Britain's horrific new photo law
Rich
bothered by it? Even without this law they've been searched, detained
and arrested too many times before this law was passed.
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Photographers_rights_Police_war
n_of_terror_law_misuse_update_news_277211.html
Photographers' rights: Police warn of terror law 'misuse' (update)
Tuesday 17th February 2009
Chris Cheesman
community police
The Metropolitan Police Federation (MPF) has come out in support of
photographers by condemning the latest anti-terrorism legislation as
'unfair', 'poorly drafted' and open to misuse.
The body, set up to ensure high standards of policing, backs the campaign
led by Labour MP Austin Mitchell who is calling for the introduction of a
photography code to be followed by officers on the ground.
Last year the MP for Great Grimsby launched an Early Day Motion in the
House of Commons, highlighting photographers' right to take pictures in
public.
The petition has won cross-party support from more than 240 MPs and was
drawn up largely on the back of the experiences of Amateur Photographer
(AP) readers.
In a statement the MPF said: 'The code should be drawn up jointly by the
Home Office and the various professional bodies representing police and
photographers. Its aim should be to facilitate photography wherever
possible, rather than seek reasons to bar it.'
Yesterday, amateur and professional photographers staged a demonstration
outside Scotland Yard over fears that police will enforce Section 76 of
the Terrorism Act 2008 to stamp out photographs of police officers.
As reported by AP, Section 76 of the new Act (which came into force
yesterday) expands on Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 which made it
an offence to record an image likely to be useful to a terrorist.
The MPF warned that Section 76 is open to 'misinterpretation'.
It adds: 'How, for example, will it be expected to apply to the 2012
Olympics which will be both a photo event, par excellence, and subject to
an intense security operation?
'Does the law mean tourists are going to be rounded up and arrested en
masse for taking suspicious photos of iconic scenes around the capital?
That will work wonders for the international reputation of the London
Bobby and for the city as a whole as a welcoming destination.'
Yesterday, the Metropolitan Police claimed that taking photographs of
police officers would not - except in 'exceptional circumstances' - be
covered by the new offence.
Roy G
"Rich" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:G_WdnaD3ZJ4-kAbU...@giganews.com...
> Well the new Soviet state apparatus. The police say photogs won't be
> bothered by it? Even without this law they've been searched, detained
> and arrested too many times before this law was passed.
>
>
> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Photographers_rights_Police_war
> n_of_terror_law_misuse_update_news_277211.html
>
>
> Photographers' rights: Police warn of terror law 'misuse' (update)
>
>
> Tuesday 17th February 2009
> Chris Cheesman
> community police
>
> The Metropolitan Police Federation (MPF) has come out in support of
> photographers by condemning the latest anti-terrorism legislation as
> 'unfair', 'poorly drafted' and open to misuse.
>
> The body, set up to ensure high standards of policing, backs the campaign
> led by Labour MP Austin Mitchell who is calling for the
This demonstrates just how little you actually know about the UK Police.
The Police Federation is the Trade Union for Policemen. It may well have
Ideals about Standards, but its main function is looking after the rights of
its members.
Roy G
frank
> Well the new Soviet state apparatus. The police say photogs won't be
> bothered by it? Even without this law they've been searched, detained
> and arrested too many times before this law was passed.
>
Interestingly, Chicago Trib ran a photo of a demonstration by a few
hundred photogs at a UK police station all taking photos in protest of
the law. Interesting expression on the female police officer's face
that was watching it all.
No doubt there are others out there on the web. Enough of those
protests and the government will probably cave and write something
more useful. Say, prohibitions on what would be SWAT teams in the US
or narcotics officers working undercover. - both pretty much protected
over here for obvious reasons.
Governments forget working WITH the press is much easier than working
AGAINST them.
Paul Heslop
It IS supposedly to be to keep the identity of undercover cops out of
the papers. Problem over here is they have a habit of using these laws
to do what they want. Our local councils are using anti-terror
legislation to spy on people who let their dogs foul the pavement etc.
They have crazy rules about protests and so forth and are about to or
have already virtually made it impossible to protest against stuff
like nuclear facilities. If memory serves me right they were even
going to remove the rights of local councils to object to them in
their own regions, so the govt can force through any facility and
there will be nothing anyone can do about it.
