# what is it with the brits and DSLR cameras?



## Canon-F1 (Dec 7, 2011)

donÂ´t know where to post this.. but i think it kind of fits in here.

i was visiting the UK last week. never felt more unwelcome as photographer anywhere. 
(ok except... east germany in 1987). 

so what is it that the british gov hates us DSLR shooters so much? 

_no shoothing here with a DSLR, no shooting there with a DSLR._
carry a tripod and you have a great chance to be deported to camp x-ray by the spooks.

are the british politicans are really that stupid that they believe terrorist can only make photos with a DSLR?

i was asked a few times not to take photos with my DSLR while people with mFT and even bridge cameras are allowed to take pictures.

can someone explain that nonsense?


----------



## docsavage123 (Dec 7, 2011)

read the following:

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/photography_body_launches_rights_card_news_257561.html

We have a problem in our country with terror laws so if you are out taking pictures the police can stop you as they may think you are a terrorist. This has happened on loads of occasions and the magazine actually has a print and keep card to present to the police if they ask you to stop taking photos.

Its silly really and disuades people from coming to the UK for tourism. It seems to happen more though in the London area than in the rest of the UK.


----------



## Picsfor (Dec 7, 2011)

Don't take this the wrong way but:

oooh good, a tourist has been lifted for being in possession of terrorist surveillance equipment.


Do you know how good that makes me feel after several years of wandering around London with a DSLR and be hounded for the privilege.

I actually had a 14 hour day up London yesterday, and for the first time ever, did not get stopped.

I have absolutely no idea how they'll cope next year with the Olympics.

Chinese, Russian and Syrian takes on freedom to use a camera will be nothing to what this country will dole out.

For a country that has spent the last 40 years managing terrorism (home grown and foreign), i find it amazing we are struggling so much. Or did we just get of all the good people when the Northern Ireland crisis got resolved to a manageable level?


----------



## Canon-F1 (Dec 7, 2011)

> It seems to happen more though in the London area than in the rest of the UK



i was in london... indeed.

i love wales and scottland. never had a problem there.
thought i have hardly seen any police or security guards there anyway. 

but london?
a pain in the ass... to be frank.

i was wandering around with my 5D MK2 and a 16-35mm.
the 70-200mm f4 was in my bagpack (honest i did not use it because i feard the attention it would create).

when im a tourist i like to make photos of buildings and places... suprise suprise. :
and many of the beautifull buildings are government buildings.

itÂ´s not that i setup a huge gitzo tripod in a tube station causing an obstruction.
im not shooting with flash or a tripod in the national gallery. 

i only want to shot architecture and buildings (handheld) that have been photographed a billion times before by generations of photographers.

in 2009 i was in london with my small lumix LX3. 
i could take photos anywhere. 
police was ignoring me... i was no terror threat.

and honest i felt like a terror threat when this police officer approached me the first time (happend another 2 times in 3 days).
where are the friendly bobbys from the movies?
today they walk around with machine guns!  
the terrorist have done a perfect job i would say.... to scare our rights away.
i wonder.. did the british police carry machine guns when the IRA crisis was at itÂ´s peak?

so what makes a DSLR so special compared to lets say a mFT camera?
reading that article on amateur photographer it makes me wonder if that question was answered by british politician?

are these people really that clueless or is there a hidden agenda to ban DSLR cameras?

i mean it makes absolutely no sense (but if you see a sense please explain).
what kind of terrorist would wander around with a big DSLR and a 400mm tele when he could use a much smaller and less flashy bridge camera with a 35x zoom?


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 7, 2011)

The anti terror laws brought all the jobsworths out of the woodwork. My advise is:

1. Only shoot from a public place - this means the security guards have no rights over you at all - including taking pictures of them

2. If a police person asks what you are doing, explain simply, calmly and honestly. Offer to show them the pictures you are taking. 

3. Dont take closeups of sensitive building unless you clear it first - some building are covered by a restraining order

4. No one has rights to confiscate equipment or delete images - so if anyone suggests other wise just politely say no - and start walking away - you cannot be detained unless they arrest you - this is a bad idea for a policeman who then opens them selves to prosecution for wrongfull arrest, which it almost certainly would be.


