On Feb 21, 7:37*pm, somersetchris wrote:
Guy at Waterloo attacked for taking pictures

There's a photograph of the attacker in the post and police are
looking for people who can help identify him.

http://london-underground.blogspot.c...eeking-tube-ph...

Pretty dubious reason for taking pictures though the photographer
sounds like a complete t**t.

On 21 Feb, 20:03, allan tracy wrote:
On Feb 21, 7:37 pm, somersetchris wrote:

Guy at Waterloo attacked for taking pictures

There's a photograph of the attacker in the post and police are
looking for people who can help identify him.

http://london-underground.blogspot.c...eeking-tube-ph...

Pretty dubious reason for taking pictures though the photographer
sounds like a complete t**t.

But is that an excuse for violence? I believe that there is never an
excuse for violence.

Pretty dubious reason for taking pictures though the photographer
sounds like a complete t**t.

But is that an excuse for violence? I believe that there is never an
excuse for violence.


Of course not but there can be no doubt that his activity was bound to
lead to some tube passengers becoming upset.

It was a good job he wasn't aiming his camera at young children or
specifically at women as he may well have found himself the subject of
a wholly different type of police investigation (if the tube
passengers hadn't got to him first).

In message
,
allan tracy writes

Pretty dubious reason for taking pictures though the photographer
sounds like a complete t**t.

But is that an excuse for violence? I believe that there is never an
excuse for violence.


Of course not but there can be no doubt that his activity was bound to
lead to some tube passengers becoming upset.

It was a good job he wasn't aiming his camera at young children or
specifically at women as he may well have found himself the subject of
a wholly different type of police investigation
I doubt it as neither of those activities is illegal, as has been
debated here many times. Inadvisable maybe, for reasons that have now
happened; but not illegal. Even if the police had been "interested"
they wouldn't; have pursued the matter, at least if it was on a public
highway. (If as seems to be the case here, it was in a station, then
other "rules" come into play.)

(if the tube
passengers hadn't got to him first).
I feel very unhappy these days taking photographs of buses and indeed of
streets and buildings because the world has gone mad with fear about
what photographers are up to.

If we want to photograph street scenes, as has been done since the dawn
of photography, then we can.

--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

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

On Feb 21, 10:12*pm, Ian Jelf wrote:
In message
,
allan tracy writes

Pretty dubious reason for taking pictures though the photographer
sounds like a complete t**t.

But is that an excuse for violence? I believe that there is never an
excuse for violence.

Of course not but there can be no doubt that his activity was bound to
lead to some tube passengers becoming upset.

It was a good job he wasn't aiming his camera at young children or
specifically at women as he may well have found himself the subject of
a wholly different type of police investigation

I doubt it as neither of those activities is illegal, as has been
debated here many times. * Inadvisable maybe, for reasons that have now
happened; *but not illegal. * Even if the police had been "interested"
they wouldn't; have pursued the matter, at least if it was on a public
highway. * (If as seems to be the case here, it was in a station, then
other "rules" come into play.)

(if the tube
passengers hadn't got to him first).

I feel very unhappy these days taking photographs of buses and indeed of
streets and buildings because the world has gone mad with fear about
what photographers are up to.

If we want to photograph street scenes, as has been done since the dawn
of photography, then we can.

You are obviously a terrorist, as was this photographer. Thank
goodness this decent citizen beat him up.

(But seriously, what has it come to if we are more interested in what
someone taking snaps might be up to rather than what someone attacking
people might be up to?)

On Feb 21, 8:51 pm, somersetchris wrote:
On 21 Feb, 20:03, allan tracy wrote:

On Feb 21, 7:37 pm, somersetchris wrote:

But is that an excuse for violence? I believe that there is never an
excuse for violence.

What about during a boxing match?

On Feb 21, 7:37 pm, somersetchris wrote:

But is that an excuse for violence? I believe that there is never an
excuse for violence.

What about during a boxing match?

Or if someone attacks you, your wife, your children or your country.

"Oh please stop attacking my (Insert) as violence is so bad."


--
Cheers

Roger T.
Home of the Great Eastern Railway at:-
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/
Latitude: 48° 25' North
Longitude: 123° 21' West

somersetchris wrote:
But is that an excuse for violence? I believe that there is never an
excuse for violence.

You clearly haven't seen it in the highly compelling 'dossier' format.

ESB

allan tracy wrote:
On Feb 21, 7:37 pm, somersetchris wrote:
Guy at Waterloo attacked for taking pictures

There's a photograph of the attacker in the post and police are
looking for people who can help identify him.

http://london-underground.blogspot.c...eeking-tube-ph...

Pretty dubious reason for taking pictures though the photographer
sounds like a complete t**t.

It is anyone's right to take photos in a public place...

I may think that it's dangerous to climb precipitous rock faces, and the
treatment of people who fall off is a potential burden on the NHS. I
wouldn't do it myself, but many people get enjoyment from the hobby of
rock climbing, so I wouldn't condemn people for doing it.

Similarly, some people get pleasure from taking pictures in public
places (probably hoping to be the next Cartier-Bresson). I don't see
that it's anyone else's business to approve or disapprove of it.

--
Jeremy Double
jmd.nospam@btinternet {real email address, include the nospam!}
Steam and transport photos at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdoubl...7603834894248/

Jeremy Double wrote:
allan tracy wrote:
On Feb 21, 7:37 pm, somersetchris wrote:
Guy at Waterloo attacked for taking pictures

There's a photograph of the attacker in the post and police are
looking for people who can help identify him.

http://london-underground.blogspot.c...eeking-tube-ph...

Pretty dubious reason for taking pictures though the photographer
sounds like a complete t**t.

It is anyone's right to take photos in a public place...

Careful - you have no more of a right to take photos than you have a
right to make a cup of tea, a right to read a book or a right to wear
brown shoes....

cue ill-informed rant from the Fake Doctor, including references to
having invented photography, advising the board of Canon, etc etc

I may think that it's dangerous to climb precipitous rock faces, and the
treatment of people who fall off is a potential burden on the NHS. I
wouldn't do it myself, but many people get enjoyment from the hobby of
rock climbing, so I wouldn't condemn people for doing it.

Similarly, some people get pleasure from taking pictures in public
places (probably hoping to be the next Cartier-Bresson). I don't see
that it's anyone else's business to approve or disapprove of it.



--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK