You should be allowed to shop naked, less chance of shoplifting...
In the stark naked future, I see over-sized shoplifters stowing stuff away between fat folds, their own folds just to clear things up. They can already be seen in your corner store, right now, minus-sans the clothing. Some of them are in disguise, as they have shaved their hair off their bodies, lest it become known that they are in fact ursus arctos paedophilis horribilis!
* How is harrassing law abiding amateur and pro photographers stopping terrorist attacks (when the real terrorists will just do it clandestinely with a smart phone and not get harrassed?)
Because terrorists have more difficulty in attacking our country in this manner
I'm sorry a few hundred people out of 60 million are affected by this law. Actually I'm not...
The anti-free speech laws were being protested by Rowan Atkinson (a real, and very well known and well liked comedian) and many other comedians and writers who can clearly see that overly broad laws will have a chilling effect on writers in this country.
And since that speech, 6 and half years ago, has freedom of speech been 'stifled'? I haven't noticed.
You seem to be putting too much trust in the authorities and are quite happy for them to pass dangerously broad laws to defend against a threat that isn't really all that frightening if you just take 30 seconds to compare the level of risk with every day activities. Laws that in general aren't needed: existing laws can have loopholes fixed, and the Police have always been able to investigate the conspiracy to commit crimes. Laws that may have unintended consequences that do more damage to our country than the terrorists can ever hope.
I hope I don't have to remind you that the people who make up government time and time again have shown themselves not to be entirely trustworthy. Therefore it is our duty as "We The People" to do what we can to resist overly broad laws that can be abused, because they WILL be abused, and at that point it's not so much the terrorists "have won" (they haven't), but the point is it's us, the taxpaying citizens of the country who have "lost". Two recent examples of extremely serious untrustworthiness from the authorities, in case you have forgotten:
* Tried to pass a law a few years ago exempting MPs from the Freedom of Information Act, essentially to stop us from holding them accountable. Fortunately hard work by the Daily Telegraph busted them before they could actually pass this law; the reason why they were trying to pass this was because many MPs had been defrauding the taxpayer (in fact it was almost institutionalised) and this law would have just let them continue without let and hindrance.
* Police directly involved in News International phone hacking scandal - not involved to investigate phone hacking, but involved to help News International out!
When you have people of this character allowed to have laws like the PotA as it is now written, you're just asking for trouble sooner or later. (After all, we've already seen this act misused against an Icelandic bank and an elderly Labour MP). You really want this bunch of clowns to be able to use laws that make the accused guilty until proven innocent?
Because terrorists have more difficulty in attacking our country in this manner
I'm sorry a few hundred people out of 60 million are affected by this law. Actually I'm not...[/quote]
But it doesn't make it any more difficult. You could actually make this argument for banning absolutely anything. (Incidentally, photographers number more than just "a few hundred").
And pray tell me, how does harrassing photographers make it harder for terrorists in any material way, given that they can still really easily take photographs without being noticed (say, with a smart phone?)
And since that speech, 6 and half years ago, has freedom of speech been 'stifled'? I haven't noticed.
It *can* be stifled if someone is motivated to do so. The point is not that overly broad laws will mean an immediate cessation to the Radio 4 show "Old Harry's Game", but it may do so in the future. The unintended consequences could be worse than what it's trying to solve.
No, you prevent terrorist attacks using existing laws, fixing holes in existing laws where necessary, not by sensationalism, or a permanent "threat level high" status to keep everyone scared. I find the "threat level high" thing hilarious, when I'm actually more likely to die from slipping over in the shower or getting hit by a bus. And you certainly don't do it by passing laws that suspend habeus corpus or make the accused guilty until proven innocent, which is the point I find grossly illiberal (and it should be offensive to anyone who cares the slightest about justice) and open to abuse. There are *better* ways than by overturning a principle of justice that has existed in Britain for over 900 years.
Do you really trust the people who institutionalised the swindling of the taxpayer, and colluded with gutter journalists just as two examples with laws that make people guilty until proven innocent? You are really *comfortable* with that?
But it doesn't make it any more difficult. You could actually make this argument for banning absolutely anything. (Incidentally, photographers number more than just "a few hundred").
But, actually, it does make it more difficult. Consequently there have been no serious terrorist attacks...
And pray tell me, how does harrassing photographers make it harder for terrorists in any material way, given that they can still really easily take photographs without being noticed (say, with a smart phone?)
