Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Britain moves even further towards control of all people, all activities
10 views
Skip to first unread message
RichA
May 22, 2012, 4:01:47 PM5/22/12
to
Message has been deleted
PeterN
May 23, 2012, 10:42:53 AM5/23/12
to
On 5/22/2012 7:38 PM, MC wrote:
> RichA wrote:
>
>>
> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/538755/photography-on-underground-set-for-outright-ban-update-friday
>
> It is technically private property so the "owners" can dictate what
> they like. It is the same with any privately owned properties,
> shopping malls, restaurants, office blocks, other public transport
> buildings. They can all make whatever rules they like with regards
> photography and quite often do, whereever you may be in the world.
> However, this does not mean these countries are moving towards further
> "control" because it has always been the same and these
> companies/property owners are just being idiots.
Many times there is good reason. Why did Kodak ban photography on it's
factory tours.
>
> You sensationalise too much.
>
The poor soul s bored.
--
Peter
> RichA wrote:
>
>>
> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/538755/photography-on-underground-set-for-outright-ban-update-friday
>
> It is technically private property so the "owners" can dictate what
> they like. It is the same with any privately owned properties,
> shopping malls, restaurants, office blocks, other public transport
> buildings. They can all make whatever rules they like with regards
> photography and quite often do, whereever you may be in the world.
> However, this does not mean these countries are moving towards further
> "control" because it has always been the same and these
> companies/property owners are just being idiots.
Many times there is good reason. Why did Kodak ban photography on it's
factory tours.
>
> You sensationalise too much.
>
The poor soul s bored.
--
Peter
Martin Brown
May 24, 2012, 5:17:22 AM5/24/12
to
On 23/05/2012 00:38, MC wrote:
> RichA wrote:
>
>>
> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/538755/photography-on-underground-set-for-outright-ban-update-friday
>
> It is technically private property so the "owners" can dictate what
> they like. It is the same with any privately owned properties,
> shopping malls, restaurants, office blocks, other public transport
> buildings. They can all make whatever rules they like with regards
> photography and quite often do, whereever you may be in the world.
> However, this does not mean these countries are moving towards further
> "control" because it has always been the same and these
> companies/property owners are just being idiots.
>
> You sensationalise too much.
> RichA wrote:
>
>>
> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/538755/photography-on-underground-set-for-outright-ban-update-friday
>
> It is technically private property so the "owners" can dictate what
> they like. It is the same with any privately owned properties,
> shopping malls, restaurants, office blocks, other public transport
> buildings. They can all make whatever rules they like with regards
> photography and quite often do, whereever you may be in the world.
> However, this does not mean these countries are moving towards further
> "control" because it has always been the same and these
> companies/property owners are just being idiots.
>
He doesn't seem to be able to understand the difference between a
private company enforcing *its* rights over what is done on its land and
the UK government. Stupid twisted halfwit troll that he is.
These landowners rights over what they permit have always existed
although they are seldom enforced against private non-commercial
photographers. For commercial use you do have to be very careful that
you are not stood on the wrong side of brass studs in the pavement (US
sidewalk) which denotes the public/private landowner boundary.
A few high profile cases have rested on where the photographer was
stood. See Refuge Assurance v King's College, Cambridge ca 1978 for
instance where a whole ad campaign had to be shredded.
The studs on pavement are actually quite common in major UK cities. A
small notice on the wall or not-so-small in supermarkets and malls
forbidding photography or imposing other rules on the private land may
be displayed by the landowner or simply a "Private - Keep Out" sign.
There are plenty of places where the public is allowed to walk through
private land but is not given any public right of way. The route has to
be barred at least once per year to prevent new rights of way forming.
(usually Christmas Day but not always)
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
RichA
May 24, 2012, 10:05:43 AM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 5:17 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
wrote:
> On 23/05/2012 00:38, MC wrote:
>
> > RichA wrote:
>
> >http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/538755/photography-on...
>
> > RichA wrote:
>
>
> > It is technically private property so the "owners" can dictate what
> > they like. It is the same with any privately owned properties,
> > shopping malls, restaurants, office blocks, other public transport
> > buildings. They can all make whatever rules they like with regards
> > photography and quite often do, whereever you may be in the world.
> > However, this does not mean these countries are moving towards further
> > "control" because it has always been the same and these
> > companies/property owners are just being idiots.
>
> > You sensationalise too much.
>
> He doesn't seem to be able to understand the difference between a
> private company enforcing *its* rights over what is done on its land and
> the UK government. Stupid twisted halfwit troll that he is.
>
You queer little "company man."
> > It is technically private property so the "owners" can dictate what
> > they like. It is the same with any privately owned properties,
> > shopping malls, restaurants, office blocks, other public transport
> > buildings. They can all make whatever rules they like with regards
> > photography and quite often do, whereever you may be in the world.
> > However, this does not mean these countries are moving towards further
> > "control" because it has always been the same and these
> > companies/property owners are just being idiots.
>
> > You sensationalise too much.
>
> He doesn't seem to be able to understand the difference between a
> private company enforcing *its* rights over what is done on its land and
> the UK government. Stupid twisted halfwit troll that he is.
>
PeterN
May 27, 2012, 4:54:03 PM5/27/12
to
whatever we want, at any time of the day or night.
--
Peter
Grimly Curmudgeon
May 28, 2012, 8:05:43 AM5/28/12
to
On Wed, 23 May 2012 10:42:53 -0400, PeterN
<pete...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>Many times there is good reason. Why did Kodak ban photography on it's
>factory tours.