--
Paul (We won't die of devotion)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Bruce
>Interestingly, Chicago Trib ran a photo of a demonstration by a few
>hundred photogs at a UK police station all taking photos in protest of
>the law. Interesting expression on the female police officer's face
>that was watching it all.
That wasn't just "a police station", it was New Scotland Yard, the
headquarters of the Metropolitan Police, which is responsible for
policing Greater London and for taking the lead in anti-terrorist
operations across the whole country.
>No doubt there are others out there on the web. Enough of those
>protests and the government will probably cave and write something
>more useful. Say, prohibitions on what would be SWAT teams in the US
>or narcotics officers working undercover. - both pretty much protected
>over here for obvious reasons.
>
>Governments forget working WITH the press is much easier than working
>AGAINST them.
In the UK, Governments have no need to work with the press. Governments
have routinely silenced the press for decades using D-Notices.
D-Notices are a form of instant censorship. Once a notice has been
issued in respect of a particular story or situation, the media must not
make any further reference to it until the D-Notice is lifted. In
theory, compliance is voluntary, but enormous pressure is brought to
bear on publications or broadcast media who do not obey.
In the last year or so the system has been made even stricter, and I
think the D-Notice name has been replaced by something else.
A recent application of the system was to prevent reporting of many
extensive and highly effective demonstrations on UK college campuses
against Israel's military operation in Gaza. I read about the
demonstrations on CNN, where they made the Top 10 News for several days.
Trying to find any reference in the UK media was a thankless task; I
tried over 20 new web sites including all the national daily newspapers
and several TV and radio stations - nothing. But as CNN reported, these
were by far the biggest student demonstrations in the UK since 1968.
Presumably reports were censored to avoid upsetting Israel - the UK
having a Jewish foreign secretary may have something to do with this.
Chris H
<n...@nospam.net> writes
>frank <dhssres...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>Governments forget working WITH the press is much easier than working
>>AGAINST them.
>
>In the UK, Governments have no need to work with the press. Governments
>have routinely silenced the press for decades using D-Notices.
D-notices no longer exist and were becoming counter productive. The
D-notice committee has not met in years but often "a Quiet word " was
had with the relevant editors.
The problem over the last decade has been that all the quiet word has
done is warn journalists of a story. A story that then often appears
outside the UK in print or more usually on the Internet where the UK has
no control.
SO they tend not to have a word with the editors lest the story comes up
on a web site in a country that is unfriendly ... eg the when the US
leaked the information on Prince Harry in Afghanestan
>In the last year or so the system has been made even stricter, and I
>think the D-Notice name has been replaced by something else.
I believe so. Mainly the greatly misused anti terror laws.
>A recent application of the system was to prevent reporting of many
>extensive and highly effective demonstrations on UK college campuses
>against Israel's military operation in Gaza.
That was kept VERY quiet. I only found out as I had a meeting in a UK
University and was surprised to find protest posters al over the place.
> I
>tried over 20 new web sites including all the national daily newspapers
>and several TV and radio stations - nothing. But as CNN reported, these
>were by far the biggest student demonstrations in the UK since 1968.
I did not realise it was that big.
>Presumably reports were censored to avoid upsetting Israel - the UK
>having a Jewish foreign secretary may have something to do with this.
Then perhaps the FS should resign
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Bruce
>Bruce <n...@nospam.net> writes
>>A recent application of the system was to prevent reporting of many
>>extensive and highly effective demonstrations on UK college campuses
>>against Israel's military operation in Gaza.
>
>That was kept VERY quiet. I only found out as I had a meeting in a UK
>University and was surprised to find protest posters al over the place.
>
>> I
>>tried over 20 new web sites including all the national daily newspapers
>>and several TV and radio stations - nothing. But as CNN reported, these
>>were by far the biggest student demonstrations in the UK since 1968.
>
>I did not realise it was that big.
>
>>Presumably reports were censored to avoid upsetting Israel - the UK
>>having a Jewish foreign secretary may have something to do with this.
>
>Then perhaps the FS should resign
What? And lose the Israelis their most powerful inside man?
One wonders where the BBC's decision not to broadcast the Disaster
Emergency Committee's charity appeal for Gaza actually came from.
