Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UK-photography Restricted?  
User currently offlinePsa188 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 512 posts, RR: 18
Posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3913 times:

This showed up on the Stockphoto list yesterday:

The UK Govt are about to propose restrictions on
photography in public places which could make
street photography and documentary photography
against the law. There's a petition on the Downing
St website against the Government's proposals to
restrict the use of photography in public areas.

Sign up to the petition now......

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Photography/

Please note: Only UK citizens can sign the petition.

80 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9623 posts, RR: 68
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3913 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

More details from petition creator

There are a number of moves promoting the requirement of 'ID' cards to allow photographers to operate in a public place.

So, you need ID. What's the big deal? If you are at an airport, taking pictures, and you don't have government issue ID on you, you deserve to be detained.


User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 21
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3891 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 1):
If you are at an airport, taking pictures, and you don't have government issue ID on you, you deserve to be detained.

Why?


User currently offlinePsa188 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 512 posts, RR: 18
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3872 times:

But quote the rest of the petition: "It is a fundamental right of a UK citizen to use a camera in a public place, indeed there is no right to privacy when in a public place. These moves have developed from paranoia and only promote suspicion towards genuine people following their hobby or profession."

This photo nazi behavior has been a problem here in the United States also, esp in the eastern part of the country. For example, tha ACLU is fighting the Port Authority's photo ban on the PATH system:
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/NY1ToGo/Story/index.jsp?stid=5&aid=66991

I support anyone trying to fight photo paranoia, but since I'm not a British subject I don't think I should sign this one.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11638 posts, RR: 60
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3854 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 1):
So, you need ID. What's the big deal?

The big deal is quite how the government plan to define 'photography'. Is this going to be just those people who go out with the intention of making money from their photographs; i.e. the photographer, or it is going to be restricted to those people who have a 'professional' looking camera, such as many thousands of people own to pursue their hobbies? If it is not restricted to a certain group, then the bill would presumably apply to everybody, so that's as wide ranging as from those people who shoot with a Canon 1D to a basic camera phone. They need to clearly identify the situation and circumstance in which this 'ban' would be applicable; how would they aim to identify a tourist from taking a picture of the House of Commons from a terrorist taking the same picture.

As far as I can see, such a ban would be virtually impossible to enforce, and the application of it would be so complicated that nobody would have a clue what it means or what it's really good for, perhaps it's a response to the infringement of privacy on our Royal family and other public figures, but if so then it's hardly the best or most responsible way to go about it. Plus I'd rather have my Police force chasing after murderers and rapists than going around confiscating cameras and locking photographers up; this is yet another stupid piece of proposed legislation that I hope never comes to fruition.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 1):
If you are at an airport, taking pictures, and you don't have government issue ID on you, you deserve to be detained.

You are obviously used to a very much different situation than we currently have in the UK. If you are taking photos (say of an aircraft landing for arguments sake) when stood on public land then you have every right to do so. A simple explanation to a police officer for him to ascertain that you are not concealing ulterior motives, such as shooting at the plane, should be all you need to do. I'm sure the force would be delighted should they be the ones to enforce any such ban anyway, their time is stretched enough as it it.


Dan 

[Edited 2007-02-22 21:13:35]


...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12464 posts, RR: 46
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3845 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 1):
If you are at an airport, taking pictures, and you don't have government issue ID on you, you deserve to be detained.

 Wow!

Maybe in gulag USA, but not here. There is zero requirement for me to carry id in public places.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently onlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4676 posts, RR: 50
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3827 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 1):
If you are at an airport, taking pictures, and you don't have government issue ID on you, you deserve to be detained.

I hope you have your flamesuit ready as a lot of people will disagree, me including. You tell me why I should be detained for doing something that is actually LEGAL (both here and in the US)!



For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9623 posts, RR: 68
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3821 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

dude, flame away.

Who leaves the house without ID?

Did you drive to the airport? Bring your drivers licence...

On vacation? Bring your passport.

Are you telling me you have a problem with, in the current world climate, of showing your ID to a proper official if asked? What do you tell them? "Piss off I am on public property!"

The way I read the bill is they want to make a law that would give police (or any other 'proper' agency) the right to check ID?

It is a lot better than being face down on the pavement with guns in your back. I know, trust me.


User currently offlineAvroArrow From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 1045 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3811 times:

Hey Royal, I think maybe people were interpreting your remarks as you supporting a notion of needing an official government issued "photography permit" or something similar in order to take photos at all. Thats how it struck me at first anyway. (Although that was not your intent.) As far as getting my licence checked by a cop vs getting arrested, well thats certainly a no brainer.  Smile


Give me a mile of road and I can take you a mile. Give me a mile of runway and I can show you the world.
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9623 posts, RR: 68
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3802 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

No, that is not what I meant, and not how I read the info on the supplied link.

An "offical photography permit" sounds like some sort of money machine for the government, can't see how having a camera would make someone dangerous, and somehow make them "not dangerous" because they have a piece of paper in their pocket.


User currently onlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4676 posts, RR: 50
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3792 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 7):
Who leaves the house without ID?

I don't, but if I'm doing nothing illegal here in the netherlands I don't HAVE to show my ID (I usually do tho)

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 7):

Are you telling me you have a problem with, in the current world climate, of showing your ID to a proper official if asked? What do you tell them? "Piss off I am on public property!"

If it's without reason, yes I do!

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 1):


So, you need ID. What's the big deal? If you are at an airport, taking pictures, and you don't have government issue ID on you, you deserve to be detained.

1 word, WHY do I deserve to be detained? We are no police state (but people like you seem to be heading that way) and I would like to keep it like that!



For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offline747438 From UK - England, joined Jan 2007, 837 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3792 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 7):
It is a lot better than being face down on the pavement with guns in your back. I know, trust me.

It seems to me that if you don't have an attitude, then you will be fine.
Now, why does it surprise me that Royal ends up with a gun in his back? Could it be down to the same arrogant attitide he displays here?
Or just bravado, making up for his lack of stature ?


User currently offlineQANTAS077 From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 5854 posts, RR: 40
Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3791 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 1):
So, you need ID. What's the big deal? If you are at an airport, taking pictures, and you don't have government issue ID on you, you deserve to be detained.

big deal is the government wants to know every move you make when they have no right...if you're in the proximity of an airport then why does one need a government ID? remember who the government is employed by and who they represent.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 7):
Who leaves the house without ID?

me...it's my business whether or not i have my ID, i don't go out with the plan in my head of doing something illegal so why would i need ID?

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 7):
On vacation? Bring your passport.

and that's as far as it goes...rest of the time my passport stays locked in the hotel safe, i'd like to be able to get out of the country when my vacation is over...not have to visit my local embassy because it's been lost or stolen.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 7):
of showing your ID to a proper official if asked?

if asked without proper reason i will not answer them...there is NO law in Australia that states i MUST carry ID on my person whenever i leave the house, we're not living in a police state just yet. Just because he is trying to justify his/her job it doesn't mean they have proper grounds to seek ID whenever they feel like it.



a true friend is someone who sees the pain in your eyes, while everyone else believes the smile on your face.
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9623 posts, RR: 68
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3784 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

747438 - I have no idea who you are, I see you don't have a real name attached to your profile, so I don't know if we have ever had the "pleasure" of meeting, but if you don't know me, and I am guessing you don't, you should keep your opinion of what type of person I may, or may not be, to yourself. It has nothing to do with this discussion.

If you would like to share your opinion of me on an offline email, feel free to do so by using the email link on my profile page.

Back to the topic at hand.

In the US you have two types of encounters with law enforcement while spotting...the routine "we were driving by and wanted to see what you were up to, and the much more common "we got a call from xxx saying there was a suspicious person with a camera."

If your encounter is of the second variety, you have no choice but to show them your ID. If you refuse, or don't have ID, they will detain you. At the very least you will be put out, and asked to leave. Worse case is they take you to the police station, impound your car, and hold you until they can process you. I have heard that can take several hours.

So, why would you want that hassle? If someone is doing their job, and you are legit, and they ask for your ID, why refuse? That's the part I don't get. All you are doing is making it that much harder for the next person who wants to take photos from that location.

For the record, I was thrown around because the locals had never seen a 500mm f/4 on a monopod before.


User currently offlineCadet57 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 9085 posts, RR: 30
Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3768 times:

Quoting Psa188 (Reply 3):
but since I'm not a British subject I don't think I should sign this one.



Quoting Psa188 (Thread starter):
Please note: Only UK citizens can sign the petition.

 Wink



Doors open, right hand side, next stop is Springfield.
User currently offlineLennymuir From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2002, 434 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3767 times:

This is the first time I've heard this anti-photography bollox.

Which MP is proposing this bill?

I would have thought outlawing the use of guns in public places would be
more appropriate.