Yeah, because Glasgow Underground is such a hotbed of design
<pete...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>Many times there is good reason. Why did Kodak ban photography on it's
>factory tours.
innovation and nothing short of a sheer patent factory - everybody
know that and the industrial spies would be all over it if they could.
<facepalm>
Honestly, I've not read a bigger load of sheer shite on here for weeks
and that's saying something.
PeterN
May 28, 2012, 8:37:39 AM5/28/12
to
--
Peter
Mxsmanic
May 28, 2012, 11:23:35 AM5/28/12
to
PeterN writes:
> Please read my comment. "Many times" has a specific meaning.
To which specific number does it correspond?
> Please read my comment. "Many times" has a specific meaning.
PeterN
May 28, 2012, 5:05:44 PM5/28/12
to
--
Peter
Grimly Curmudgeon
May 29, 2012, 3:50:14 PM5/29/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:54:03 -0400, PeterN
<pete...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>I guess that means any of us can go to your house and photograph
>whatever we want, at any time of the day or night.
From the pavement, certainly. Welcome. Fecking Google did it without
<pete...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>I guess that means any of us can go to your house and photograph
>whatever we want, at any time of the day or night.
any permission, as none is needed.
JeffWorsnop
Jun 1, 2012, 3:25:39 PM6/1/12
to
JeffWorsnop
Jun 1, 2012, 3:28:22 PM6/1/12
to
On Tuesday, 29 May 2012 20:50:14 UTC+1, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:54:03 -0400, PeterN
>
> On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:54:03 -0400, PeterN
>
> wrote:
>
> >I guess that means any of us can go to your house and photograph
> >whatever we want, at any time of the day or night.
>
> From the pavement, certainly. Welcome. Fecking Google did it without
> any permission, as none is needed.
Quite
>
> >I guess that means any of us can go to your house and photograph
> >whatever we want, at any time of the day or night.
>
> From the pavement, certainly. Welcome. Fecking Google did it without
> any permission, as none is needed.
On Tuesday, 29 May 2012 20:50:14 UTC+1, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:54:03 -0400, PeterN
>
> wrote:
>
> >I guess that means any of us can go to your house and photograph
> >whatever we want, at any time of the day or night.
>
> From the pavement, certainly. Welcome. Fecking Google did it without
> any permission, as none is needed.
Quite so. The public highway is not private land. You can, of course, photograph what you like from the highway.
>
> >I guess that means any of us can go to your house and photograph
> >whatever we want, at any time of the day or night.
>
> From the pavement, certainly. Welcome. Fecking Google did it without
> any permission, as none is needed.
Mxsmanic
Jun 1, 2012, 3:43:32 PM6/1/12
to
JeffWorsnop writes:
> Quite so. The public highway is not private land. You can, of
> course, photograph what you like from the highway.
Just to complicate things, sometimes the public highway is an easement onto
> Quite so. The public highway is not private land. You can, of
> course, photograph what you like from the highway.
private property. But you can still photograph what you want from it.
PeterN
Jun 1, 2012, 8:27:48 PM6/1/12
to
--
Peter
PeterN
Jun 1, 2012, 8:31:28 PM6/1/12
to
be granted for a limited purpose. An access easement might not allow an
individual to stop and take photographs of my house.
--
Peter
Martin Brown
Jun 3, 2012, 5:10:07 PM6/3/12
to
On 01/06/2012 20:28, JeffWorsnop wrote:
> On Tuesday, 29 May 2012 20:50:14 UTC+1, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:54:03 -0400, PeterN
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I guess that means any of us can go to your house and photograph
>>> whatever we want, at any time of the day or night.
>>
>> From the pavement, certainly. Welcome. Fecking Google did it without
>> any permission, as none is needed.
>
> Quite
Pavement as in American usage for public road - yes. But in UK usage
> On Tuesday, 29 May 2012 20:50:14 UTC+1, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:54:03 -0400, PeterN
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I guess that means any of us can go to your house and photograph
>>> whatever we want, at any time of the day or night.
>>
>> From the pavement, certainly. Welcome. Fecking Google did it without
>> any permission, as none is needed.
>
> Quite
pavement is sidewalk and it is not uncommon to have brass studs in it
demarking the boundary of privately owned land. Stand provably on the
wrong side of it to take a commercially valuable image and expect all
hell to break out if the landowner is sufficiently rich and litigious.
And most that bother to put brass studs into the pavement are.
>
> On Tuesday, 29 May 2012 20:50:14 UTC+1, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:54:03 -0400, PeterN
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I guess that means any of us can go to your house and photograph
>>> whatever we want, at any time of the day or night.
>>
>> From the pavement, certainly. Welcome. Fecking Google did it without
>> any permission, as none is needed.
>
> Quite so. The public highway is not private land. You can, of course, photograph what you like from the highway.
There are still some private and unadopted roads still in the UK where
> On Tuesday, 29 May 2012 20:50:14 UTC+1, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:54:03 -0400, PeterN
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I guess that means any of us can go to your house and photograph
>>> whatever we want, at any time of the day or night.
>>
>> From the pavement, certainly. Welcome. Fecking Google did it without
>> any permission, as none is needed.
>
> Quite so. The public highway is not private land. You can, of course, photograph what you like from the highway.
this is not the case. They are not public highways but privately owned.
The new BBC centre in Salford is one such newly created zone.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
0 new messages