Police in UK continue to suffer from debilitating boredom.
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: John McWilliams on 24 Jun 2010 21:40 Savageduck wrote: > On 2010-06-24 16:52:09 -0700, alex slater <chatpoldie(a)gmail.com> said: > >> On Jun 24, 11:27 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> >> wrote: >>> On 2010-06-24 15:00:46 -0700, Poldie <pol...(a)gmail.com> said >>> >>>> This is untrue. I, along with literally dozens of tourists, took >>>> photographs in both locations recently, in full view of several police >>>> officers, and no such action was taken. I think you're confusing the >>>> occasional, pointless, inconsistent harassment of photographers in >>>> those and other locations with a permanent, blanket ban. >>> >>> ...but were you armed with that badge of the photo-terrorist, the DSLR? >> >> Guilty, your honour. In my battle against democracy I was armed with >> one 50mm prime and a highly dangerous 18-55 zoom on my EOS 400. But were you 'armed' with tourist garb? Too many forms thereof, but favorite is plaid Bermuda shorts with Madras shirt and baseball cap, white socks and sandals. -- john mcwilliams
From: Peter on 24 Jun 2010 21:41 "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:201006241743088228-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > > I know that in NY there are issues regarding permits for photoshoots, and > some amateurs with "professional appearing" equipment (you know tripods > and stuff like that) have been comfronted, not for anti-terrorist > activety, but permit check. That said, I understand the Port Authority > Police are wary of people photographing the bridges, and in the subways. > I NYC there is a policy to make the City a haven for professional shoots. Professional shoots require a permit, mainly for crowd control and revenue purposes. It is no big deal to get one. In State parks the rule is similar, but rarely enforced unless you are doing a major shoot. The permit purpose is primarily for revenue generation. Photography is freely encouraged on non-Port Authority bridges. Indeed two years ago I saw a couple being married on the Brooklyn Bridge. The obligatory professional photographer was present and the police were encouraging the public not to interfere with stupid hand waving gestures. The couple was just a young couple with no political connections, who just wanted to have their wedding at that location. As to the Port Authority, they are a bunch of A-hole bureaucrats who need to justify an inflated police budget. Friends of mine have freely shot inside the subway system. Other friends have received permission to shoot inside the bowels of Grand Central Station. (I would have liked to go on that one, but I was out of town at the time.) -- Peter
From: Peter on 24 Jun 2010 21:55 "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:2010062418112960298-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > On 2010-06-24 17:52:26 -0700, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> said: > >> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:qgp726hg56f3p230653telf6vf6ud7niqm(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 17:34:54 -0400, "Peter" >>> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >> >>> >>>> Your wife looks like a very nice person, who is happy to be with you. >>> >>> Thank you. >> >> >> I just calls 'em as I sees 'em. >> >> I'm comfortable that the Duck will back me up. Her body language is >> clear. I wish you guys many happy years together. > > Agreed. From the family pix Tony has posted from time to time, I see > nothing but a solid relationship. > ...but that boy looks ready to do the rebellious thing. > As is normal for a teen. As a teen, my younger daughter gave herself a buzz cut on half her head and walked around wearing a designer skirt and combat boots. She wore Michael Jackson gloves before he did. She grew out of that phase, though she has retained her independence of thought and self confidence. -- Peter
From: tony cooper on 24 Jun 2010 21:57 On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 18:11:29 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >On 2010-06-24 17:52:26 -0700, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> said: > >> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:qgp726hg56f3p230653telf6vf6ud7niqm(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 17:34:54 -0400, "Peter" >>> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >> >>> >>>> Your wife looks like a very nice person, who is happy to be with you. >>> >>> Thank you. >> >> >> I just calls 'em as I sees 'em. >> >> I'm comfortable that the Duck will back me up. Her body language is >> clear. I wish you guys many happy years together. > >Agreed. From the family pix Tony has posted from time to time, I see >nothing but a solid relationship. >...but that boy looks ready to do the rebellious thing. We flew from Florida direct to London and had a room pre-booked in the Whitehall district. You know how it is with international flights: you fly all night but don't sleep. My wife, daughter, and I crashed in the room the day we arrived. Son, though, was to excited to sleep. When we woke up a few hours later, son was gone. He had taken the tube to the Virgin Record Store in Marble Arch. When he finally got back to the hotel he admitted that he didn't know the hotel name or address, or the name of the tube station where he boarded, but found his way back by taking the same tube back and getting off where the station looked familiar. He was quite indignant that we were upset. He's now been to London four times; twice with us when the four of us went, and twice on his own seeing an au pair that he had dated when she was here. (That romance didn't last, but she's now back here in Florida and married. She and her husband come to visit son and wife occasionally.) Daughter spent part of one summer in Germany on a university study program. She was fortunate enough to have been able to go to Berlin when the wall came down. Attending the Pink Floyd concert was the main appeal, though. Independent, self-sufficient kids. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: John McWilliams on 24 Jun 2010 22:44
Savageduck wrote: > On 2010-06-24 18:40:10 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> said: > >> Savageduck wrote: >>> On 2010-06-24 16:52:09 -0700, alex slater <chatpoldie(a)gmail.com> said: >>> >>>> On Jun 24, 11:27 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On 2010-06-24 15:00:46 -0700, Poldie <pol...(a)gmail.com> said >>>>> >>>>>> This is untrue. I, along with literally dozens of tourists, took >>>>>> photographs in both locations recently, in full view of several >>>>>> police >>>>>> officers, and no such action was taken. I think you're confusing the >>>>>> occasional, pointless, inconsistent harassment of photographers in >>>>>> those and other locations with a permanent, blanket ban. >>>>> >>>>> ...but were you armed with that badge of the photo-terrorist, the >>>>> DSLR? >>>> >>>> Guilty, your honour. In my battle against democracy I was armed with >>>> one 50mm prime and a highly dangerous 18-55 zoom on my EOS 400. >> >> But were you 'armed' with tourist garb? Too many forms thereof, but >> favorite is plaid Bermuda shorts with Madras shirt and baseball cap, >> white socks and sandals. > > John, I have a seeking suspicion that you are filtering googlegroups, > and as a result your thread attributes look as though you were > responding to me rather than Alex Slater, who it seems is the owner of > the EOS 400. No, I don't filter them, but made a careless mistake in trimming, whereas I should have replied off his post. Sorry! jpmcw |