Re: Yet another photography incident - the mail
- From: "tim....." <tims_new_home@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 18:59:14 +0100
"MB" <MB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:31303030303731354A9AE44780@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The message <1cfwemwq4x0l3.1mtada83srsbq.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx>
from Chris Tolley <cj.tolley@xxxxxxxxxxx (ukonline really)> contains
these words:
Paul Corfield wrote:
The problem I have with all of that is why should I have to make any
effort to show them photos no matter how nicely they may ask? If I say
I
am taking photos in the street or of a train or of whatever then that
should suffice shouldn't it? The activity is not illegal and unless
they can provide additional justification as to why I have committed
some other offence then they should accept what I say. I accept we're
straying into the rights and wrongs of legislation but quite frankly
the
police can take a running jump if what I am doing is legal.
As Gandhi showed, some forms of opposition can be quite fulfilling. I
was once asked to delete some pictures that I had taken in a shopping
centre. (I had been taking a time-lapse sequence, and by the time the
official intervened, there were over 150 frames.) So, I debated the
matter with the official until he had pushed his reasoning into a quite
ridiculous place ("data protection" - "you can guess who that blurry dot
is in the background of the shot" etc.), and then I asked him to watch
while I deleted the images, one by one. It must have taken close on 10
minutes, after which I took the card out of the camera so that I could
recover the images later. About five minutes in, I could see he was
getting twitchy about this and he asked, "is your camera automatic or
something?" So I paused from the deletion process and explained how it
worked I lost nothing. I found the whole saga mildly amusing.
I took 732 photographs on one camera yesterday, perhaps should leave
them on the card then if a plod every asks to see my pictures I can work
my work through all of those before getting to any that he is interested
in.
Wouldn't he just start at the last and review them backwards
tim
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Yet another photography incident - the mail
- From: Kev Lawrence
- Re: Yet another photography incident - the mail
- From: David Hansen
- Re: Yet another photography incident - the mail
- From: Roland Perry
- Re: Yet another photography incident - the mail
- From: Tony Miles
- Re: Yet another photography incident - the mail
- From: Roland Perry
- Re: Yet another photography incident - the mail
- From: Tony Miles
- Re: Yet another photography incident - the mail
- From: Chris Tolley
- Re: Yet another photography incident - the mail
- From: MB
- Yet another photography incident - the mail
- Prev by Date: Re: Ipswich - Peterborough/Cambridge
- Next by Date: Re: High Speed Rail: Reasons to be sceptical
- Previous by thread: Re: Yet another photography incident - the mail
- Next by thread: Re: Yet another photography incident - the mail
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|