----------



## EYEONE (Dec 7, 2011)

Canon-F1 said:


> what kind of terrorist would wander around with a big DSLR and a 400mm tele when he could use a much smaller and less flashy bridge camera with a 35x zoom?



That's exactly what I think every time I see an article like this. I'm sure terrorists are using cell phones and compact superzooms to get their pictures. People with DSLRS are probably the least likely to be terrorists.


----------



## candyman (Dec 7, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> The anti terror laws brought all the jobsworths out of the woodwork. My advise is:
> 
> 1. Only shoot from a public place - this means the security guards have no rights over you at all - including taking pictures of them
> 
> ...




Wow. 

I lived 4 year in the Middle East; to be precise in Israel. Because of the situation there (disturbed relation between Palestinians and Israeli's) -_ in my time there were a few busses that got blown up and suicide bombing in cafe/restaurants_ - it was normal that your gear was checked before entering the mall. By soldier with a machinegun. And, you were checked in a tough control when entering the country. 
But *nobody* ever asked me anything about taking photos or refraining from taking them. I could make them everywhere. Even the US embassy in Tel Aviv, Gaza and Lebanon border. 

I guess UK is not my place to be. Or, maybe it is not that extreme in the UK?


O yeah, to add here: Israel is a country that benefits of tourism. So it is aware of the fact that tourists come to visit. And, tourists bring camera's. That is what they do on vacation. It would not be smart for tourism to forbid taking photos. I met people that saved money allmost their entire lifetime just visit once in their life Jerusalem. And they want to keep memory of that. So they take photos


----------



## distant.star (Dec 7, 2011)

Thanks, doc. This is useful.

Here's the ACLU advice for U.S. citizens making images in the U.S. This is just FYI and obviously doesn't apply to U.S. citizens in other countries.

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers






docsavage123 said:


> read the following:
> 
> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/photography_body_launches_rights_card_news_257561.html
> 
> ...


----------



## Canon-F1 (Dec 10, 2011)

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Council_photo_ban_leaves_little_Christmas_cheer_news_310751.html


----------



## Picsfor (Dec 10, 2011)

I do so love a Christmas story with a happy ending.

Section 44 of the Anti Terrorist legislation has been repealed following all the outcry from photographers of all sorts - which means now the plastic plods and police don't even have to issue you with a form notifying you that you've been checked out under said piece of legislation.

The simple fact is - any where that is private property, or deemed of significant interest to terrorists by the government and security can not photographed without written permission issued in triplicate.

We live a country in which only freedom of speech is guaranteed, and freedom of the Media to hack into your mail, phone calls, voice mail and health records - 

There is nothing in UK laws that define a freedom to take a photograph!

If you think i sound cynical, please forgive me - but several years of this stuff is starting to wear a bit thin.

I wish some one would create a single web site where upon all details pertaining to the right to take photographs can be accessed for all of the world. Maybe i'll do it!


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 10, 2011)

candyman said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > The anti terror laws brought all the jobsworths out of the woodwork. My advise is:
> ...



Extreme - how on earth did you jump to that conclusion about the UK???

The UK is far more liberal and has more citizen rights than a lot of shoot first and ask afterwards countries. Dont assume that the exception is the rule!!

The UK has suffered more terrorism and for longer than the majority of countries and yet we are still one of the more tolerant countries - our police dont yet even carry firearms yet!


----------



## zim (Jan 15, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15236758

I don’t think it really matters where you are in the world a security guard or police officer who doesn’t have any common sense is a danger to everyone DSLR or not.

