On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 03:03:52 -0800 (PST), 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.

Where did I say I had a right to photograph them ?

I'll bring you some grapes.

Ian

On 24 Feb, 15:13, Roland Perry wrote:

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.

Ian

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.

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
--
Roland Perry

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.

This is a very slippery slope.
--
Roland Perry

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.

This is a very slippery slope.

I think you overstate it a bit. It's not the job of the police to
protect people who wish to goad others.

Ian

In message
, at
23:48:55 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.

Trainspotters, $race, $religion, photographers, pediatricians, the list
is endless. The broader the brush, the more unjust it is.

This is a very slippery slope.

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?
--
Roland Perry

On 25 Feb, 09:54, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
23:48:55 on Sun, 24 Feb 2008, The Real Doctor
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?

I am not quite sure what you are getting at. You seem to be saying
that it is wrong for the police to protect people from harassment - is
that right?

Ian

Roland Perry wrote:
23:48:55 on Sun, 24 Feb 2008, The Real Doctor
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...

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p11938606.html
(57 010 at Sytch Lane (Slindon), 31 Jan 2005)

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:21:01 +0000, Chris Tolley wrote
Roland Perry wrote:
23:48:55 on Sun, 24 Feb 2008, The Real Doctor
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...

Get some large 'please don't park on the pavement' stickers printed up - the
sort that leave a mess behind when you try to peel them off glass :-)

In message
, at
02:04:53 on Mon, 25 Feb 2008, The Real Doctor
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?

I am not quite sure what you are getting at. You seem to be saying
that it is wrong for the police to protect people from harassment - is
that right?

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).
--
Roland Perry