Smartphone vs telephoto lens. I'm no photographer, but I know there's a difference. (Photographers it actually affects...A few thousand at best? Out of a population of 60m? What % is that?)
It *can* be stifled if someone is motivated to do so. The point is not that overly broad laws will mean an immediate cessation to the Radio 4 show "Old Harry's Game", but it may do so in the future. The unintended consequences could be worse than what it's trying to solve.
But it *hasn't* been stifled. It's been nearly 7 years, and all you give me is a Radio 4 show may be stop in the future...
No, you prevent terrorist attacks using existing laws, fixing holes in existing laws where necessary, not by sensationalism, or a permanent "threat level high" status to keep everyone scared. I find the "threat level high" thing hilarious, when I'm actually more likely to die from slipping over in the shower or getting hit by a bus. And you certainly don't do it by passing laws that suspend habeus corpus or make the accused guilty until proven innocent, which is the point I find grossly illiberal (and it should be offensive to anyone who cares the slightest about justice) and open to abuse. There are *better* ways than by overturning a principle of justice that has existed in Britain for over 900 years.
Do you really trust the people who institutionalised the swindling of the taxpayer, and colluded with gutter journalists just as two examples with laws that make people guilty until proven innocent? You are really *comfortable* with that?
You prevent terrorist attacks the best way you can, in the current situation. There have been no attacks, there is a threat. There must be some good coming out of this...
I trust them more than I trust people trying to tell me that prevention of terrorism isn't a good thing for this country.
I can see a mass exodus of bears from Austria in the coming months...
No need for exodus as not all austrian are bears (at least 10% of women are not). And the bears still have TOR, I2P, JAP and Freenet and theil cellars.
My corner shop wont let me in if I don't put a shirt or shoes on .....BLACKMAILING BASTARDS.
...Private companies much like private individuals have the right to pick and choose who they sell/offer their services too.
It's not a scam as the customer can go elsewhere, not like paypal is the ONLY money transfer service, Western Union for example has been around a lot longer.
You talk like Paypal has some obligation to humanity...
But paypal is acting like a bank. Would you like if your bank would freeze all your saved money, if they do not like your face? It is scam because if you want to sell something on ebay, they BLACKMAIL you to offer paypal payment for the first 50 sales.
It is like there are tho streets, one good, and one full of holes and you can drive your car on it only at 10 km/h, and the owner of the good street allows you only to drive your car on it, if he can f**** your wife.
Good deal? Sure, you can use the other steet and lose 5 hours of your time and wreck your car.
Just out of interest Winston - As it stands at the moment - you have to arrange 12 hours in advance to fly. If you were to not do whatever that is could you manage to just go and get in your plane and take off anyway or would something physically stop you from doing so?
"I should use simulator loosely 'cos I don't think it's quite like this on the beach with helicopters and fires and the jumping beach buggy" - paulisthebest3uk 2020.
could you manage to just go and get in your plane and take off anyway
Yes.
Think of someone with a private grass runway. Just a field with a windsock and a Cessna parked in a barn. There's no air marshals or metal detectors in a field :)
Just out of interest Winston - As it stands at the moment - you have to arrange 12 hours in advance to fly. If you were to not do whatever that is could you manage to just go and get in your plane and take off anyway or would something physically stop you from doing so?
No.
In fact I did it once (a cockup with the paperwork, the notice has to be in writing). You just get a bollocking and they threaten to arrest you. It was some days later that I found out I had filed the paperwork wrong and PC Plod had never actually received it.
(What Guesser says, the airfield where we keep the plane is part of a farm. If you're lucky you might find someone on the ground with a handheld radio, but most times you just take off).
But, actually, it does make it more difficult. Consequently there have been no serious terrorist attacks...
Smartphone vs telephoto lens. I'm no photographer, but I know there's a difference. (Photographers it actually affects...A few thousand at best? Out of a population of 60m? What % is that?)
You don't need a telephoto lens to photograph a building that you can just walk past. If you have a big telephoto lens you don't need to be close enough to the building to actually be stopped photographing it! So the only people therefore it affects are professional photographers close to the building. Oh, and painters.
Harrassing photographers keeps terrorist attacks away much as my tiger repelling rock keeps tigers away, by the same logic my tiger repelling rock MUST be working because I've not been attacked by a tiger.