We all need security guards and police officers but the point I’m trying to make is if they are so rubbish or ill trained at their job what chance of them getting it right when it really matters. These incidents just make me think ‘yeah you’d be good in a real crisis…not’

anyway just digging out my M9 and I’m off to the shops…… lol


----------



## NormanBates (Jan 15, 2012)

from that last link:


> "We have a 'no photography' policy in the centre to protect the privacy of staff and shoppers and to have a legitimate opportunity to challenge suspicious behaviour if required.
> 
> "However, it is not our intention to - and we do not - stop innocent family members taking pictures."



that's as nasty as can be: "we're putting in place abusive laws and rules, but don't worry, we don't plan to enforce them - unless we don't like you"


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 15, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> from that last link:
> 
> 
> > "We have a 'no photography' policy in the centre to protect the privacy of staff and shoppers and to have a legitimate opportunity to challenge suspicious behaviour if required.
> ...



Owners of private property are entitled to make their own rules - this centre was private property. If you dont like the rules of the centre - go elsewhere. It is not as if the UK is short of places to photograph.

Come to my house and I will give you a good cup of tea and then we can walk round to the 3000 year old buriel ground, or to the 1000 year old castle. You wont see police, never mind get stopped.


----------



## Ryusui (Jan 15, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Come to my house and I will give you a good cup of tea and then we can walk round to the 3000 year old buriel ground, or to the 1000 year old castle. You wont see police, never mind get stopped.


Deal.
When are you sending my ticket?


----------



## willrobb (Jan 17, 2012)

I've been stopped by police several times in London when taking travel shots.

In Scotland there has never been a problem. I've rolled into monuments and various places of interest and asked to speak to the PR staff to arrange a shoot for future dates and they have just told me "come in and take as many photos as you want now if you like" without even asking who I wanted to take photos for. Absolute heaven.

Here in Japan I have to go through faxes, emails, phone calls, meetings and a lot of stress before getting access to anything.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 17, 2012)

willrobb said:


> I've been stopped by police several times in London when taking travel shots.



Recently?


----------



## willrobb (Jan 17, 2012)

During trips in 2002, 2005 and 2008 I was stopped by police at Canary Wharf station, in front of The London eye, in front of The Houses of Parliment and a couple of other spots. Same things happened to an Aussie friend as well. Have to say though, the police were nice about it and said they were just trying to look pro-active and chatted about cameras and the likes. At Canary Wharf though apparently someone told the police I looked "suspicious" and they had to follow up....happens sometimes I guess, maybe I look shady? Would post up a pic but you'd probably feel nauseous and/or call Interpol :


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 17, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Less than two weeks ago I stood at the entry gates to Buckingham Palace with a DSLR and used the remote for shooting without even a question from the palace guards/police that were 10 feet away.



I pulled up with a group of bikers on the forecourt outside the gates of Buckingham Palace in September. They all hopped off and got the cameras out. The policeman just said to be quick as we shouldn't park there.

The attitude of the police to photographers has changed in the last year or so - I believe you would be very very unlikely to have any issue when taking pictures in a public place in the UK


----------



## UrbanImages (Apr 6, 2012)

I was in London for a week in Sept/Early Oct. Literally took over 1500 photos without so much as a glance from the police including doing tripod work. I had heard prior to going that the Brits were tough but it never showed. I wouldn't hesitate to ever go back, loved every minute of the trip!


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 24, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> donÂ´t know where to post this.. but i think it kind of fits in here.
> 
> i was visiting the UK last week. never felt more unwelcome as photographer anywhere.
> (ok except... east germany in 1987).
> ...



Yes, people are very stupid. If I ever travel there, I'll have a lawyer on speed dial. I dont take kindly to my rights being infringed upon.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 24, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> Canon-F1 said:
> 
> 
> > donÂ´t know where to post this.. but i think it kind of fits in here.
> ...



The rules are very simple

- shooting on public land is allowed without restriction
- shooting on private land is by the permission of the land owner only

You only have rights on public land.


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 24, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > Canon-F1 said:
> ...



yup. I was reading the articles. Its happening on public land.


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 24, 2012)

I think its more to do with WHAT you're taking, rather than just the act of taking the shots...

Theres a group, I'm a photographer, Not a Terrorist, and its worth looking them up. They've got a card you can print out that lists out your rights, and what to do/not do...