Chris H
<n...@nospam.net> writes
Good Point. OTOH the refusal did generate a LOT of publicity.
Hopefully things will Change as the USA has been wanting to dump Israel
for some time. Obama may actually get around to it.
The idea had been to palm Israel of on the EU but their recent round of
war crimes has precluded that somewhat.
HEMI-Powered
> Well the new Soviet state apparatus. The police say photogs
> won't be bothered by it? Even without this law they've been
> searched, detained and arrested too many times before this law
> was passed.
>
>
> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Photographers_rights_Po
> lice_war n_of_terror_law_misuse_update_news_277211.html
You have allowed your country to become a vast Socialist nanny
state where everything is "free" and everything is controlled. So,
why are you so surprised that the State now wants to chip away at
your freedoms one by one? Your country has never had a formal
consitution which states all of your freedoms, rights, and
protections as does the US Constitution and Bill of Rights which
leads me to believe you got just what you deserved. The fix? Vote
the Socialists clowns out of office, elect some representatives
that will do what the people want them to do and NOT do what the
people don't want them to do, write a formal document defining your
rights, and take back your country from the Socialists.
--
HP, aka Jerry
"Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when
you lose your job. Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his job" –
Ronald Reagan
DRS
news:Xns9BB76CF4EBC...@216.196.97.131
[...]
> You have allowed your country to become a vast Socialist nanny
> state where everything is "free" and everything is controlled. So,
> why are you so surprised that the State now wants to chip away at
> your freedoms one by one? Your country has never had a formal
> consitution which states all of your freedoms, rights, and
> protections as does the US Constitution and Bill of Rights which
> leads me to believe you got just what you deserved. The fix? Vote
> the Socialists clowns out of office, elect some representatives
> that will do what the people want them to do and NOT do what the
> people don't want them to do, write a formal document defining your
> rights, and take back your country from the Socialists.
You first. Get rid of the Patriot Act, the warrantless wiretapping and all
the rest and then you can talk.
Chris H
<no...@none.gn> writes
>You have allowed your country to become a vast Socialist nanny
>state where everything is "free" and everything is controlled.
That would not be a socialist state. Probably Facist though
>doms one by one? Your country has never had a formal
>consitution which states all of your freedoms, rights, and
>protections as does the US Constitution and Bill of Rights which
>leads me to believe you got just what you deserved.
You just don't understand. The US is in a WORSE state than the UK
because of your bill of rights.
> The fix? Vote
>the Socialists clowns out of office,
Had we voted the Socialists out of office 5 years ago we would have been
out of Afghanistan about 4 years ago. The only real support the US had
globally for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq was the UK's
socialist government.
The PM of the time Blair has been decorated twice by GWB. No other
forigen government member has. Certainly not the right wil Germans and
Austrians who refused point blank to support GWB . so it seems the UK
Socialist Government is the only friend the US had.
tony cooper
wrote:
>You just don't understand. The US is in a WORSE state than the UK
>because of your bill of rights.
>
What is your basis for this claim?
Don't take my response as support for Hemi's ridiculous post. I'm
just curious as to why you think that the Bill of Rights is the cause
of any problems we might have.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Chris H
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
As I understand it you have everything defined including National
Security overriding everything. This is not the case in the UK
In the UK the courts have far more latitude to stop the government
(assuming some one brings a case) doing lots of things. The Government
can not say "national security" and not have to prove it in court. This
is why the Home Secretary has to go to court to through people out.
The Courts use Case Law and Common Law (common law not being written
down) and can interpret far more freely.
The Government has lost several "national security" trials because the
judges read things differently to the government of the day. Clive
Ponting was a case in point. The Jury and the courts refused to convict
even though on first look he was guilty of a breach of National
Security. Actually he was guilty of severely embarrassing the government
tony cooper
wrote:
>In message <0f0rp4lkd0632sdfo...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
>>On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:52:52 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>You just don't understand. The US is in a WORSE state than the UK
>>>because of your bill of rights.
>>>
>>
>>What is your basis for this claim?
>>
>>Don't take my response as support for Hemi's ridiculous post. I'm
>>just curious as to why you think that the Bill of Rights is the cause
>>of any problems we might have.
