In message , at 10:21:01 on
Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Chris Tolley remarked:
I think you overstate it a bit. It's not the job of the police to
protect people who wish to goad others.

So the person who parks on the pavement outside my house in the morning
can't expect police protection because he's goading me?

If the only way in which he is goading you is by parking his car, then
my advice would be to keep quiet, lest the nice police officer trots off
to see a couple of doctors...

And the same for photographers, I hope.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 07:15:48 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 21:46:13 on
Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Charles Ellson remarked:
If you see a sign, for instance, that says, "This
is a prohibited place within the meaning of the Act"

I wish signs like that would say *which* Act.

IME they are usually "headlined" with the Act's name if worded as
above.

"Prohibited place" signs on the barbed wire outside a military base
might, but I don't think the ones (eg on the doors to checkin hall) at
civilian airports purporting to ban photography do. The signs in (eg)
immigration purporting to ban use of cameras and mobile phones don't
either.

I've tried Googling gov.uk with various combinations of words to drag
out some kind of specific regulation to back up such signs in airports
but I don't get anything to suggest that such signs are other than DIY
efforts with no supporting regulation.
There are such things as :-
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story....&sectioncode=1
which suggest that BAA seem to think they have some God-like powers
which I would bet at least a fiver on the local magistrates telling
them they haven't.
Maybe I should take a photo of one of the notices next time I see them -
from the public side of the line in the sand, obviously

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:48:55 -0800 (PST), The Real Doctor
wrote:

On 25 Feb, 07:18, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
15:02:40 on Sun, 24 Feb 2008, The Real Doctor
remarked:

So if the mob doesn't like you, it's an offence for you to do something
the mob objects to? Mob rule in England, circa 2008.

No, just a sensible precaution against incitement.

There have been times and places where being Jewish was an incitement.

Paging Godwin. Paging Godwin.

Being vaguely Semitic was liable to get you into trouble in many
places long before Mr Shickelgruber's great-grandad was a twinkle in
someone's eye.
snip

In message , at 17:08:00 on
Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Charles Ellson remarked:
"Prohibited place" signs on the barbed wire outside a military base
might, but I don't think the ones (eg on the doors to checkin hall) at
civilian airports purporting to ban photography do. The signs in (eg)
immigration purporting to ban use of cameras and mobile phones don't
either.

I've tried Googling gov.uk with various combinations of words to drag
out some kind of specific regulation to back up such signs in airports
but I don't get anything to suggest that such signs are other than DIY
efforts with no supporting regulation.

There was a bit of a fuss in USA after 9/11 when the airports started
demanding photo-ID from domestic passengers. Some people asked why, and
they said there was a law. When people asked which law, they said "the
law says we can't tell you" (a sort of D-notice with the enabling law,
perhaps). As you can imagine this didn't go down well in "the land of
the free [to travel], and a constitution dammit" and someone was taking
the authorities to court over it, but I lost track of what the result
was.
--
Roland Perry

On 25 Feb, 12:32, Roland Perry wrote:

Someone seemed to be suggesting it was wrong for the police to protect
photographers from harassment (on the possibly tenuous grounds that some
people might be goaded into their own acts of public disorder by his
actions).

So are you saying that it's right for the police to protect
photographers from harassment? In which case, I really can't see why
it's wrong for the police to protect groups from harassment.

More confused than ever,

Ian

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:08:00 on
Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Charles Ellson remarked:
"Prohibited place" signs on the barbed wire outside a military base
might, but I don't think the ones (eg on the doors to checkin hall) at
civilian airports purporting to ban photography do. The signs in (eg)
immigration purporting to ban use of cameras and mobile phones don't
either.

I've tried Googling gov.uk with various combinations of words to drag
out some kind of specific regulation to back up such signs in airports
but I don't get anything to suggest that such signs are other than DIY
efforts with no supporting regulation.

There was a bit of a fuss in USA after 9/11 when the airports started
demanding photo-ID from domestic passengers. Some people asked why, and
they said there was a law. When people asked which law, they said "the
law says we can't tell you" (a sort of D-notice with the enabling law,
perhaps). As you can imagine this didn't go down well in "the land of
the free [to travel], and a constitution dammit" and someone was taking
the authorities to court over it, but I lost track of what the result was.

Gilmore v. Gonzales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilmore_v._Gonzales

Gilmore lost, unfortunately.
--
Michael Hoffman

In message , Charles Ellson
writes
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 07:16:36 +0000, Ian Jelf
wrote:

In message
, The
Real Doctor writes
On 23 Feb, 22:57, Ian Jelf wrote:
In message
, The
Real Doctor writes

The toilets in Euston Station are a public place. Do users of them
have a reasonable expectation of privacy?

I suspect in this case they're *not* a "public place" insofar as they
are private land and the owners can allow entry on condition of not
participating in certain activities.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. We can't have degenerated to this
already?

No, we haven't. I think you've just misunderstood what I meant or else
I put it badly.

I fully understand that private property can be a public place. That -
for example - is how non-smoking legislation can be extended to
privately owned premises, even if the owner would be willing to permit
it.

Incorrect. The legislation can apply to a private place which is a
workplace, as applies to most offices.

Yes I understand that; you're right of course. Workplaces are - as it
were - in addition to the "public places" that I was referring to here.


--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

Surely if BTP are looking to employ someone to have a go at
photographers on Tube stations there are plenty of people on NR
stations with lots of experience in this line of work? Maybe BTP could
induce one of them to deploy his/her expertise within the LU network?

--
gordon

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:10:08 +0000, Ian Jelf
wrote:

In message , Charles Ellson
writes
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 07:16:36 +0000, Ian Jelf
wrote:

In message
, The
Real Doctor writes
On 23 Feb, 22:57, Ian Jelf wrote:
In message
, The
Real Doctor writes

The toilets in Euston Station are a public place. Do users of them
have a reasonable expectation of privacy?

I suspect in this case they're *not* a "public place" insofar as they
are private land and the owners can allow entry on condition of not
participating in certain activities.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. We can't have degenerated to this
already?

No, we haven't. I think you've just misunderstood what I meant or else
I put it badly.

I fully understand that private property can be a public place. That -
for example - is how non-smoking legislation can be extended to
privately owned premises, even if the owner would be willing to permit
it.

Incorrect. The legislation can apply to a private place which is a
workplace, as applies to most offices.

Yes I understand that; you're right of course. Workplaces are - as it
were - in addition to the "public places" that I was referring to here.

I don't know if you intended it to be read that way but WRT
privately-owned premises there is no optional extension of the
no-smoking regulations. Premises or vehicles are either subject to the
regulations or not as defined in the regulations WRT to being
workplaces or places to which the public are admitted.

In message
, at
11:18:05 on Mon, 25 Feb 2008, The Real Doctor
remarked:
Someone seemed to be suggesting it was wrong for the police to protect
photographers from harassment (on the possibly tenuous grounds that some
people might be goaded into their own acts of public disorder by his
actions).

So are you saying that it's right for the police to protect
photographers from harassment? In which case, I really can't see why
it's wrong for the police to protect groups from harassment.

The police should protect both, or prosecute either, depending on who is
actually the more threatening (to the other). Not as a result of some
perceived but non-existent threat.
--
Roland Perry