BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

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.

On a tour of Terminal 5 we all took photos of the no photos signs,
because we could.

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 :)

Italy appears to go in for signs saying things like
"Keep off the grass
(act 12345/678 a90(b) (1974))"

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:46:21 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 17:25:56 on
Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Peter Masson remarked:
However, the Public Order Act creates the offence of 'in a public place
using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour whereby a
breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned' and someone taking
photographs of children so that their parents took exception could well
fall foul of this.
Which of those activities would be, just the "threatening", or some of
the others?

And why isn't a parent's reaction equally threatening and/or abusive?
That would be up to the police officer or magistrate who had to deal with
the situation.
It doesn't seem to me that taking a photo will often be "threatening"
within the meaning of this law. Whereas expressing a desire to thump the
photographer, is.

AFAIR where anticipation of a simple breach of the peace is concerned
(without resorting to the POA) then any party taking part is liable to
arrest if necessary to prevent the anticipated breach.

So could someone be nicked for being openly insert minority of choice
in a place where national front types happened to be able to see them?
Perhaps wearing a skullcap or turban in the same park as a Combat 18
picnic, or something.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

The Real Doctor wrote:
On 24 Feb, 00:09, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:50:31 -0800 (PST), Boltar

I think he was, otherwise you could turn the argument around and say
people have no right to refuse to be photographed.
ITYF that in general they do not. OTOH they might have a number of
rights available to them WRT publication of any such photographs,
depending on the manner and purpose of such publication.

OK, you two, take out your cameras, go for a stroll round your local
town and insist on your right to take photographs of people form a
distance of, say, three feet. Be sure to point out to them that they
have no right to refuse to be photographed.

On the other hand, you could try wandering round Cambridge (or similar
place) in a college gown, evening dress, straw hat or some other "native
costume", and picking a fight with every tourist who tries to take a
photo of you. It'd be a sort of Rorke's Drift with Batman outfits.
Japanese to the southeast... Thousands of them.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

Charles Ellson wrote

"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.

Non-military and indeed non-Govermental installations that could be
declared Prohibited Places under the Official Secrets Acts included
railways and seaports so it is quite likely that airports have been
added since 1920.

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 :)

Hee. Since even that might be illegal.

--
Mike D

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:30:58 +0000, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:46:21 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 17:25:56 on
Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Peter Masson remarked:
However, the Public Order Act creates the offence of 'in a public place
using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour whereby a
breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned' and someone taking
photographs of children so that their parents took exception could well
fall foul of this.
Which of those activities would be, just the "threatening", or some of
the others?

And why isn't a parent's reaction equally threatening and/or abusive?
That would be up to the police officer or magistrate who had to deal with
the situation.
It doesn't seem to me that taking a photo will often be "threatening"
within the meaning of this law. Whereas expressing a desire to thump the
photographer, is.

AFAIR where anticipation of a simple breach of the peace is concerned
(without resorting to the POA) then any party taking part is liable to
arrest if necessary to prevent the anticipated breach.

So could someone be nicked for being openly insert minority of choice
in a place where national front types happened to be able to see them?
Perhaps wearing a skullcap or turban in the same park as a Combat 18
picnic, or something.

I think that might be at least a theoretical "yes" as IMU the person
being arrested does not have to be behaving criminally (in the usual
sense) if it is dealt with as a Common Law (England and Wales) breach
of the peace which is either occurring or anticipated but the
behaviour falls short of the Public Order Acts standard for
prosecution. At worst they are probably going to get a binding over
order without IIRC a criminal record if they aren't just released
later after being removed from the vicinity.

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

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.

I think he's probably a bit busy with Wikipedia... :)

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

On 25 Feb, 23:10, Arthur Figgis wrote:

Italy appears to go in for signs saying things like
"Keep off the grass
(act 12345/678 a90(b) (1974))"

I once came across a French missile base near Aachen which wasn't on
the maps and was surrounded by signs saying "No Entry. No Photography.
Use of Deadly Force Authorised." I've got a picture of the sign
somewhere ...

Iaj

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

On 25 Feb, 23:30, Arthur Figgis wrote:

So could someone be nicked for being openly insert minority of choice
in a place where national front types happened to be able to see them?
Perhaps wearing a skullcap or turban in the same park as a Combat 18
picnic, or something.

In much the same way that a C18 headcase could be arrested for trying
to disturb a holocaust survivors march?

Ian

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

On 25 Feb, 22:42, Roland Perry wrote:

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.

Surely the whole point about a threat is perception? If you don't feel
threatened, it isn't a threat.

Ian

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

In message
, The
Real Doctor writes
I once came across a French missile base near Aachen

Did the Germans know it was there?!
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

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