>
>As I understand it you have everything defined including National
>Security overriding everything. This is not the case in the UK
The Bill of Rights, which is the term used to describe the ten
amendments that were made to the proposed Constitution in 1789, was
added to provide protection to the citizens. Basically, they spell
out the freedoms that were to be guaranteed to the citizens. The
amendments were added because it was felt that the Constitution
itself, as originally drafted, did not adequately protect the rights
of the citizens.
The drafters of these ten amendments used the English Bill of Rights
of 1689 as a guide to what protections the citizens should have. If
you compare our Bill of Rights to your Bill of Rights, you see the
basic similarity. I assume that you are familiar with your Bill of
Rights since you propose yourself as an expert on the effect of the
documents of state on the society of country.
The issue of national security is not covered in the Bill of Rights
unless you consider Amendment II (the right to maintain a
well-regulated militia) to be a national security issue. The effect
of that amendment has been more centered on the right of the citizens
to keep and bear arms than it has on the establishment of a militia.
The various legislation enacted in the name of national security in
the 200-plus years since the Constitution was ratified by the states
must be held to be in line with the Constitution and the subsequent
Amendments. No legislation can abridge the rights given in those
documents.
There are arguments about whether or not certain legislation does
abridge these rights. Often, these take the form of challenges to
legislation, and the challenges end up being decided by the Supreme
Court. It is the Court's job to determine if the legislation is in
accordance with the *intent* of the Constitution and the Amendments.
They have to deal with intent because modern-day situations could not
have been anticipated by the drafters in the 1700s.
In short, some of our laws and practices regarding national security
are controversial, but the Bill of Rights is not the cause of the
problems. Conversely, the Bill of Rights offers protection.
You have a bad habit of going off half-cocked on issues that you have
very little - if any - understanding of. Feel free to criticize us,
but make some effort to approach accuracy in what you say. You are
far too often wide of the mark.
J. Clarke
You have a very bizarre view of the Bill of Rights and the workings of the
US courts. Would you care to provide a quotation from the Constitution
which supports you argument that "national security" overrides everything?
Or some case law? Where do you get the notion that case law and common law
are not used by the US courts? How about support for the notion that the
government can say "national security" and not have to prove it in court?
Under what US statute do you believe that Clive Ponting could even have been
given a ticket, let alone arrested?
Justin C
Follow-ups set.
[snip]
> Yesterday, the Metropolitan Police claimed that taking photographs of
> police officers would not - except in 'exceptional circumstances' - be
> covered by the new offence.
And whatever *any* copper says is an "exceptional circumstance" will be
supported by his Chief Constable, regardless of the actual circumstance.
Welcome to the free world.
Justin.
--
Justin C, by the sea.
Chris H
<jclarke...@cox.net> writes
>Under what US statute do you believe that Clive Ponting could even have
>been given a ticket, let alone arrested?
The ones used for Quntanamo?
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
news:499d7f4e$0$684$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
DRS
news:gnmb1n$jvp$1...@news.motzarella.org
> Do we have permission to get rid of the Stimulus bill, also?
Why would you want to get rid of the first intelligent bill introduced in
America for 8 years?
jaf
I have no problem believing that!
John
wikipedia
"In the 1996 and 1998 elections, Republicans lost Congressional seats but still retained control of the House and, more narrowly,
the Senate. After the 2000 election, the Senate was divided evenly between the parties, with Republicans retaining the right to
organize the Senate due to the election of Dick Cheney as Vice President and ex officio presiding officer of the Senate. The Senate
shifted to control by the Democrats (though they technically were the plurality party as they were one short of a majority) after
GOP senator Jim Jeffords changed party registration to "Independent" in June 2001, but later returned to Republican control after
the November 2002 elections. In the 2006 elections, Democrats won both the House of Representatives (233 Democrats, 202 Republicans)
and the Senate (49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 2 Independents caucusing with the Democrats) as well as the majority of state
governorships (28-22).
"DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message news:499ecbd9$0$627$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
Twibil
>
> So your stating that the democratic controlled congress during the Bush administration never passed an intelligent bill?
>
> I have no problem believing that!
And we have no problem believing that you never learned in grade
school what the contraction "you're" means (it means "you are") as
opposed to "your", meaning "belonging to you".