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 24, 2012)

The issues about shooting from public land have been cleared up - the government and the police have issued with clear instructions that photographers have full rights to take pictures

Police are not even allowed to demand to see the pictures you have taken, nor confiscate your camera. They are however allowed to take your details if your are for example taking pictures of a military base that could be construed as possible terrorist information gathering.

To walk around London taking 'tourist' pictures should be totally free of interference although there seems to be some issues around the Olympic sites where there is heightened security. 

I would imagine that all countries have the same problems


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 24, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> The issues about shooting from public land have been cleared up - the government and the police have issued with clear instructions that photographers have full rights to take pictures
> 
> Police are not even allowed to demand to see the pictures you have taken, nor confiscate your camera. They are however allowed to take your details if your are for example taking pictures of a military base that could be construed as possible terrorist information gathering.
> 
> ...



Somewhere in one of the articles they said that you were specifically not allowed to use a tripod, but could hand hold. 

Someone on this forum mentioned that there is a new law in NYC that bans the use of a tripod... 

Does this strike anyone else as odd? And maybe a little unconstitutional?


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 24, 2012)

NO ban on tripods in public places, athough if you stopped people walking that would count as obstruction and you would be asked to move on

In public and private buildings it is common not to be allowed tripods as a safety precaution - they dont have signs saying 'dont trip over tripods'


----------



## BillyBean (Apr 24, 2012)

To be clear, this is mostly about ignorant and overbearing security guards rather than police. And let's face it, security guards are not in general hired for their intellect or their knowledge of the law. I've taken photos of police dealing with protesters with no issues. I even took some shots of a police team videoing the protesters- no issues whatsoever. It is of course the internet phenomenon of only hearing the exceptional incidents, not the general day to day experience. No one complains about a working dishwasher, right?

The really stupid part of all this is that Google Streetview has (I imagine) just about everything a diligent terrorist needs in terms of planning an event. No need to even leave the house.


----------



## Astro (Apr 24, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I would imagine that all countries have the same problems



i read a lot of english, german and italian photo magazines.

the london police (london security) obviously has the most issues with photographers as it seems.
just take a look at "amateur photographer" magazine of last year. i think they have 20 reports about it.

and as there is a group especially for this topic it shows that it IS an issue, not something people make up.

http://photographernotaterrorist.org/


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 24, 2012)

Astro said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I would imagine that all countries have the same problems
> ...



Nothing more than the press looking for a story - issues with the police stopped last year. The British are very vocal about their rights so even a minor issue with officialdom with get in the press. I am sure that if you researched the press from any country you would find the same. 

I guess as I live here I would tend to know if it is a major issue - and no, it is isolated incidents being blown out of all proportion. Rather like the light leak on th 5D3


----------



## KeithR (Apr 24, 2012)

Astro said:


> and as there is a group especially for this topic it shows that it IS an issue, not something people make up.


As others have said, it's _not_ an "issue".

It's an infantile, massive overreaction to a tiny number of examples of police/security guards (and in fact usually "plastic police", Police Community Support Officers), getting carried away and misapplying the relevant laws - there's nothing wrong with the laws themselves, but some jobsworths simply stretched their use way beyond their spirit.

_For clarity, I make my living advising one of the largest UK government Departments on the correct application and implementation of UK information and privacy laws, so I'm not exactly uninformed about this_.

This whole thing is nothing but an utter non-issue, blown up out of all proportion by a noisy and completely unrepresentative minority with an agenda and a convenient soap-box to shout from.

_Sounds familiar, doesn't it?_


----------



## Canon-F1 (Apr 24, 2012)

you guys live in london or a different part of the UK?

i travel around europe a lot... and as i wrote in my first posting, nowhere i felt more unwelcome by the authorities.




> For clarity, I make my living advising one of the largest UK government Departments on the correct application and implementation of UK information and privacy laws, so I'm not exactly uninformed about this.



i really don´t care how your laws are.. im not an law expert for any country i visit.
it may be that the laws are fine as they are... but i care about what i experience.

if a security guard or officer in a foreign country approaches me im cautious.


