On Apr 9, 6:36*pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
[x-posted to uk.transport.london]
[original thread on uk.railway]

On Apr 9, 3:38 pm, Tony Polson wrote:

Thursday 9th April 2009
Chris Cheesman

[Amateur Photographer article snipped]]

http://tinyurl.com/cn2ttq
or
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...rackdown_on_lo....

My instant reaction to this was 'it's all just a misunderstanding, as
LU have never had any rule against amateur photography, and the LU
spokesperson is just a bit muddled'.

Me too, when I saw this elsewhere.

However, I went to the TfL
website to check up on the purported changes mentioned in the above
article and I found, to my surprise, mention of a "Student or non-
professional permit", something I don't recall ever hearing about
beforehand. (N.B. I'm not much of a photographer so this isn't my area
of expertise.)

Could the intention be to mean film/photography/journalism/etc students,
and very serious/arty amateurs, who might want to do more than just take
a quick snap, but who don't have the financial resources of Steven
Spielberg? It is probably worth TfL trying extract as much cash as
possible from Holywood, but maybe not a bunch of students or a camera club.


[For a moment there I thought you'd made a delicious typo about
extracting money from "Holyrood" - that'd make Tony P pleased, though
of course the ScotNat's would say that's more or less what we've been
doing for the past thirty-odd years if one allows for the artistic
licence of substituting Holyrood for the 'Scottish' North Sea... but I
digress!]

Basically, re what you say above, that's what I think. This sounds
like a storm in a teacup, not at all helped by the uncertain responses
of the TfL spokesperson - the result of the new cut back, leaner
('amateur' even...) TfL press office under Boris?! I wonder if the
press officer had spoken to the LU Film Office about this - I have my
suspicions that might not have happened (though I suppose the Press
Office should perhaps be capable of standing on their own two feet
with regards to wholly predictable enquiries such as this one).

I therefore think this is a non-issue. The problem with stories such
as this is you end up thinking that the hacks responsible are either
just being scurrilous, knowing full well they weren't in receipt of
the whole story, or otherwise stupid for believing they were on to a
scoop. I dare say it's possibly a muddled mixture of both, which is
encouraged by editors and further boosted in this brave new online-era
by the desperate need for website hits (I certainly visited a website
that I wouldn't have done otherwise this afternoon - though I didn't
click on any adverts, not least because they're blocked with Firefox's
ABP!).

All that said it's not helped by the uncertain words of the TfL
spokesperson, and nor is it helped by the lack of precision on the
webpages of the LU Film Office section of the TfL website (which are
the only obvious hits on the first page of results when you use the
TfL's website search facility with the term "photography"). Going by
past posts on newsgroups and I think elsewhere these LU Film Office
webpages have certainly tripped people up beforehand. So maybe it's
time for a quiet word from the Press Office to the Film Office to get
them to clarify the information on their pages and so stop confusion
(and daft media stories) from arising in the future.