But it *hasn't* been stifled. It's been nearly 7 years, and all you give me is a Radio 4 show may be stop in the future...
That's immaterial. The threat in the future is that it *could* be stifled if someone wanted to. That's why you don't write bad laws, you have to think about the future and the possible unintended consequences.
What you're saying is sort of the same logic as saying "I've been parking my car and not using the handbrake, it's perfectly OK, it's never rolled away in the last 7 years". It's just not a good thing to do. Passing a law like this is not a good thing to do either, even if it's not *yet* caused any harm. Just like the car with the handbrake off, it might not yet have caused harm, but one day someone will bang into it while trying to park in a grossly incompetent manner, and the driverless car will squash next door's child. One day some fundamentalist will abuse this law to shut down someone's free speech.
You prevent terrorist attacks the best way you can, in the current situation. There have been no attacks, there is a threat. There must be some good coming out of this...I trust them more than I trust people trying to tell me that prevention of terrorism isn't a good thing for this country.
Prevention of terrorism *IS* a good thing, but going about it by passing overly broad laws (that have ALREADY been abused, and I have given you the links) causing in one instance highly significant damage to the Isle of Man taxpayer (the UK using anti-terror law against an Icelandic bank). This is the point I have been labouriously trying to make. Passing laws that are ineffective against the threats and result in the harrassment of law abiding taxpaying citizens like professional photographers do NOT reduce terrorist attacks.
Passing laws that make people guilty until proven innocent or suspend habeus corpus are also NOT the right way to go about preventing terrorism and pose a greater threat to democracy than terrorism ever can. Especially when you leave them in the hands of people who actually institutionalised the defrauding of the British taxpayer, and the collusion with News International over phone hacking. It's just stupid to do that when there are better ways.
The sad thing is we may have been able to have prevented the July 7th bombings by simply not going to war in Iraq. Imagine what could have been done if that money had been spent instead on transport infrastructure (after all, the major thing terrorism causes is transport chaos). We could have created jobs, we wouldn't have had the ritual of honouring dead soldiers every week at Brize Norton, and we could have had a proper high speed rail link for the WCML perhaps.
You don't need a telephoto lens to photograph a building that you can just walk past. If you have a big telephoto lens you don't need to be close enough to the building to actually be stopped photographing it! So the only people therefore it affects are professional photographers close to the building. Oh, and painters.
Identify the areas/weaknesses you would need a relevant amount of detail on the building, smartphones going to cover that with a quick snap walking by?
Harrassing photographers keeps terrorist attacks away much as my tiger repelling rock keeps tigers away, by the same logic my tiger repelling rock MUST be working because I've not been attacked by a tiger.
Harrasing photographers...stop banging on about a point which
Affects 0.01% of the population
Hasn't been seen my me or my city colleagues in 10 years
This tiger repellent rock. I'm not convinced. Where as terrorism is a threat and is being thwarted, I don't think that tigers are a threat in Isle of man. Tell you what, go to Twycross Zoo, enter the tiger compound and let's see whether that tiger repellent rock still works.
That's immaterial. The threat in the future is that it *could* be stifled if someone wanted to. That's why you don't write bad laws, you have to think about the future and the possible unintended consequences.
What you're saying is sort of the same logic as saying "I've been parking my car and not using the handbrake, it's perfectly OK, it's never rolled away in the last 7 years". It's just not a good thing to do. Passing a law like this is not a good thing to do either, even if it's not *yet* caused any harm. Just like the car with the handbrake off, it might not yet have caused harm, but one day someone will bang into it while trying to park in a grossly incompetent manner, and the driverless car will squash next door's child. One day some fundamentalist will abuse this law to shut down someone's free speech.
So any point ever made holds relevance because it may well happen in the future at some point....
The point was free speech would be hampered. It hasn't been. Point made.
Prevention of terrorism *IS* a good thing, but going about it by passing overly broad laws (that have ALREADY been abused, and I have given you the links) causing in one instance highly significant damage to the Isle of Man taxpayer (the UK using anti-terror law against an Icelandic bank). This is the point I have been labouriously trying to make. Passing laws that are ineffective against the threats and result in the harrassment of law abiding taxpaying citizens like professional photographers do NOT reduce terrorist attacks.
