Re: Interesting article on the amateur photographer hysteria

Neil Barker wrote:
> In article <3267f71c-f725-4ea4-adcc-1cdb2e8e4232
> @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, juan.kerr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 says...
> 
>> We had a very nice RTA here a few months ago when I was at work, a
>> stolen car swerved to avoid another vehicle and ended up upside down
>> in a hedge at the end of our road.............my wife decided to take
>> a few snaps but was prevented from doing so by Plod who told her
>> effectively what you've said, i.e "you can't do that, it's against the
>> law".
>>
>> Now my wife is naive and took Plod at face value (I'd have told him to
>> go away) but it makes you think who it is exactly who's instilling
>> this false information into coppers on the streets?
>>
>> Or do they make it up as they go along?
> 
> It does seem so at times, yes.
> 
> For future information, your wife was perfectly free to photograph that 
> RTA and any policeman telling you otherwise needs re-educating.
> 
> There is no law that prevents photography in a public place - bar the 
> common sense things concerning military installations and the like, but 
> they're not 'public' places as such.
> 
The nearest such plce to me has notices around it saying something like 
"No photography". However, surely that applies to what you are 
photographing rather than where you are photographing from? That is, if 
I stand nearby, point the camera away from the restricted site and snap 
a friend walking down the pavement, that would surely be legal. Whereas 
if I point the camera into the site, even if I am on private land (e.g. 
a house and garden adjoining the site), it would be illegal.

Or is this far too simple an understanding?

-- 
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious 
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
<www.thyromind.info> <www.thyroiduk.org> <www.altsup****tthyroid.org>