It wont happen.



Gerry


User currently offlineDC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3742 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 13):
If your encounter is of the second variety, you have no choice but to show them your ID. If you refuse, or don't have ID, they will detain you. At the very least you will be put out, and asked to leave. Worse case is they take you to the police station, impound your car, and hold you until they can process you. I have heard that can take several hours.

It is not a legal requirement under English law (or the rest of the UK) to carry ID with you at all times. If you are stopped by a Police officer for whatever reason and they want to see ID and you don't have it, usually you will be asked to report to a local Police station with it within a given time. Only under exceptional circumstances will you be arrested (ie if they think you've committed a crime or are about to) and detained. Photographing aircraft doesn't warrant this unless they are being a set of a***holes in which case I would complain.

By and large there isn't a great deal the Police can do about you taking photos of an aircraft unless you are in violation of a particular airport's bye-law.

However, since 9/11 we've been getting some of the same crap that we hear from the US regarding "bullying" of people taking photos. It wouldn't at all surprise me with the current administration if they tried to restrict us in some way though, especially in light of recent terrorism raids etc. over here.

The petition doesn't give any details about what the actual proposals are. If it is a PMB (Private Member's Bill) drawn from the hat for some Blairite MP, then I wouldn't worry, it simply wont get time in Parliament. If it is a wider government initiative, although more worrying, still don't get your knickers in a twist as we'll have a change of PM , and hopefully most of government within the next 6 months.

Top and bottom - lets wait and see before getting irate.

Regards,

Tim.



Obviously missing something....
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3725 times:

Another example of our so-called government harassing the law-abiding public. It's all very well for non-UK citizens to give their opinions but you really have to live here to see what a crack-pot bunch of loonies we have in charge! The government is about to spend millions of pounds (taxpayers' pounds, actually) on a new army of spies to snoop on those who commit such hideous crimes as light up a cigarette after the ban in July and put their rubbish out in the wrong box on the wrong day. Meanwhile gun crime is soaring out of control (crime in general is now the highest in Europe) and normal folk are not allowed to defend their homes and property in case we injure a poor criminal. We're supposed to ask questions first, like, "Are you going to kill me and my family?" before we can give an intruder what for, and even then it's likely we'll end up in court.

I no longer consider Britain a democracy, and very soon it will be a regime - one not too dissimilar to the one we've just removed from a certain Arab country! This 'no photography' crap is just another example of how Britain's 'police state' can simply make up or change laws at the drop of the hat, without even legally passing them through the approval process. If a policeman - sorry, politically incorrect, a police-PERSON - deems something illegal here, then it becomes illegal, whether it actually is or not. I have recently had problems with our PC-driven police, who've decided that my car is illegally parked when in fact according to the law it is not. When confromted with this, their response was, "Well if we say it's illegal, it's illegal". Nice!

Long live Britain!

Karl


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3725 times:

On another note, if the authorities don't like me where I am around the perimeter then they should extend the fence out further. The fence stops me from going where they don't want me to be, so providing I'm on the RIGHT side of the fence they really have no right to harass me. What next? A perimeter fence FOR the perimeter fence?!

I object to constantly having to show my ID if I'm doing nothing wrong. It's a bit like having your integrity questioned. Are there as many checks made of police recruits as there are of the geneal public? Probably not. I once was harassed at EMA for photographing a plane from the departure lounge window. The officer said he wouldn't have minded if it was just a 'holiday snap' of the wife and kids in front of the plane. How ridiculous! That's a very fine line, don't you think? One that, legally, must be almost impossible to enforce.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11638 posts, RR: 60
Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3725 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 13):
So, why would you want that hassle? If someone is doing their job, and you are legit, and they ask for your ID, why refuse? That's the part I don't get.

Although I have an issue with the principle, I would present my ID for the sake of not arising unnecessary suspicion and not to waist either my time or that of an officer's. The issue, and what I have principle with, is that according to the gist of this potential bill I could suddenly be breaking the law by taking a photograph, the only way around which would to be to apply and most likely BUY a photographer's card.

Let me guess, That'll be about £10 per card, possibly £15 so, I'd say there are certainly more than a million amateur photographers in the UK and, guess what, the government suddenly gets itself another £10 million pounds or so to play with.  Yeah sure Now, I may be sounding rather sceptical here, but this legislation was first recommended by a Select Committee of MPs with the backing of a report commissioned from the House of Commons in mid 2003, I know they've had a war to mastermind, but has it really taken them nearly 4 years to act on the Committee's recommendations. Even then, it was aimed more at the privacy issues surrounding tabloid newspapers and the glossy magazines full of paparazzi-esqu pictures of celebrities, where-as this carnation of the proposals appears to be far more wide-ranging; probably in an attempt to cover a number of issues (privacy, threat of terrorism, activities of paedophiles etc...) in one go. Now the government have brought the issue up again, they need to quickly and thoroughly define exactly what these proposals are going to entail.


Dan Smile



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineCalgaryBill From Canada, joined May 2006, 686 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3712 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 1):
So, you need ID. What's the big deal? If you are at an airport, taking pictures, and you don't have government issue ID on you, you deserve to be detained.

Hey Royal, I usually agree with you but not on this one. This might be cut and dried in the US or the UK, but what about in Nigeria? How about a Nigerian visiting the UK? A typical street cop wouldn't even know what a Nigerian passport looked like, much less a foreign drivers license. In some countries, hotels impound passports until you check out, does that mean foreigners shouldn't be allowed to take pictures? Where I live, parking is terrible so I often take a train where ever I'm going so no, I do not carry my wallet with me.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 7):
Are you telling me you have a problem with, in the current world climate, of showing your ID to a proper official if asked? What do you tell them? "Piss off I am on public property!"

I totally agree that confrontational remarks only make things worse. But the bigger question is, why would we want to live in a world where we can be ID'd just for standing in the street? What's next, having to get permits in advance to shoot something, or to take your camera outside? I do not want to live in a world where police can challenge me just for... being me or being where I am.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 13):
Worse case is they take you to the police station, impound your car, and hold you until they can process you. I have heard that can take several hours.

And it's illegal. Both the US and the Commonwealth Countries espouse the concept of "probable cause." Nowhere have I seen evidence that standing near an airport with a camera, on public property, predisposes a person to committing a crime. If that's the case, then certainly there's probable cause to arrest everyone who shows up at an airport security gate having forgotten to take their pocket knife out of their backpack?

The reciprocal of the scenario in the UK is the proliferation of Airport Watch programs. Instead of challenging photographers and fostering a "them and us" atmosphere, the AW programs have brought airport security and photographers together in mutual support and respect. Yes, I have to produce my AW ID card, but the airport invested a lot of time and effort in making themselves more accessible and transparent to me, so I'm happy to reciprocate. What goes around, comes around.

The "current world climate" is our reaction to events and, IMHO, we've gone too far.

B


User currently offlinePaulinbna From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 1114 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3702 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

My family came from England to the states in the early 80's and my mom and dad had to make them selves carry their ID every where with them. As far as I know you still are not required to carry your id with you in the UK.


Canon 50D user; 100-400 MM L IS 10-22 MM, 60MM Macro
User currently offlineDazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2902 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3682 times:

I signed the petition the other week. If I want to go out and use my camera in a public place, then I don't think anyone should be able to stop me. I do agree with certain parts of it for such things as people taking photo's of children for their own pleasure etc without parents permission, I've nothing against that part whatsoever. But usual thing, the minority spoilt if for the majority. My guess would be regardless of the number of people who sign this peition, it'll just get disregarded by downing street just like the road pricing one did, and that was signed by nearly 2 million people.

I know there has been a bit of debte on here about taking ID with you, but there is nothing in the uk that requires you to carry ID and as far as I'm concerned, it should stay tht way. If you're doing nothing wrong, why do you have to prove your inocense? I've been stopped and search while at Manchester for taking photo's which was a first for me. The police were very polite and asked what I was doing etc, no problems. If you are doing nothing wrong, why do you need to justify your actions by carrying a photographers card? No doubt this will be at the expense of the photographer so its just another one of Blair's stealth taxes. We can't do anything in this country anymore without permission or a charge.

Just my thoughts,

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlineBrianW999 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 312 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3675 times:

I've been considering printing up a T shirt with the following on the back. If nothing else it should be good for a laugh.

"Dear Member of The Public. I am not a terrorist and this is a camera and not a missile launcher that I am holding. I am a highly respected member of the emergency services myself and will gladly show you my ID. I am on public property and am not breaking any laws. If I do see anyone acting strangely, rest assured I will call the police myself."

Some might say that that's an awful lot to fit on a T shirt....but then, there is an awful lot of me !!


User currently offlineOly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6697 posts, RR: 11
Reply 24, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3662 times:

https://www2.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6858851185609516168&postID=5707553099080280122

Quoting.......

