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...tographer.html

"somersetchris" wrote in message
...
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...tographer.html


Now that is man who did not like a camera, look at those eyes, genuine fear.

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, 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...

That site says this:
"A man taking some photographs of people on the London Underground was
attacked and hopefully the picture that he took of his attacker can
lead to their arrest..."

Why "their" arrest? How many people were there?

Offramp wrote:
Why "their" arrest? How many people were there?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

ESB

On Feb 22, 1:16 am, Ernst S Blofeld
wrote:
Offramp wrote:
Why "their" arrest? How many people were there?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

ESB

The picture at the site looks like a man, and the police are looking
for a man, so why the political correctness? Why not say, "his arrest"?