BTW: while you're looking things up, check out procedural stalling
tactics and Presidential veto powers.
jaf
Now if I could only get the grandma checker to kick in. 8<)
John
"Twibil" <noway...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:801443cb-b66c-465a...@x38g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Robert Coe
: In message <gnka7...@news3.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke
: >Under what US statute do you believe that Clive Ponting could even have
: >been given a ticket, let alone arrested?
:
: The ones used for Quntanamo?
You denounce the Bill of Rights, although you obviously haven't read it; and
you can't spell "Guantánamo", even it's one of the most quoted Spanish names
in the world today. Why don't you go do some research and come back when
you've finally acquired a clue?
Bob
Robert Coe
: "HEMI-Powered" <no...@none.gn> wrote in message
: news:Xns9BB76CF4EBC...@216.196.97.131
: > You have allowed your country to become a vast Socialist nanny
We have, at least, finally gotten rid of the worst of the clueless goobers who
foisted those outrages on us (which, I guess, is one of the things that has
made Jerry so apoplectic). So please cut us some slack while the new guys try
to shovel the place out.
Bob
Jürgen Exner
>So your stating that the democratic controlled congress during the Bush administration never passed an intelligent bill?
I am pretty sure none of what he has been stating has passed any bill.
jue
Ron Hunter
There are so many people who don't understand the difference between
"your" and "you're" that I have just about given up on it, except for
trying to teach it to my students... One of the errors that seems to be
more frequent than it used to be is "then" and "than" being misused, as
well as "do" and "due". It seems that modern writers, even those with
college degrees subscribe to the theory that if it sounds the same,
what's the difference? Sigh.
Alan Browne
Tihs is uenest, sleiplng dsoen't mtetar.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
tony cooper
wrote:
You teach? Not English, I hope. The above paragraph is full of
punctuation errors. You need to brush up on the use of commas.
Twibil
wrote:
> Tihs is uenest, sleiplng dsoen't mtetar.
T'weren't a spelling mystique, McGee!
T'were a *usage* mystique, eye. eee. using a wurd thast hed the wrung
meening. (Butte vas spalled correctly.)
~Pete
Ron Hunter
Comma rules are a bit 'fuzzy', and greatly different than they were 55
years or so, when I learned English.
N
news:0a01q4hmldlon53h6...@4ax.com...
>>There are so many people who don't understand the difference between
>>"your" and "you're" that I have just about given up on it, except for
>>trying to teach it to my students... One of the errors that seems to be
>>more frequent than it used to be is "then" and "than" being misused, as
>>well as "do" and "due". It seems that modern writers, even those with
>>college degrees subscribe to the theory that if it sounds the same,
>>what's the difference? Sigh.
>
> You teach? Not English, I hope. The above paragraph is full of
> punctuation errors. You need to brush up on the use of commas.
>
Please explain the errors. My only comment on the paragraph, is that there
are too few commas.
tony cooper
wrote:
It's not the number; it's the placement. I would not normally point
something like this out in this newsgroup, but you did open the door
with your comments about usage.
Personally, I attribute the incorrect usage of "you're" and "your" to
be a result of fingers flying on autopilot. The writer probably knows
the difference, but an errant twitch of the finger sticks the
apostrophe in there. The one that bugs me is "loose" and "looser" for
"lose" and "loser". I don't think those writers know the difference.
DRS
news:vc80q4te0800ul0p2...@4ax.com
Obama has made it clear there will be no investigation, much less
prosecution, of Bush Administration officials who broke both domestic and
international laws on things like torture because he is focused on "moving
forward", as if crimes are not always prosecuted after the fact. So much
for his promise to restore the rule of law in America. He's made some
symbolic gestures (ie, closing Gitmo down was easy because it had become a
huge embarrasment anyway) but I'm not seeing substantive change. Hardly
surprising, really, since half his administration consists of Republicans
who help create the various messes he inherited in the first place.
DRS
news:q9ydnayl1epsLT3U...@giganews.com
> tony cooper wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 15:55:21 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net>
>> wrote:
[...]
>>> It seems that modern
>>> writers, even those with college degrees subscribe to the theory
>>> that if it sounds the same, what's the difference? Sigh.
>>
>> You teach? Not English, I hope. The above paragraph is full of
>> punctuation errors. You need to brush up on the use of commas.
