Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Britain moves even further towards control of all people, all activities

Reply
Thread Tools

Britain moves even further towards control of all people, all activities

 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
MC
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-22-2012
RichA wrote:

>

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...-update-friday

It is technically private property so the "owners" can dictate what
they like. It is the same with any privately owned properties,
shopping malls, restaurants, office blocks, other public transport
buildings. They can all make whatever rules they like with regards
photography and quite often do, whereever you may be in the world.
However, this does not mean these countries are moving towards further
"control" because it has always been the same and these
companies/property owners are just being idiots.

You sensationalise too much.

MC
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-23-2012
On 5/22/2012 7:38 PM, MC wrote:
> RichA wrote:
>
>>

> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...-update-friday
>
> It is technically private property so the "owners" can dictate what
> they like. It is the same with any privately owned properties,
> shopping malls, restaurants, office blocks, other public transport
> buildings. They can all make whatever rules they like with regards
> photography and quite often do, whereever you may be in the world.
> However, this does not mean these countries are moving towards further
> "control" because it has always been the same and these
> companies/property owners are just being idiots.


Many times there is good reason. Why did Kodak ban photography on it's
factory tours.


>
> You sensationalise too much.
>


The poor soul s bored.


--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
Martin Brown
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-24-2012
On 23/05/2012 00:38, MC wrote:
> RichA wrote:
>
>>

> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...-update-friday
>
> It is technically private property so the "owners" can dictate what
> they like. It is the same with any privately owned properties,
> shopping malls, restaurants, office blocks, other public transport
> buildings. They can all make whatever rules they like with regards
> photography and quite often do, whereever you may be in the world.
> However, this does not mean these countries are moving towards further
> "control" because it has always been the same and these
> companies/property owners are just being idiots.
>
> You sensationalise too much.


He doesn't seem to be able to understand the difference between a
private company enforcing *its* rights over what is done on its land and
the UK government. Stupid twisted halfwit troll that he is.

These landowners rights over what they permit have always existed
although they are seldom enforced against private non-commercial
photographers. For commercial use you do have to be very careful that
you are not stood on the wrong side of brass studs in the pavement (US
sidewalk) which denotes the public/private landowner boundary.

A few high profile cases have rested on where the photographer was
stood. See Refuge Assurance v King's College, Cambridge ca 1978 for
instance where a whole ad campaign had to be shredded.

The studs on pavement are actually quite common in major UK cities. A
small notice on the wall or not-so-small in supermarkets and malls
forbidding photography or imposing other rules on the private land may
be displayed by the landowner or simply a "Private - Keep Out" sign.

There are plenty of places where the public is allowed to walk through
private land but is not given any public right of way. The route has to
be barred at least once per year to prevent new rights of way forming.
(usually Christmas Day but not always)

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-24-2012
On May 24, 5:17*am, Martin Brown <|||(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> On 23/05/2012 00:38, MC wrote:
>
> > RichA wrote:

>
> >http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...photography-on...

>
> > It is technically private property so the "owners" can dictate what
> > they like. *It is the same with any privately owned properties,
> > shopping malls, restaurants, office blocks, other public transport
> > buildings. *They can all make whatever rules they like with regards
> > photography and quite often do, whereever you may be in the world.
> > However, this does not mean these countries are moving towards further
> > "control" because it has always been the same and these
> > companies/property owners are just being idiots.

>
> > You sensationalise too much.

>
> He doesn't seem to be able to understand the difference between a
> private company enforcing *its* rights over what is done on its land and
> the UK government. Stupid twisted halfwit troll that he is.
>

You queer little "company man."
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-27-2012
On 5/24/2012 10:05 AM, RichA wrote:
> On May 24, 5:17 am, Martin Brown<|||(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>> On 23/05/2012 00:38, MC wrote:
>>
>>> RichA wrote:

>>
>>> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...photography-on...

>>
>>> It is technically private property so the "owners" can dictate what
>>> they like. It is the same with any privately owned properties,
>>> shopping malls, restaurants, office blocks, other public transport
>>> buildings. They can all make whatever rules they like with regards
>>> photography and quite often do, whereever you may be in the world.
>>> However, this does not mean these countries are moving towards further
>>> "control" because it has always been the same and these
>>> companies/property owners are just being idiots.

>>
>>> You sensationalise too much.

>>
>> He doesn't seem to be able to understand the difference between a
>> private company enforcing *its* rights over what is done on its land and
>> the UK government. Stupid twisted halfwit troll that he is.
>>

> You queer little "company man."



I guess that means any of us can go to your house and photograph
whatever we want, at any time of the day or night.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
Grimly Curmudgeon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-28-2012
On Wed, 23 May 2012 10:42:53 -0400, PeterN
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Many times there is good reason. Why did Kodak ban photography on it's
>factory tours.


Yeah, because Glasgow Underground is such a hotbed of design
innovation and nothing short of a sheer patent factory - everybody
know that and the industrial spies would be all over it if they could.

<facepalm>

Honestly, I've not read a bigger load of sheer shite on here for weeks
and that's saying something.
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-28-2012
On 5/28/2012 8:05 AM, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 10:42:53 -0400, PeterN
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Many times there is good reason. Why did Kodak ban photography on it's
>> factory tours.

>
> Yeah, because Glasgow Underground is such a hotbed of design
> innovation and nothing short of a sheer patent factory - everybody
> know that and the industrial spies would be all over it if they could.
>
> <facepalm>
>
> Honestly, I've not read a bigger load of sheer shite on here for weeks
> and that's saying something.



Please read my comment. "Many times" has a specific meaning.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-28-2012
On 5/28/2012 11:23 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
> PeterN writes:
>
>> Please read my comment. "Many times" has a specific meaning.

>
> To which specific number does it correspond?


Troll question not worthy of answer.


--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
Grimly Curmudgeon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2012
On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:54:03 -0400, PeterN
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I guess that means any of us can go to your house and photograph
>whatever we want, at any time of the day or night.


From the pavement, certainly. Welcome. Fecking Google did it without
any permission, as none is needed.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gmail moves up further in my estimation Collector»NZ NZ Computing 37 11-28-2004 03:52 AM
How can I hide Net activities during work Ingeborg Computer Support 13 08-25-2004 02:57 AM
Survey on refactoring activities using IDEs Sebastian Jekutsch Java 5 06-09-2004 06:15 AM
Help, mouse moves, sticks for a few seconds, then moves... what's up? unbroken Computer Information 8 01-19-2004 04:18 AM
OT: mindless activities S. O'Brien MCSE 2 11-11-2003 05:21 PM



Advertisments