Re: terrorist/tourist photography

Peter wrote:
> "(not quite so) Fat Sam" <samandjanet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
> message news:frbkv1$b8p$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Chris H wrote:
>>>
Http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Labour_MP_Austin_Mitchell_launc
>>> hes_photography_petition_in_Parliament_news_197555.html
>>>
>>>  Labour MP has tabled an Early Day Motion (EDM) in the House of
>>> Commons condemning police action against lawful photography in
>>> public places.
>>> Austin Mitchell MP (pictured) is canvassing the sup****t of fellow
>>> politicians following growing re****ts of police stopping innocent
>>> photography enthusiasts taking pictures in public areas.
>>>
>>> The move comes just weeks after police launched a new nationwide
>>> anti-terrorism publicity campaign, alerting the public to people
>>> with cameras behaving suspiciously.
>>
>> This made me smile.
>> Made extra funny thanks to it's subtletey.
>> http://flickr.com/photos/dragondrop/2315003978/sizes/o/
>>
>
>
> Quite good. Funny in a sad sort of way.
> In New York City they tried to turn fear into a dollar by charging
> for a license for a group to hang around a tripod for more than 15
> minutes. They almost got away with it, or the rule is no longer
> enforced. There are still many public areas that cannot be shot
> without a permit. It's easy to get a permit, but you must tell them
> the exact day and time. This would not be a problem, if I could get a
> guaranty of fog at my appointed time.

I would never know when or where I'm going to be taking photos.
Photography is a sideline for me. My main work is as a full time carer for

my wife. So I can only get out with the camera when she's well enough to
be 
left.
I'm kind of like the Guerilla of Photography...I strike when no-one's 
expecting it, then disappear back into the night....

Actually, given the nature of this thread, that's probably the worst 
possible analogy that I could have chosen.