>>
> I usually use too many commas. Did you find it hard to understand?
> Comma rules are a bit 'fuzzy', and greatly different than they were 55
> years or so, when I learned English.
The rules on subordinate clauses haven't changed. For example, your
sentence cited above should read:
"It seems that modern writers, even those with college degrees, subscribe to
the theory that if it sounds the same what's the difference?"
Ron Hunter
isn't really 'formal writing', is it?
Ron Hunter
often in UK writer's work. Maybe the usage is different there, or maybe
it is another case of "If it sounds the same, it's the same."
Ron Hunter
I suspect every country) is driven of things other than laws, and
international agreements. I suspect than when Obama found out just how
things REALLY are at his National Security and other classified
briefings, his reaction was "What have I gotten myself into?" I suspect
it is the same for each president. It's a job no sane person would ever
willingly take, which tells you a lot about presidents in general. Bush
had his 9-11, and Obama has an economic meltdown. I only hope that
Obama does as well with his crisis as Bush did with his. If so, then by
the end of his first year, we will all be safe from any further economic
woes. Somehow I suspect that will NOT happen because Democrats just
don't understand economics.
Ron Hunter
reminder to police my comma usage. Can I blame it on bad typing?
Paul Arthur
No, it should read 'It seams that modern righters, even those with
college degrees, subscribe to the theory "if it sounds the same,
what's the difference?"'
You added a missing comma and removed a necessary one. The original
sentence wasn't particularly unreadable, and writing for usenet
doesn't need to be taken as seriously as professional writing. An
occasional lapse in grammar or spelling is quite forgivable.
DRS
news:slrngq2682.ak7...@shasta.marwnad.com
> On 2009-02-22, DRS <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
[...]
>> The rules on subordinate clauses haven't changed. For example, your
>> sentence cited above should read:
>>
>> "It seems that modern writers, even those with college degrees,
>> subscribe to the theory that if it sounds the same what's the
>> difference?"
>
> No, it should read 'It seams that modern righters, even those with
> college degrees, subscribe to the theory "if it sounds the same,
> what's the difference?"'
>
> You added a missing comma and removed a necessary one. The original
I disagree that the one I removed was necessary, but adding the one to
properly delineate the subordinate clause was.
> sentence wasn't particularly unreadable, and writing for usenet
> doesn't need to be taken as seriously as professional writing. An
> occasional lapse in grammar or spelling is quite forgivable.
I ordinarily don't comment on grammar or punctuation errors in Usenet but in
this instance it was relevant.
DRS
> On 2009-02-22, DRS <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
>> "Paul Arthur" <flower...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:slrngq2682.ak7...@shasta.marwnad.com
>>> On 2009-02-22, DRS <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> The rules on subordinate clauses haven't changed. For example, your
>>>> sentence cited above should read:
>>>>
>>>> "It seems that modern writers, even those with college degrees,
>>>> subscribe to the theory that if it sounds the same what's the
>>>> difference?"
>>>
>>> No, it should read 'It seams that modern righters, even those with
>>> college degrees, subscribe to the theory "if it sounds the same,
>>> what's the difference?"'
>>>
>>> You added a missing comma and removed a necessary one. The original
>>
>> I disagree that the one I removed was necessary
>
Except for the fact that I am right. Take your attitude to someone who
gives a damn.
Deep Reset
"N" <N...@onyx.com> wrote in message
news:49a0beff$0$19136$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
Well, perhaps being overly picky, I'd say you had one too many in that last
sentence.
"My only comment on the paragraph is that there are too few commas. "
See? Works better, doesn't it?
Deep.
Ron Hunter
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> You have a very interesting POV. In reality, government in the US
>> (and I suspect every country) is driven of things other than laws, and
>> international agreements. I suspect than when Obama found out just
>> how things REALLY are at his National Security and other classified
>> briefings, his reaction was "What have I gotten myself into?" I
>> suspect it is the same for each president. It's a job no sane person
>> would ever willingly take, which tells you a lot about presidents in
>> general. Bush had his 9-11, and Obama has an economic meltdown. I
>> only hope that Obama does as well with his crisis as Bush did with
>> his. If so, then by the end of his first year, we will all be safe
>> from any further economic woes. Somehow I suspect that will NOT
>> happen because Democrats just don't understand economics.