----------



## KeithR (Apr 24, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> i really don´t care how your laws are.. im not an law expert for any country i visit. it may be that the laws are fine as they are... but i care about what i experience.



What's your point? 

I'm telling you that - if you were hassled - it's a rare, out of the ordinary thing, and my point about my knowledge of the law _of the land_ (which incidentally, is in response to _someone else's posting_) is in no small part intended to counterbalance the stupidly inflammatory sweeping statement that is the title of this thread.


----------



## suburbia (Apr 24, 2012)

To be fair it has been a very specific issue in this country over the past several years that had some high profile complaints and protests, causing some embarrassment to the country:

2009 Police delete tourists photos:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/16/police-delete-tourist-photos

It was down to the interpretation of a specific piece of anti-terrorist legislation (section 44 of the 2000 anti terrorist act (we all know why) that was obviously too vague and was causing civil rights issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2000#Section_44

*The most commonly encountered use of the Act was outlined in Section 44* which enables the police and the Home Secretary to define any area in the country as well as a time period wherein they could stop and search any vehicle or person, and seize "articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism".[12] 

*Unlike other stop and search powers that the police can use, Section 44 does not require the police to have "reasonable suspicion" that an offence has been committed, to search an individual.*[13]

I*n 2009, over 100,000 searches were conducted under the powers, but none of these resulted in people being arrested for terrorism offences*. 504 were arrested for other offences.[14]

*In January 2010 the stop-and-search powers granted under Section 44 were ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights*


That specific anti-terrorist legislation has been recently removed but I guess it takes time to unwind something like that, some officers may still over step the mark as anti-terrorism paranoia is still there to an extent. I think a wider more specific issue is of jobs worth private security personnel who are looking to make themselves seem important. The law in this country is very specific that private security personnel have no authority on public land and there are no laws against taking photos from public land. This may need further clarification as over the past 20 years the amount of privately owned publicly accessible land in the UK has ballooned.

The Met (London) police have to issue guidelines to police officers and soothe the photographing public on the matter:

http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

Quoting from their website:

*Freedom to photograph/film

Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.*

....................

However I also agree that if you consider how many tourists are in the UK photographing everything and how popular photography has been here for over 100 years, to stumble across a police office who mis-interprets anti-terrorist legislation or an over-zealous private security person would be bad luck rather than the norm.


----------



## suburbia (Apr 24, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > The issues about shooting from public land have been cleared up - the government and the police have issued with clear instructions that photographers have full rights to take pictures
> ...



The only issue of tripod work in the UK is that there is a law about obstructing a public highway eg public access on a pavement so if you plonk a massive tripod down in the middle of a pavement and force people to walk into the road then you can be asked to remove it.


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 24, 2012)

Personally, I think if we think about it, if it keeps us safe, can we really complain?
No doubt it will be annoying... but if that one terrorist is stopped.... its done its job


----------



## wtlloyd (Apr 24, 2012)

Who decides whether it is a simple abuse of power, or a true security concern.

Perhaps citizens would best be kept confined somewhere, so the machinery of the state can proceed on its business unimpinged. 








D.Sim said:


> Personally, I think if we think about it, if it keeps us safe, can we really complain?
> No doubt it will be annoying... but if that one terrorist is stopped.... its done its job


----------



## stringfellow1946 (Apr 24, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> i travel around europe a lot... and as i wrote in my first posting, nowhere i felt more unwelcome by the authorities.



Then DON'T come back, SIMPLES


----------



## BillyBean (Apr 24, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> Personally, I think if we think about it, if it keeps us safe, can we really complain?
> No doubt it will be annoying... but if that one terrorist is stopped.... its done its job



This type of attitude is incredibly *dangerous.*

If you go down this path, you are basically trusting that the police will always have your best interests at heart (easy to assume in England, but don't forget 1930s Germany).

You are also assuming that the safety justifies anything and everything, which is a bizarre, unbalanced view of the world. How would you like to be strip searched every time you went to the airport?