Passing laws that make people guilty until proven innocent or suspend habeus corpus are also NOT the right way to go about preventing terrorism and pose a greater threat to democracy than terrorism ever can. Especially when you leave them in the hands of people who actually institutionalised the defrauding of the British taxpayer, and the collusion with News International over phone hacking. It's just stupid to do that when there are better ways.
The sad thing is we may have been able to have prevented the July 7th bombings by simply not going to war in Iraq. Imagine what could have been done if that money had been spent instead on transport infrastructure (after all, the major thing terrorism causes is transport chaos). We could have created jobs, we wouldn't have had the ritual of honouring dead soldiers every week at Brize Norton, and we could have had a proper high speed rail link for the WCML perhaps.
Relating POTA with spending more money in the roads is ridiculous. Not even going to bother...
We could argue all day long about going to war with Iraq, but we have to deal with the now, not the past. What is done, is done.
Can you go try the Tiger Repellent Rock exactly like I suggested above please, and then report back?
Can you go try the Tiger Repellent Rock exactly like I suggested above please, and then report back?
Only if you go to an Afghanistan warzone and shout "I despise all muslims!" at the top of your voice, then report back if your anti-terror laws worked?
In fact I did it once (a cockup with the paperwork, the notice has to be in writing). You just get a bollocking and they threaten to arrest you. It was some days later that I found out I had filed the paperwork wrong and PC Plod had never actually received it.
(What Guesser says, the airfield where we keep the plane is part of a farm. If you're lucky you might find someone on the ground with a handheld radio, but most times you just take off).
You have to shout out the window "CLEAR PROP!!" before ignition and then somebody could actually hear you!......Sounds dangerous ;)
this tiger repellent rock. I'm not convinced. Where as terrorism is a threat and is being thwarted, i don't think that tigers are a threat in isle of man. Tell you what, go to twycross zoo, enter the tiger compound and let's see whether that tiger repellent rock still works.
Identify the areas/weaknesses you would need a relevant amount of detail on the building, smartphones going to cover that with a quick snap walking by?
Indeed they will. Lacking a decent camera the other day while in the park, I managed to take a very nice photograph of a pigeon taking off with my iPhone. The level of detail is fantastic, given the very small lens. The picture is sharp, you can see every feather on the bird, you can see the structure of the feathers even though the bird was flapping hard to take off from a standing start, you can see the pupils of its eyes, even its tongue. The detail of the trees and the fountains in the background is very good. It was just a quick snap, and a fortuitous one at that because the pigeon decided to launch itself at the very moment I hit the shutter release. It was meant as a quick happy snappy for a Facebook status update, nothing more - it's not like I sat there 10 minutes composing the frame and fiddling with camera settings like I may have done with my DSLR.
Modern smartphone cameras are better than larger digital cameras of just four years ago. (And my pocket digital camera is better than DSLRs of just a few years ago. Because it's so much easier to carry around, I now only take the DSLR out if what I'm doing really justifies needing it, usually if I'm doing something that'll need the manual setting, or that needs optics exceed the capabilities of the little Lumix's lens)
So I submit the abuse of photographers is not useful in stopping terrorists taking photographs of things. Just because it only affects a few tens of thousands of amateur and pro photographers doesn't mean it's harmless or useful or desirable, nor does it mean it's in any way effective. Which is exactly the point about my tiger repelling rock: the harrassment of photographers will not stop terrorism any more than my tiger repelling rock can actually repel tigers. But your logic was "we've not had any terrorist attacks, therefore the harrassment of photographers must be working", which is about the same as saying "I have a tiger repelling rock, I know it works because I have not seen any tigers".
Pretty sure any terrorists would/could use a spy cam...I have one on my keyring that cost me $5 off ebay and looks like a car remote...video as well as stills.
So any law to regarding photography would be hard to enforce..against the people intending harm.
EDIT: It's nothing new though, I remember as a kid on holiday in Spain (35+ years ago). My dad was taking a photo of a warship in the harbor we were at and the 'cops/security' came over and stopped him.
Pretty sure any terrorists would/could use a spy cam...I have one on my keyring that cost me $5 off ebay and looks like a car remote...video as well as stills.
Only if you go to an Afghanistan warzone and shout "I despise all muslims!" at the top of your voice, then report back if your anti-terror laws worked?
D.
Why would POTA, which are laws of the UK, help in an Afghanistan warzone?
