«

On 27 Mar, 13:40, "Welcome To The Gulag" <chai...@last.com> 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]

Utter *******s all of it. They weren't even real coppers.

Doc

On 2008-03-29, Alfred Molon <> wrote:
> In article <47eded52$0$13087$>, says...
>
>> a nuclear war broke out and 200 Megatons of devastation fell on the UK.
>
> Wouldn't that be sufficient to annihilate all life in the UK?

Probably not. It would depend how many warheads comprised that 200 Mt,
but they'd be targetted on military sites and population centres. Plenty
of life here outside those areas.

> The bomb
> which fell over Hiroshima was only 15 Kilotons and was sufficient to
> destroy the entire city.

But a little fizzer like that would cause far less damage to a city
built out of concrete-and-steel and brick. It wouldn't be a pleasant
place to be, but there'd be far more recognisable bits of the city left
almost-standing.

"In Hiroshima (and in Nagasaki also) the dwellings were of wood
construction; about one-half were one story and the remainder either one
and one-half or two stories. The roof coverings were mostly either
hard-burnt black tile. There were no masonry division walls, and large
groups of dwellings clustered together. The type of construction,
coupled with antiquated fire-fighting equipment and inadequately trained
personnel, afforded even in peacetime a high possibility of
conflagration. Many wood framed industrial buildings were of poor
construction by American standards. The principal points of weakness
were the extremely small tenons, the inadequate tension joints, and the
inadequate or poorly designed lateral bracings. Reinforced concrete
framed buildings showed a striking lack of uniformity in design and in
quality of materials. Some of the construction details (reinforcing rod
splices, for example) were often poor, and much of the concrete was
definitely weak; thus some reinforced concrete buildings collapsed and
suffered structural damage when within 2,000 feet of ground zero, and
some internal wall paneling was demolished even up to 3,800 feet."
--
<http://web.archive.org/web/20041011111052/http://www.nuclearfiles.org/redocuments/1946/460619-bombing-survey1.html>

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

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> and if you are taking pictures that might be useful to a terrorist you
> must expect to be challenged.

So who says what pictures might be useful to a terrorist?

The dog that just ran into your picture belongs to the 3rd niece
of the colleague of an advisor to some govenment function, so
clearly that picture *might* be useful to a terrorist to identify
just which dog to cut the head off from and lay it on her pillow
--- since she has no racing horse.

If I was a terrorist with a semblance of brain, I'd use a bag
with a hidden lens hole or similar gadgets. not a big, easy to
see, camera.

> I'd say security was a lot tighter in the past during the major IRA
> bombing campaign against UK city centres than it is now.

Photographing is not like leaving your package unattended in the
train station. Most cameras that contain explosives do not go
off near the photographer ... and they contain too little for
serious suicide bombings.

-Wolfgang

Roy G wrote:
> "C J Campbell" <> wrote in message
> news:2008032710213616807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
>> At WPPI in Las Vegas last week Dennis Orchard related a story about a
>> fellow London wedding photographer. Apparently the photographer was posing
>> the bride and attempting to turn her shoulders to an angle toward the
>> camera when he accidentally brushed one of her breasts. He was charged
>> with sexual assault, served six months in prison, and was placed on a
>> dangerous sexual offenders list for 10 years. He is to have no contact
>> with children under 18, meaning that his child portrait business is
>> destroyed.
>>
>> If these stories are true, I would avoid visiting Great Britain until the
>> country re-establishes fundamental human rights.
>> --
>> Waddling Eagle
>> World Famous Flight Instructor
>>
>
> Hi.
>
> I would be inclined to treat this story about the wedding photographer as an
> "Urban Legend".
>
> He would need to have done a lot more than just accidentally brushing a boob
> in order to get prosecuted.
>
> Even if he had been prosecuted, it would be very unlikely that he would have
> gone to jail for such a trivial first offence.
>
> As for the other story, I can think of a lot more reasons for avoiding
> London than the chance of being harassed by some foreign accented moron, who
> has less authority than the average traffic warden.
>
> Roy G
>
>


I agree, even in the US that case wouldn't go anywhere.
Even if it did, there's the Appellate.