There is a balance in these things that we have spent the last 800 years trying to codify. Don't throw all this away because you trust the state - this is not about trust, it is about freedom and the law.

Next time, the state may decide YOU are the terrorist. Don't say it cannot happen - it already has - the law just makes it harder in England.


----------



## gary (Apr 24, 2012)

I am amazed by some of these posts which seem to be by people many of whom have never been to the UK or lived in London. I now live in Los Angeles moved from London recently, having lived in london for the vast majority of my 56 years. London, its visitors and residents have been subjected to terrorist attacks from the IRA, various Palestinian groups, Animal Rights groups and more recently Al Qaida. Many many people have died as a result, so excuse the residents of London if they wish their Police to ask people what they are doing, your minor inconvenience is a small price to pay. Perhaps I am being a bit blunt but as someone who has a friend who lost limbs in an IRA explosion and was within one train of a bomber on the 7/7 attacks I am not really concerned that you suffered some minor inconvenience. 
P.S, My daughter is a professional photographer who lives and works in London, she never complains.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 24, 2012)

I worked in Fleet St in the 1970s and 80s when the IRA were bombing central London. It was quite normal to hear bombs going off. We just carried on working as normal

I was working for Citigroup on 9/7 when our building was taken out. 

Am I going to get upset about due diligence by the cops? You only have to look at the US to see the extra security that has been put in place since 9/7 - makes the UK look very low key.


----------



## rpt (Apr 24, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I worked in Fleet St in the 1970s and 80s when the IRA were bombing central London. It was quite normal to hear bombs going off. We just carried on working as normal
> 
> I was working for Citigroup on 9/7 when our building was taken out.
> 
> Am I going to get upset about due diligence by the cops? You only have to look at the US to see the extra security that has been put in place since 9/7 - makes the UK look very low key.


+1000

Try being in the cops shoes before complaining.

I live in India and we have also known "terrorists" since before they were called that.

Give the cops a break. They are on your side - unless you want to "terrorize" them...

(I apologize for my spellings - these days I am not sure I should spell one way or another...)


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 24, 2012)

rpt said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I worked in Fleet St in the 1970s and 80s when the IRA were bombing central London. It was quite normal to hear bombs going off. We just carried on working as normal
> ...



I agree being confrontational to the cops is not the right way. As their employers we need to ensure that they are doing the right thing in the right way.


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 24, 2012)

BillyBean said:


> D.Sim said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I think if we think about it, if it keeps us safe, can we really complain?
> ...



Yes. +10


----------



## bluegreenturtle (Apr 24, 2012)

It happens in the US too. I was shooting a documentary in Louisiana one time, just 2 people crew using DSLRs and got stopped 5 times a day for a week by police, sheriffs, private security, random rednecks with guns. Always shooting in public places, and always shooting fairly boring things - buildings, streets, rivers, wildlife etc - never even shooting people. We weren't scruffy or ethnic or anything. Always talked our way out of it by explaining the whole project but we got threatened many times. My favorite was the private security guy who came roaring out because we were shooting up a river, from a bridge, and there happened to be some sort of fuel storage somewhere along the river in a line where we were shooting from. Said he was calling the sheriff and to "not move a muscle" with his hand on a gun the whole time. I gave him the card of the sheriff, who had just given us a river tour on a police boat and just said "here's his number - I'm sure he'll remember us as we just left his office an hour ago." 

Honestly don't have too good of an impression of the South.


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 25, 2012)

bluegreenturtle said:


> It happens in the US too. I was shooting a documentary in Louisiana one time, just 2 people crew using DSLRs and got stopped 5 times a day for a week by police, sheriffs, private security, random rednecks with guns. Always shooting in public places, and always shooting fairly boring things - buildings, streets, rivers, wildlife etc - never even shooting people. We weren't scruffy or ethnic or anything. Always talked our way out of it by explaining the whole project but we got threatened many times. My favorite was the private security guy who came roaring out because we were shooting up a river, from a bridge, and there happened to be some sort of fuel storage somewhere along the river in a line where we were shooting from. Said he was calling the sheriff and to "not move a muscle" with his hand on a gun the whole time. I gave him the card of the sheriff, who had just given us a river tour on a police boat and just said "here's his number - I'm sure he'll remember us as we just left his office an hour ago."
> 
> Honestly don't have too good of an impression of the South.



people suck everywhere my friend, not just the south.