Either you are just a massive troll, or the tiger rock analogy is repeatedly flying straight over your head, in which case you are as dumb as Homer Simpson...
Indeed they will. Lacking a decent camera the other day while in the park, I managed to take a very nice photograph of a pigeon taking off with my iPhone. The level of detail is fantastic, given the very small lens. The picture is sharp, you can see every feather on the bird, you can see the structure of the feathers even though the bird was flapping hard to take off from a standing start, you can see the pupils of its eyes, even its tongue. The detail of the trees and the fountains in the background is very good. It was just a quick snap, and a fortuitous one at that because the pigeon decided to launch itself at the very moment I hit the shutter release. It was meant as a quick happy snappy for a Facebook status update, nothing more - it's not like I sat there 10 minutes composing the frame and fiddling with camera settings like I may have done with my DSLR.
Modern smartphone cameras are better than larger digital cameras of just four years ago. (And my pocket digital camera is better than DSLRs of just a few years ago. Because it's so much easier to carry around, I now only take the DSLR out if what I'm doing really justifies needing it, usually if I'm doing something that'll need the manual setting, or that needs optics exceed the capabilities of the little Lumix's lens)
So I submit the abuse of photographers is not useful in stopping terrorists taking photographs of things. Just because it only affects a few tens of thousands of amateur and pro photographers doesn't mean it's harmless or useful or desirable, nor does it mean it's in any way effective. Which is exactly the point about my tiger repelling rock: the harrassment of photographers will not stop terrorism any more than my tiger repelling rock can actually repel tigers. But your logic was "we've not had any terrorist attacks, therefore the harrassment of photographers must be working", which is about the same as saying "I have a tiger repelling rock, I know it works because I have not seen any tigers".
Stop, look, observe, find area, raise camera, focus, click. Yes, that would look pretty bloody strange on a Govt building don't you think?
You said about just walking by, which isn't the same thing.
It affects tens of thousands now? I don't know many, but I will put the question to a local amateur photography society some friends of mine go to and report back.
Either you are just a massive troll, or the tiger rock analogy is repeatedly flying straight over your head, in which case you are as dumb as Homer Simpson...
You said you weren't going to bother, yet you still are. Make your mind up, otherwise you are just trolling.
If I was a troll, perhaps my previous posts in other subjects would have been argumentative or provocative. Go check before you throw yet more aimless accusations.
I put the silly analogy, which was brought up several times, into perspective.
It's a very good analogy for your argument, you refuse to acknowledge it because you'd have to admit that your logic is massively flawed.
My logic is flawed because, despite there being a very clear, determined, obvious and confirmed threat of terrorism in this country, there has been no successful acts of terrorism in the past few years?
I have this terrorist attack repelling law. There haven't been any terrorist attacks since I got it so that MUST mean that it repels terrorist attacks.
Comments
In the stark naked future, I see over-sized shoplifters stowing stuff away between fat folds, their own folds just to clear things up. They can already be seen in your corner store, right now, minus-sans the clothing. Some of them are in disguise, as they have shaved their hair off their bodies, lest it become known that they are in fact ursus arctos paedophilis horribilis!
The ZnorX has spoketh!
I'm sorry a few hundred people out of 60 million are affected by this law. Actually I'm not... Because terrorists have more difficulty in attacking our country in this manner
I'm sorry a few hundred people out of 60 million are affected by this law. Actually I'm not...
Thanks for pointing that out. And since that speech, 6 and half years ago, has freedom of speech been 'stifled'? I haven't noticed.
And your alternative is not to try and prevent terrorist attacks, because you perceive the threat to be not real.
I'm sorry a few hundred people out of 60 million are affected by this law. Actually I'm not...[/quote]
But it doesn't make it any more difficult. You could actually make this argument for banning absolutely anything. (Incidentally, photographers number more than just "a few hundred").
And pray tell me, how does harrassing photographers make it harder for terrorists in any material way, given that they can still really easily take photographs without being noticed (say, with a smart phone?)
It *can* be stifled if someone is motivated to do so. The point is not that overly broad laws will mean an immediate cessation to the Radio 4 show "Old Harry's Game", but it may do so in the future. The unintended consequences could be worse than what it's trying to solve.