>
> 9-11? Have you ever driven around DC, Baltimore, or any large city and
> their airports noticing all the glaring security holes and opportunities for
> terrorists? Most Americans really believe that if the terrorists really
> "want to get us" and pull off something spectacular they can do it at their
> leisure.
>
> You have to admire Obama's drive for wanting to roll up his sleeves and
> shovel out the shit Bush and the Republicans created. I know Obama wouldn't
> have gone into Iraq to let us get our asses kicked. He would have caught
> Bin Laden in the first year after 9-11. Obama wouldn't have wasted all this
> money on nation building leading the US into financial destitute. I do
> agree that while on the campaign trail Obama didn't realize the full scope
> of the hole Bush dug the US into. I know he will do a better job digging us
> out than any Republican could ever do.
>
I disagree, but I hope you are right. BTW, I don't think Obama is
qualified to go hunting for Bin Laden... Grin.
Ron Hunter
You put something in quotes that wasn't a quotation, but something from
my own mind. It's MINE, so I don't have to put in in quotes. Current
rules are often downright WRONG, such as putting ending punctuation
inside quotation marks if the sentence ends in a quotation. NOTHING
goes in quotation marks but the exact quotation. For instance;
Did Patrick Henry really say, "Give me liberty or give me death?" This
changes the whole meaning of the statement. Better: Did Patrick Henry
really say, "Give me liberty, or give me death!"?
Again, in the 1970s, those penny-pinching newspapers decided to save ink
by eliminating the 'extraneous' ending punctuation.
Ron Hunter
in the message seriously weakens the argument about comma usage, which I
already corrected. Grin.
Paul Furman
> ...Current
> inside quotation marks if the sentence ends in a quotation. NOTHING
> goes in quotation marks but the exact quotation.
That always looks wrong to me too, unless it's part of the quote, it
just looks sloppy inside the quote mark. I put the period outside unless
it's critical for the meaning.
<self-consciously checking my comma usage>
> For instance;
> Did Patrick Henry really say, "Give me liberty or give me death?" This
> changes the whole meaning of the statement. Better: Did Patrick Henry
> really say, "Give me liberty, or give me death!"?
> Again, in the 1970s, those penny-pinching newspapers decided to save ink
> by eliminating the 'extraneous' ending punctuation.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au>
saying something like:
>The rules on subordinate clauses haven't changed. For example, your
>sentence cited above should read:
>
>"It seems that modern writers, even those with college degrees, subscribe to
>the theory that if it sounds the same what's the difference?"
"It seems that modern writers, even those with college degrees,
subscribe to the theory that, 'If it sounds the same what's the
difference?'."
I've cleared that up a bit for you.
Deep Reset
"Grimly Curmudgeon" <grimly...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in message
news:9qvvq4lg6d3pmjn74...@4ax.com...
Me, I'd slip in an extra comma and move the full-stop, thusly:
It seems that modern writers, even those with college degrees,
subscribe to the theory that, 'If it sounds the same, what's the
difference?'" .
Deep Reset
"Father Guido Sarducci" <d...@novello.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9BC5A031C9...@198.186.190.61...
> In message news:_6ydnazQ2boQvi3U...@bt.com, "Deep Reset"
> semantics whilst Gordon Brown sodomizes (sodomises) you all day long.
>
> Die violently.
"semantics" - sp. "punctuation"
Well, better than being butt-fucked by an ignorant cowboy for eight years, I
guess.
Have a nice day.
dj_nme
If you're going to "nit pick" over punctuation: the least you could do
is to have a quotation mark at the beginning, rather than just at the end.
Please Ask
news:Jqmk8wVR...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <gnka7...@news3.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke
> <jclarke...@cox.net> writes
>>Under what US statute do you believe that Clive Ponting could even have
>>been given a ticket, let alone arrested?
>
> The ones used for Quntanamo?
If it might help to get things back on topic (but doubt it will)...