----------



## sparda79 (Apr 27, 2012)

Picsfor said:


> I have absolutely no idea how they'll cope next year with the Olympics.



PetaPixel posted this about the Olympics:
http://www.petapixel.com/2012/04/25/london-olympics-wont-allow-sharing-of-photos-and-video-via-social-networks/


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 27, 2012)

sparda79 said:


> Picsfor said:
> 
> 
> > I have absolutely no idea how they'll cope next year with the Olympics.
> ...



the Olympics are being held on private land so they are entitled to put conditions on photography - rather like the NFL etc


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Apr 27, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> Personally, I think if we think about it, if it keeps us safe, can we really complain?
> No doubt it will be annoying... but if that one terrorist is stopped.... its done its job



No it just means that the terrorists have succeeded in causing disruption, which is after all, their aim. they have interfered with people's freedom thanks to governments knee jerk reaction and them feeling that they need to look like they are doing something about it.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 27, 2012)

itsnotmeyouknow said:


> D.Sim said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I think if we think about it, if it keeps us safe, can we really complain?
> ...



That might apply when there is only 1 group of terrorists - but here in the UK we have had some 40 years of terrorism from many different groups - hardly a knee jerk reaction from our government


----------



## pwp (Apr 27, 2012)

Yep the terrorists won. They have successfully created an environment of fear, suspicion and hard laws that restrict personal freedoms and creative enjoyment of the places we love. Warfare has changed and uses new tools. 

So come and take a holiday in Australia! 

Paul Wright


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 27, 2012)

pwp said:


> Yep the terrorists won. They have successfully created an environment of fear, suspicion and hard laws that restrict personal freedoms and creative enjoyment of the places we love. Warfare has changed and uses new tools.
> 
> So come and take a holiday in Australia!
> 
> Paul Wright



at least in the UK we dont have creepy crawlies that wait till you drop you pants and sit on the john before they jump out and bite your @rse.


----------



## pwp (Apr 27, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > Yep the terrorists won.
> ...



Pure mythology and rumour. Honestly this wouldn't happen more than once or twice a week. I'm telling you, this place is SAFE.

Paul Wright


----------



## pj1974 (Apr 27, 2012)

pwp said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > pwp said:
> ...



;D

And most of the time, the things that will bite you when you're busy on the loo... (eg red-back spiders) will let you live long enough to finish doing your business. So what's the problem with that?

Sharks, blue-ringed octopus, box-jellyfish and crocodiles on the other hand....... :'(

another Paul (also in Australia)


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Apr 27, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> itsnotmeyouknow said:
> 
> 
> > D.Sim said:
> ...



Doesn't matter how many groups there are. The aim of the terrorist is to disrupt and cause restriction to freedom of action to force people to take notice of them. They have at least partially succeeded


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 27, 2012)

itsnotmeyouknow said:


> Doesn't matter how many groups there are. The aim of the terrorist is to disrupt and cause restriction to freedom of action to force people to take notice of them. They have at least partially succeeded



I have not noticed any difference in my day to day life in the UK. I worked in central London when the IRA was doing their worst and we just carried on as normal - in fact if anything it pulled the country together.

There are some stupid bits - like going though the airports. I queued for over an hour coming in to JFK last time I went to the US


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 27, 2012)

pwp said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > pwp said:
> ...



Until you walk face first into the 3 metre web of a golden orb spider in the pitch black of night with no lights on


----------



## haqyourlegs (May 17, 2012)

pwp said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > pwp said:
> ...



I think once or twice a week is still too high for me to be able to handle it. *shudders* But I would love to visit Australia! Maybe one day... :


----------