No, you prevent terrorist attacks using existing laws, fixing holes in existing laws where necessary, not by sensationalism, or a permanent "threat level high" status to keep everyone scared. I find the "threat level high" thing hilarious, when I'm actually more likely to die from slipping over in the shower or getting hit by a bus. And you certainly don't do it by passing laws that suspend habeus corpus or make the accused guilty until proven innocent, which is the point I find grossly illiberal (and it should be offensive to anyone who cares the slightest about justice) and open to abuse. There are *better* ways than by overturning a principle of justice that has existed in Britain for over 900 years.
Do you really trust the people who institutionalised the swindling of the taxpayer, and colluded with gutter journalists just as two examples with laws that make people guilty until proven innocent? You are really *comfortable* with that?
Smartphone vs telephoto lens. I'm no photographer, but I know there's a difference. (Photographers it actually affects...A few thousand at best? Out of a population of 60m? What % is that?)
But it *hasn't* been stifled. It's been nearly 7 years, and all you give me is a Radio 4 show may be stop in the future...
You prevent terrorist attacks the best way you can, in the current situation. There have been no attacks, there is a threat. There must be some good coming out of this...
I trust them more than I trust people trying to tell me that prevention of terrorism isn't a good thing for this country.
But paypal is acting like a bank. Would you like if your bank would freeze all your saved money, if they do not like your face? It is scam because if you want to sell something on ebay, they BLACKMAIL you to offer paypal payment for the first 50 sales.
It is like there are tho streets, one good, and one full of holes and you can drive your car on it only at 10 km/h, and the owner of the good street allows you only to drive your car on it, if he can f**** your wife.
Good deal? Sure, you can use the other steet and lose 5 hours of your time and wreck your car.
Yes.
Think of someone with a private grass runway. Just a field with a windsock and a Cessna parked in a barn. There's no air marshals or metal detectors in a field :)
No.
In fact I did it once (a cockup with the paperwork, the notice has to be in writing). You just get a bollocking and they threaten to arrest you. It was some days later that I found out I had filed the paperwork wrong and PC Plod had never actually received it.
(What Guesser says, the airfield where we keep the plane is part of a farm. If you're lucky you might find someone on the ground with a handheld radio, but most times you just take off).
You don't need a telephoto lens to photograph a building that you can just walk past. If you have a big telephoto lens you don't need to be close enough to the building to actually be stopped photographing it! So the only people therefore it affects are professional photographers close to the building. Oh, and painters.
Harrassing photographers keeps terrorist attacks away much as my tiger repelling rock keeps tigers away, by the same logic my tiger repelling rock MUST be working because I've not been attacked by a tiger.
That's immaterial. The threat in the future is that it *could* be stifled if someone wanted to. That's why you don't write bad laws, you have to think about the future and the possible unintended consequences.
What you're saying is sort of the same logic as saying "I've been parking my car and not using the handbrake, it's perfectly OK, it's never rolled away in the last 7 years". It's just not a good thing to do. Passing a law like this is not a good thing to do either, even if it's not *yet* caused any harm. Just like the car with the handbrake off, it might not yet have caused harm, but one day someone will bang into it while trying to park in a grossly incompetent manner, and the driverless car will squash next door's child. One day some fundamentalist will abuse this law to shut down someone's free speech.
Prevention of terrorism *IS* a good thing, but going about it by passing overly broad laws (that have ALREADY been abused, and I have given you the links) causing in one instance highly significant damage to the Isle of Man taxpayer (the UK using anti-terror law against an Icelandic bank). This is the point I have been labouriously trying to make. Passing laws that are ineffective against the threats and result in the harrassment of law abiding taxpaying citizens like professional photographers do NOT reduce terrorist attacks.
Passing laws that make people guilty until proven innocent or suspend habeus corpus are also NOT the right way to go about preventing terrorism and pose a greater threat to democracy than terrorism ever can. Especially when you leave them in the hands of people who actually institutionalised the defrauding of the British taxpayer, and the collusion with News International over phone hacking. It's just stupid to do that when there are better ways.
The sad thing is we may have been able to have prevented the July 7th bombings by simply not going to war in Iraq. Imagine what could have been done if that money had been spent instead on transport infrastructure (after all, the major thing terrorism causes is transport chaos). We could have created jobs, we wouldn't have had the ritual of honouring dead soldiers every week at Brize Norton, and we could have had a proper high speed rail link for the WCML perhaps.