There was no "US Statute" used "for Guant�namo" -- I'm making the reasonable
assumption that you mean the laws by which the US State illegally imprisoned
human beings without trial, the abiulity to confront their accusers,
reasonable rules of evidence, and a myriad of other legal rights they claim
to be defending when they invaded Iraq. I say "illegally" because they did
so in defiance of their own Cnstitution, Bill of Rights, the Geneva
Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war, and Intenrational Law.
The US Constitution and Bill of Rights is alive and well as long as you're
middle American, white, and don't look liek a 'raghead' -- and not a 14-year
old Canadian Muslim boy in the wrong place at the wrong time!
Not Given
"Please Ask" <p...@se.ask> wrote in message
news:gRh3m.23257$S16...@newsfe23.iad...
>
> The US Constitution and Bill of Rights is alive and well as long as you're
> middle American, white, and don't look liek a 'raghead' -- and not a
> 14-year old Canadian Muslim boy in the wrong place at the wrong time!
>
Omar Ahmed Khadr, son of Ahmed Said Khadr had close ties to a number of
militant and Mujahideen leaders, including Osama bin Laden, which saw him
accused of being a "senior associate" and financier of al-Qaeda.
The same Omar Ahmed Khadr who tossed a hand grenade at US Soldiers? The same
Omar Ahmed Khadr who's Mother Elsamnah believed that raising her children in
Canada would cause them to be homosexual drug addicts.
Ray Fischer
>
>"Please Ask" <p...@se.ask> wrote in message
>news:gRh3m.23257$S16...@newsfe23.iad...
>>
>> The US Constitution and Bill of Rights is alive and well as long as you're
>> middle American, white, and don't look liek a 'raghead' -- and not a
>> 14-year old Canadian Muslim boy in the wrong place at the wrong time!
>>
>BULLSHIT!!
>
>Omar Ahmed Khadr, son of Ahmed Said Khadr had close ties to a number of
>militant and Mujahideen leaders, including Osama bin Laden, which saw him
>accused of being a "senior associate" and financier of al-Qaeda.
Guilty until proven innocent.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Chris H
<rfis...@sonic.net> writes
That is the American Way.....
Now, about Michael Jackson .... :-)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
John McWilliams
> In message <4a4fa163$0$1643$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
> <rfis...@sonic.net> writes
>> Not Given <no...@none.invalid> wrote:
>>> "Please Ask" <p...@se.ask> wrote in message
>>> news:gRh3m.23257$S16...@newsfe23.iad...
>>>> The US Constitution and Bill of Rights is alive and well as long as you're
>>>> middle American, white, and don't look liek a 'raghead' -- and not a
>>>> 14-year old Canadian Muslim boy in the wrong place at the wrong time!
>>>>
>>> BULLSHIT!!
>>>
>>> Omar Ahmed Khadr, son of Ahmed Said Khadr had close ties to a number of
>>> militant and Mujahideen leaders, including Osama bin Laden, which saw him
>>> accused of being a "senior associate" and financier of al-Qaeda.
>> Guilty until proven innocent.
>
> That is the American Way.....
Wow, Chris still on with his Yankee bashing.
What up wid dat, mate??
--
John McWilliams
Chris H
<jp...@comcast.net> writes
Well they have not found any of the 400+ in Guntanamo or the 100's in
Bagram or the 100's in AbuGrab guilty of anything other than being
tortured.......
The US forces have murdered thousands of "suspected terrorists" (read
Civilians) without even bothering to question them let alone arrest and
charge. (The concept of a fair trial does not even enter in to it.)
tony cooper
>>Wow, Chris still on with his Yankee bashing.
>
>Well they have not found any of the 400+ in Guntanamo or the 100's in
>Bagram or the 100's in AbuGrab guilty of anything other than being
>tortured.......
>
>The US forces have murdered thousands of "suspected terrorists" (read
>Civilians) without even bothering to question them let alone arrest and
>charge. (The concept of a fair trial does not even enter in to it.)
You could keep in mind, Chris, that this is a newsgroup that is
supposedly for people interested in photography. The Americans in
this group are not involved with our government's policies, and many
do not agree with the administration's actions. It's not a
particularly appropriate place to continually - as you do - take
pot-shots at actions and policies that really don't have anything to
do with the newsgroup or the participants.
I'm not saying you shouldn't; you are free to write about anything you
choose to. If you don't mind being categorized a jerk, then - by all
means - continue.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida