Ban on Photos in Public - Page 3

entwisi · 19-02-2007, 13:21

but the problem is there isn't one single law(which is why this proposal has probably surfaced in teh first instance), its a hotch potch of bits of this and bits of that all of which are being updated with new amendments here there and everywhere.

panther · 19-02-2007, 13:28

this country will be like judge dredd in a bit!!!
judge , jury and executioner!!!!!!!!!
Judges are empowered to arrest, sentence and even execute criminals on the spot.
wont be able to take a **** without permission either

WillowTheWhisp · 19-02-2007, 13:46

The thing is what we don't want happening is a blanket ban on photography in public places because that is a nonsense. It would mean all those lovely photos of lakes and mountains on holiday would be illegal.

There's already restrictions on taking photos in Trafalgar Square but nobody seems to know about it and tourists do it in their droves. I've done it too, and not all that long ago. I think I've got one somewhere of Emz on a lion.

The court thing I can understand when there's a trial going on - similar to not taking photos in a church when there's a service going on but why you can't take them in the empty courtroom is beyond me. I can't see the logic behind the rules for the Arndale either. The reason they gave me was 'crime prevention' but you can photograph the front end of M&S from Broadway - how is that any different?

SPUGGIE J · 19-02-2007, 13:49

Panther I hope this isnt a picture of the future. The law screws up enough as it is without that kind of justice. Imagine the outcome if you were innocent but had allready been "dealt with" and sentence carried out. I hope I am on my way to a better place before this happens.

entwisi · 19-02-2007, 14:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]The thing is what we don't want happening is a blanket ban on photography in public places because that is a nonsense. It would mean all those lovely photos of lakes and mountains on holiday would be illegal.

agree, clearly they couldn't do this as the tourist trade would disappear overnight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]
There's already restrictions on taking photos in Trafalgar Square but nobody seems to know about it and tourists do it in their droves. I've done it too, and not all that long ago. I think I've got one somewhere of Emz on a lion.

unlike you to post a link to something without reading it!

, see the bit in the middle that says trafalgar square etc is out of bounds for business stuff but not tourism

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

The court thing I can understand when there's a trial going on - similar to not taking photos in a church when there's a service going on but why you can't take them in the empty courtroom is beyond me. I can't see the logic behind the rules for the Arndale either. The reason they gave me was 'crime prevention' but you can photograph the front end of M&S from Broadway - how is that any different?

You can take piccys during a service with permission of the vicar/priest etc, its a 'private place' and as such totally up to him. I take pictures during the christenings of services at St Johns for the families. The vicar is happy for me to do so.

WillowTheWhisp · 19-02-2007, 14:30

I should have said you can't take photos in our church during the service - any kind of service - but you can set the scene up again afterwards and photograph that. Not sure what the general rules are for weddings and register signings but in our church they have to pose again afterwards and a wedding I photographed at the registry office they asked not to take photos during but to wait and set the scene up again afterwards.

Trafalgar Square is a funny one - I shall reread the references to that, but I have to go out now to catch a bus.