(Short summary for anyone who can't be bothered to research themselves before they sign a petition: The petitioner heard of a friend of a friend who got hassled by the police for taking photographs of children in a park. The friend of a friend's camera club suggested maybe photographers should carry some sort of ID to reassure the police they weren't perves. The petitioner added 2+2 to make 537 and started this ridiculous exercise, which does nothing but demonstrate to the government that online petitions are a waste of time.)


Really, anyone taking photos of kids is asking for trouble, if this is the case. Who knows...



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
25 McG1967 : If that last post is correct, then the petition itself is bull - also if any such proposals had been made, you can bet your bottom dollar that the pri
26 JakTrax : This country is slowly becoming like Iran! My question to the anti-terror lobby is when the hell has a camera ever brought down a plane? The governmen
27 Post contains images Scbriml : Me, every day when at home. No UK requirement for me to carry any form of id. It's what we call living in a free country. Again, no UK requirement th
28 Clickhappy : Weird. I just carry my ID in my wallet, along with my Press ID. When asked I present it. Never given a thought to leaving it at home (seems stupid to
29 Post contains images 9V : The good old US of A, land of the free......................................NOT!
30 Clickhappy : what's up with all the Brits dogging the US for being free? A quick glance at my history books shows me england might be West Germany if it wasn't for
31 Post contains images 9V : Just messin with ya Clickhappy, don't get your panties in a twist.
32 Post contains images Clickhappy : I'm rollin' commando Ian
33 DC10Tim : LOL. A quick look at mine says you stepped in half-way through and it wasn't to save our backsides, but you're quite right that is another topic. I d
34 Post contains images David L : I guess you didn't notice which country the story refers to. No, it's about the fact that you made some remarks that don't apply in this case. Drop t
35 Post contains images Clickhappy : This is such a fun place sometimes I would love to meet some of you in person. That would be a riot
36 Post contains images Danny : Are they going to detain all tourists taking pictures in front of Buckingham Palace? Surely they will not have UK photographer ID cards.
37 Post contains images 9V : Not if you are rollin' commando.
38 Mirage : We (europeans) have a great gratefulness for you americans for having crossed the Atlantic to help us 50 years ago, at least I have that gratefulness
39 Post contains images CalgaryBill : No, not in Canada anyway. I even wrote "Check ID" beside my signature on my credit card and, in two years, only one person has asked to see it. It ha
40 JRadier : Can't do anything but agree!
41 Daleaholic : I leave the house without ID... I wouldn't carry my drivers licence with me if I was driving. In the UK you are not required to show your documents i
42 Post contains images Scbriml : No. Even before chip & pin. I lie - just once. Disney store in Galeria Houston when I tried to buy two $15 t-shirts. They lost my custom (passport in
43 Ryangooner : Your are talking absolute rubbish - A police OFFICER would be more politically correct, i sometimes wish i could make up or change laws at a drop of
44 Ryangooner : You keep asking the questions! the answer to this one is there are more checks than you can probably imagine.
45 Ryangooner : incorrect - It is an offence not to have your driving documents with you at all times whilst driving and any Plod can stop you just to check these do
46 Post contains images Scbriml : OK, my bad. Thanks for the clarification. Maybe I'm so old that it was never a requirement when I passed my test (yes, we did have cars in those days
47 Post contains images Skidmarks : Don't get the young whippersnappers started!! Christ, it's bad enough being nearly out of the age bracket and into the next! Regarding photography in
48 JakTrax : This isn't rubbish - it's plain to see that we are becoming a police state. How would you describe the actions of the officer giving me grief about m
49 Post contains images Skidmarks : No, it's not illegal, but time and again we see whining and whingeing about being stopped and asked questions. All I'm saying is common sense tells y
50 Post contains images Johndm1957 : With the number of CCTV cameras here in the UK, we don't really need ID cards when we can be tracked 24 hours per day..........well nearly..
51 JakTrax : I agree to a certain extent. At MAN (my local) the police are very friendly and even apologetic if they need to hassle you. These days they know the
52 McG1967 : Airport Bye-Laws extend beyond the perimeter fence - the laws regarding access to the restricted zone are deliniated by the perimeter fence. Because y
