben Pritchard


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 740 posts, RR: 16
Reply 17, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6703 times:

I think the idea of taking "action" is perhaps a bit early. The problem is that currently, most of us have a pretty good working relationship with airport police etc. Drawing attention to ourselves may be counterproductive - ie. where a friendly bobby may in the past have turned a blind eye to someone being perhaps not quite where they should be, we may end up forcing them to follow the rules more strictly.

I think wait and see is the best line at the moment.

Don't forget, spotters are just one small group (possibly insignificantly so) of those that will be affected by this legislation if passed - I suspect the tourist industry will have even greater cause for alarm, as, for example, 90% of London would become unphotographable  Smile

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineRotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1491 posts, RR: 16
Reply 18, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6685 times:

ciao guys,

have been on the carpark yesterday at LHR. there have been 2 police offficer walking around the whole 3 hours during my stay there. they saw that I was spotting, they saw that I was taking pictures - but never said anything about it. they even did not came to me and asked what I was doing. they have been passing me by 2 meters ...... okay, it might helped that I have been in suit, cause I ve been over to LDN for business reason.
I know, that peoiple have been sent away from that spot sevreal times, but yesterday nothing happend. call it luck or what ever, but this shows , that soemtimes things are cooked a bit too hot.

Robin

btw: the thunderstorm passing LHR was great to watch  Smile/happy/getting dizzy



ABC
User currently offlineTwr75 From Australia, joined Mar 2001, 111 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6649 times:

It would also mean the end of the model industry since it would be illegal to build or own models of aircraft, military vehicles, trains, busses...


Like a seagull on the MCG of life...
User currently offlineMhodgson From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2002, 5047 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 6596 times:

And magazines would be very boring with no photos!


No trees were harmed by this message. However, several million electrons were terribly inconvenienced
User currently offlineRyan h From Australia, joined Aug 2001, 1548 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 6595 times:

So that could mean names like airfix could disappear because of some mis guided politician.
I hope this does not happen. I want to visit the viewing area at manchester one day.



South Australian Spotter
User currently offlinePlanespotterx From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 6524 times:

Its not David Blunkett, its David Blun-cun.... u get the idea, I hate the idiot, I always have...

User currently offlinePumaknight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 6496 times:

This is being touted for one reason and one reason alone.....politics....and reactionary politics at that. This isn't meant as inflamitory post, just an outlet to my frustrations of being punished for the crimes of the few.....I just hope common sense is applied to the terrorism threat and the handling of that threat soon!!

User currently offlineWoody001 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 529 posts, RR: 22
Reply 24, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 6488 times:

Common sense + Government = Big grin Big grin Big grin


If I could just get the afterburner working...
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Could This Be Uploaded? posted Mon May 15 2006 00:16:53 by CallMeCapt
What Airliner Could This Be? posted Sat Jan 14 2006 21:32:57 by TV840
Could You Help With The Quality Of This One? posted Sat Nov 9 2002 20:19:23 by Airplanenut
USM Is Going To Be The Death Of Me... posted Fri Oct 28 2005 16:01:32 by Flyfisher1976
Handling The End Of An Aircraft posted Thu Aug 26 2004 18:48:54 by Bigphilnyc
End Of The World In Denver? posted Thu Nov 6 2003 12:47:40 by Vir380
End Of The Dslr? posted Tue Jun 24 2003 15:25:20 by Ckw
Orbs In Photo's-What Could Be The Reason? posted Wed Apr 23 2003 12:50:01 by Airmale
Watch Out! End Of The Runway! What A Picture! posted Mon Jan 20 2003 20:56:45 by EGGD
The End Of Time... posted Sat Sep 21 2002 04:39:32 by Planeboy