On 07/08/2010 04:48, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2010-08-06 20:22:13 -0700, Rich <> said:
>
>> On Aug 6, 9:29 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>> On 2010-08-03 17:31:28 -0700, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>> ...to justify their existence in the face of 25-40% departmental
>>>> budget cuts.
>>>
>>>> Hilarious!
>>>
>>>> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...forced_to_dele...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh
>>>
>>> Rick! See what things have come to now;
>>>
>>> <http://newsarse.com/2010/08/06/terro...-treated-like-...
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Savageduck
>>
>> They should be targeting those who have the potential to BE
>> terrorists. Unless the 9/11 planes were manned by 40ish British
>> photogs, I think the police use of their soon to be limited resources
>> is pure politically-correct B.S.
>
> Sigh!
IRA terrorists tend to have that profile though 40ish may be a bit on
the young side for them now. We don't just have to worry about Islamic
terrorists here we also have Christian ones with a much longer history.
You have a choice when you are taking architectural photographs that
could be of use to terrorists - be reasonable with the security guys if
challenged but refuse to delete any shots already taken or be totally
belligerent. If the latter then you can expect to have problems.
Anyway if halfwit plod only deleted the photos and did not trash them by
taking a bunch more on top then there are plenty of media undelete
programs that would easily recover naively deleted images (as any decent
pro photographer should know). Far easier to agree to delete the images
and then swap out the media immediately than argue with a moron.
It is nowhere near as bad as having the camera back opened and film
unravelled on a real classical film camera for instance.
I wish people would stop responding to the RichA troll. He is like a
broken record going on and on and on and on without saying anything.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Similar Threads