Harrasing photographers...stop banging on about a point which
- Affects 0.01% of the population
- Hasn't been seen my me or my city colleagues in 10 years
This tiger repellent rock. I'm not convinced. Where as terrorism is a threat and is being thwarted, I don't think that tigers are a threat in Isle of man. Tell you what, go to Twycross Zoo, enter the tiger compound and let's see whether that tiger repellent rock still works.So any point ever made holds relevance because it may well happen in the future at some point....
The point was free speech would be hampered. It hasn't been. Point made.
Relating POTA with spending more money in the roads is ridiculous. Not even going to bother...
We could argue all day long about going to war with Iraq, but we have to deal with the now, not the past. What is done, is done.
Can you go try the Tiger Repellent Rock exactly like I suggested above please, and then report back?
Only if you go to an Afghanistan warzone and shout "I despise all muslims!" at the top of your voice, then report back if your anti-terror laws worked?
D.
You have to shout out the window "CLEAR PROP!!" before ignition and then somebody could actually hear you!......Sounds dangerous ;)
whoosh
Indeed they will. Lacking a decent camera the other day while in the park, I managed to take a very nice photograph of a pigeon taking off with my iPhone. The level of detail is fantastic, given the very small lens. The picture is sharp, you can see every feather on the bird, you can see the structure of the feathers even though the bird was flapping hard to take off from a standing start, you can see the pupils of its eyes, even its tongue. The detail of the trees and the fountains in the background is very good. It was just a quick snap, and a fortuitous one at that because the pigeon decided to launch itself at the very moment I hit the shutter release. It was meant as a quick happy snappy for a Facebook status update, nothing more - it's not like I sat there 10 minutes composing the frame and fiddling with camera settings like I may have done with my DSLR.
Modern smartphone cameras are better than larger digital cameras of just four years ago. (And my pocket digital camera is better than DSLRs of just a few years ago. Because it's so much easier to carry around, I now only take the DSLR out if what I'm doing really justifies needing it, usually if I'm doing something that'll need the manual setting, or that needs optics exceed the capabilities of the little Lumix's lens)
So I submit the abuse of photographers is not useful in stopping terrorists taking photographs of things. Just because it only affects a few tens of thousands of amateur and pro photographers doesn't mean it's harmless or useful or desirable, nor does it mean it's in any way effective. Which is exactly the point about my tiger repelling rock: the harrassment of photographers will not stop terrorism any more than my tiger repelling rock can actually repel tigers. But your logic was "we've not had any terrorist attacks, therefore the harrassment of photographers must be working", which is about the same as saying "I have a tiger repelling rock, I know it works because I have not seen any tigers".
So any law to regarding photography would be hard to enforce..against the people intending harm.
EDIT: It's nothing new though, I remember as a kid on holiday in Spain (35+ years ago). My dad was taking a photo of a warship in the harbor we were at and the 'cops/security' came over and stopped him.
dirty bastard. :razz:
hehe, how did I know you'd pick up on that...
Either you are just a massive troll, or the tiger rock analogy is repeatedly flying straight over your head, in which case you are as dumb as Homer Simpson...
You said about just walking by, which isn't the same thing.
It affects tens of thousands now? I don't know many, but I will put the question to a local amateur photography society some friends of mine go to and report back.
Come on, get some of those neurons firing, surely you can work out what guesser was getting at, can't you?
Mr Lawman: "Hi Mr Terrorist, sorry you can't fly your hijacked jet into the WTS, it's against the law"
Mr Terrorist "oh ok sorry I didn't know, I'll be on my way then"
If I was a troll, perhaps my previous posts in other subjects would have been argumentative or provocative. Go check before you throw yet more aimless accusations.
I put the silly analogy, which was brought up several times, into perspective.
Jog on, dumbass.
Just react, react, react...
How silly of me to actually know otherwise...
It's a very good analogy for your argument, you refuse to acknowledge it because you'd have to admit that your logic is massively flawed.
I'm struggling to understand your logic on that.
I have this terrorist attack repelling law. There haven't been any terrorist attacks since I got it so that MUST mean that it repels terrorist attacks.
Sure, to be employed after the fact....(same as most laws are..you generally get charged AFTER the crime).
Pretty sure there were laws in place regarding 9/11 7/7 the Norway incident etc etc....didn't help did it...
Law only matter to those who observe it...bad guys generally don't.
I think you are confusing law with preventative measures...