53 Post contains images Airfly : I'd also love to know... Lucca M.
54 Viv : Josef Stalin would be proud ....
55 Viv : Nope.
56 Post contains images Lennymuir : Nope.. It doesn't. (Esp. up here!) Of course you may be referring to the perimeter fence '12 feet rule', that is, nobody should be able jump from a s
57 DC10Tim : It can do and it is the same in England. There are areas at my local airport (DSA), that are beyond the perimeter fence that are still considered "th
58 Lennymuir : That's why I said 'specific conditions contained within'. They are specific and different. Property definitions (such as Private) are not the same. Ti
59 DC10Tim : Gerry, I wasn't questioning you. Just saying that even if you are outside the perimeter fence, it may well be the case that you are still considered o
60 Spruit : Where were you at EMA when you were requested to move? I've been asked to leave once in MANY years and that was just after the July London bombings,
61 Post contains links and images Lennymuir : No problem Tim. I certainly agree is is a good idea to suss out the legal boundary of your local airport. There is an access road under runway 24 up h
62 DC10Tim : At DSA there are signs saying "MOD Property - No Admittance", yet it hasn't been MOD property for nearly 10 years. Just convenient I think to discour
63 Dvincent : Replace the word "children" with "airplanes" and "kids" with "airports." See how silly that kind of reasoning is? There's nothing wrong with photogra
64 Spruit : So long as the photographer has the permission of the child(s) parents and the usage of the images is controlled through the parents also! I have a f
65 Dvincent : Why is that? At least here in the states, there is no law against photographing children. They're people too, remember. Usually when I photograph peo
66 Post contains images LHRSIMON : I gather you have never tried to photograph kids for a legitimate reason here in the UK.... The checks in the UK are very strict. If i wanted to shoo
67 Dvincent : I don't doubt it, I'm just saying it's silly. Then again, I keep thinking the states are going down the tubes because of the "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"
68 LHRSIMON : May be true.... But at least the UK rules make it very difficult for these sicko's to get the images that their pervertion craves.... And trust me th
69 TWISTEDWHISPER : Aha... but that doesn't mean the end of CCTV, does it? Yeah why not... ban cameras altogether. And tourists! Especially those from Japan. And postcar
70 Spruit : See I disagree with you on this score, I don't believe that people are "fair game" in public places and any images of my kids taken by a photographer
71 Ryan h : This gives me the impression of some politician coming up with some half baked idea, that will be impractical to enforce and be unpopular. If this cra
72 DC10Tim : I shouldn't worry, you'll have a great time. Tim.
73 Bjcc : This petition is a lot of fuss over nothing at all. There are NO plans as far as I can find to make people carry an ID, or any form of permit to take
74 Philb : Just to tidy up some odds and ends re the UK. You are NOT obliged to carry your driving licence or insurance and MOT documents. You MUST produce them
75 Ryangooner : just because 3 of them were there? , Would you have preferred just 1 of them? maybe 2 would have been reasonable? I agree 3 cops can come across aggr
76 JakTrax : Right. So whenever I visit a supermarket I can expect to have to hand over my money to two cashiers and the trainee? Next time I go on a plane design
77 Post contains images Skidmarks : Well, mate, you may or may not have a valid point here. But I would contest that this is now well off topic and would suggest you open up a thread in
78 Ryangooner : Ha Ha - nice comparison - maybe ill swap my job for a supermarket checkout job, i can see the simularities! Would love to see the facts to your 90% p
79 JakTrax : Yes, it is the government who are making life hard for the police, but there are now so many recruits who are simply not qualified or capable of doing
80 Ryan h : Sounds like the UK is turning into the US.
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...
America V UK (Photography Since Sep 11th) posted Wed Jan 23 2002 02:26:08 by Cabbott
Photography At Luton, UK posted Fri Jan 10 2003 15:37:02 by LGW
Photography Info Request For YHZ And Moncton (YQM) posted Wed Feb 21 2007 23:03:29 by Brick
Aviation Photography In Cambodia & Laos posted Wed Feb 14 2007 07:47:40 by Quetzal
Photography Techniques posted Tue Feb 13 2007 11:56:40 by Monteycarlos
Basic Photography Help posted Mon Feb 5 2007 03:05:48 by JetJock22
Photography Places At Orlando -Sanford And Orlando posted Sun Feb 4 2007 21:02:58 by Bobshap
Photography At MDW posted Thu Feb 1 2007 14:34:48 by Javibi
Anyone Done A Photography Degree? posted Mon Jan 29 2007 23:42:40 by EMA747
Billund Photography posted Thu Jan 18 2007 22:06:05 by JohnJ