I had a similar "stop shooting request" in 1999 at the Ottawa Airport, a
squadron of transient RAF Jaguars. I was actually on public land when
approached by the Military Police. He strutted up claiming I couldn't
photograph under the "Official Secrets Act" I explained that;

a/. The a/c were on the civilian ramp, visible from a public place they
were fair game.

b/. The aircraft were over 25 years old, they were not secret.

c/. If they were "top secret" perhaps they should have been hangered at
CFB Trenton.

He thrust his chest out an said he would confiscate my camera and film...

I then suggested as I WAS NOT ON THE BASE, he had zero jurisdiction, he
said he was exempt, I asked "do you have a radio?" that he should ask
that the city police be responded, that they would eventually show up
and probably laugh at him. He looked at hi watch and figured he would
miss the 2-for-one cruller special at Tim Horton's!

I was also approached by building rent-a-cops when I was shooting the
facade of a store I worked in. Same BS "the building owner's don't want
their building photographed. I was on the public sidewalk, so I debated
with him for a minute, then I waved the RCMP that was sitting 20' away
on embassy duty. THe RCMP Constable told the rental cop, that no law was
broken..

In article <>, Tony Polson
<> writes
>Cynicor <> wrote:
>
>>Tony Polson wrote:
>>> Cynicor <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> Shooting from the north bank is not a problem. The area claimed by
>>> the London Eye extends 200 metres along the south bank (I think in
>>> both directions) and 200 metres away from the south bank.
>>
>>Do they own the land? Or is it like the security guard in Los Angeles
>>who ran to get her supervisor because I was shooting another building -
>>from the public street next to the sidewalk of the building she was
>>guarding?
>
>
>They lease only a part of the land over which they claim image rights.
>But because the London Eye owners can afford expensive lawyers,
>ordinary citizens (and professional photographers) are discouraged
>from questioning the London Eye's claims.
>
Err...

I thought the London Eye was owned and operated by British Airways. I
would have thought they had bigger negative problems on their plate at
the moment, like finding where the owners of 50,000 bags lost in
Terminal 5 were, right now than preventing someone from actively
publicising their positive activities.


--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> I thought the London Eye was owned and operated by British Airways. I
> would have thought they had bigger negative problems on their plate at
> the moment, like finding where the owners of 50,000 bags lost in
> Terminal 5 were, right now than preventing someone from actively
> publicising their positive activities.

Right now there are 50,000 bags going around a carousel in an empty
arrivals hall at Prestwick.

> "Chris Savage" <> wrote
and others joined in:

>>> a nuclear war broke out and 200 Megatons of devastation fell on the UK.

>> Wouldn't that be sufficient to annihilate all life in the UK?

> Probably not. It would depend how many warheads comprised that 200 Mt,
> but they'd be targetted on military sites and population centres. Plenty
> of life here outside those areas.

All this is explained in the film ('Threads'
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090163/) and I get the impression that the
producers used government current 'think tank' documents for guidance. There
is no doubt that had a balls-out nuclear exchange happened between the USSR
and Nato, the UK would have gotten a right *******ing, especially as there
were so many strategic military targets there, but the film did demonstrate
that large areas of the country would survive the initial blasts.

As it goes on to show (graphically) the real damage would have been done
over the next 15 years or so. The ending is memorable, to say the least...

Sorry this went O/T, but hey, this IS r.p.d., SOP in these parts!

Paul

Welcome To The Gulag wrote:
> 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]
>
>
I would have filed an assault charge against the pretend police. I don't
know what those "CW" officers have but grabing or pushing the camera
could be considered assault. Let the real police, crown and a magistrate
determine.

In Canada we can't refuse a lawful command of a police officer, but IMHO
this was just a phony tough guy on a power trip.

Darrell Larose wrote:
> Welcome To The Gulag wrote:
>> 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]
>>
> I would have filed an assault charge against the pretend police. I don't
> know what those "CW" officers have but grabing or pushing the camera
> could be considered assault. Let the real police, crown and a magistrate
> determine.
>
> In Canada we can't refuse a lawful command of a police officer, but IMHO
> this was just a phony tough guy on a power trip.

King of the Hill:

"I'm going to have to issue you a warning."
"But you're not a real police officer!"
"That's why I have to issue you a warning."