You wouldn't believe it!

On Feb 17, 9:29*pm, J G Miller wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:52:18 -0800, jamie_p84 wrote:

* * It's fine when Bill does it, though.

Good point except ...

Could you cite the URL of a photograph on the Wright's Aerial site
which shows the interior of a residential dwelling?

I can only find photographs of antennas themselves or not very
easily identifiable portions of rooftops

The act you pasted didn't discriminate between photographs taken of
the outsides and insides of people's houses.

"J G Miller" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:52:18 -0800, jamie_p84 wrote:

It's fine when Bill does it, though.

It's fine when anyone does it, except when the police overstep their powers.
There has been a lot about this in the press lately of course, and I must
say I think it puts too much power in the hands of the ordinary bobby. What
it boils down to is that if the police don't want you to take pics or make
videos (at a demo or when you see the cops kicking the **** out of someone)
they can bang you up for a while. They can't confiscate the camera though,
or demand that the material is deleted.
I guess we just have act now as if we are in one of those countries with
regimes that we used to sneer about. Take your pictures with extreme
discretion. What a shame that we have come to this.

Regarding " It's fine when Bill does it, though", what's special about me?
Millions of website have got pictures on them, many taken in public places.


Talking of antennas, I have long been curious as to the manufacturer
and model number of the UHF antenna at

http://www.wrightsaerials.TV/aerialphotography/modern/025.html

Dunno. Could be an ancient Fuba. Deffo a European import, but frankly I
can't tell 'em apart.

Bill

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Ten Pin Bowling"
saying something like:

all I can say is be very careful with what and who your are taking pics of.
Any neighbour watching you could just drop you in it.

Bollicks.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember JN [email protected] saying something
like:

The unacceptable issue here is taking a photo which has the interior of
someones personal property visible and posting it on the web. The excuse
that nobody is present (made in an earlier posting) seems to me to be
the same as sniffing someones underwear on their washing line but
claiming it's ok as nobody was wearing it at the time. It's an invasion
of privacy.

********.

On Feb 18, 1:57*am, "Bill Wright"
wrote:

It's fine when anyone does it, except when the police overstep their powers.
There has been a lot about this in the press lately of course,

That's all part of the "making you accept it" strategy - arranging for
some 'controlled criticism' in the established press gives people a
place to channel their concerns until they reach the inevitable
acceptance stage and the issue fades from their minds.

and I must
say I think it puts too much power in the hands of the ordinary bobby. What

I tend to associate the word "bobby" with the policemen of old -
respected fair-minded members of the community with common sense and a
reasonable level of intelligence (they did used to exist, right?).
"Target-driven meatheads" would be more appropriate nowadays.

it boils down to is that if the police don't want you to take pics or make
videos (at a demo or when you see the cops kicking the **** out of someone)

It always amuses me on TV news broadcasts, when they do a report
highlighting, say, "the disturbing amount of senseless violence on
television", followed minutes later by some other report which
contains extensive footage of police belting the living daylights out
of people and applauds their actions.

they can bang you up for a while.

Which, if it hadn't been for a recent ECHR ruling for which we should
all be grateful, would have meant the DNA template for your entire
family bloodline being kept on police databases for 100 years,
constantly being cross-referenced against samples taken from every
serious crime scene in the search for a match.
(This still happens in the UK if a person is convicted of something,
which most arrested persons are.)
The Crown was even pushing for a national DNA database of every single
UK citizen - a policy which, until the ECHR ruling, appeared to have
the full support of the BBC.

I guess we just have act now as if we are in one of those countries with
regimes that we used to sneer about.

We always were - it's just becoming a bit more obvious nowadays I
guess.

Regarding " It's fine when Bill does it, though", what's special about me?
Millions of website have got pictures on them, many taken in public places.

The comment was less about you and more about the hypocrisy and dual-
standards of certain usenet posters...

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember JN [email protected] saying something
like:

The unacceptable issue here is taking a photo which has the interior of
someones personal property visible and posting it on the web. The excuse
that nobody is present (made in an earlier posting) seems to me to be
the same as sniffing someones underwear on their washing line but
claiming it's ok as nobody was wearing it at the time. It's an invasion
of privacy.

********.

Ah! The well measured argument. I see you needed to post it twice, the
spelling of one word seems to be a stretch then.

J G Miller wrote:
Terry Casey wrote:
I fail to see how anybody could believe that information that somebody
living in Greater London receives their TV signals from the Crystal
Palace transmitter; that they use a UHF aerial for the purpose and that
they illuminate it at night so it can clearly be seen by anyone on the
public highway, could be "information of a kind likely to be useful to
a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" ...

I do not doubt that after the fact you may be able to argue convincing
case that your activities were not related to gathering information for
the purposes of terrorism.

The issue is that the police can now arrest you and seize your equipment
on their interpretation as to what you are doing at the time.

After you have then been through the hassle of being arrest and having
your equipment seized, you then are permitted to make your defence of a
reasonable excuse and being released and getting your equipment back.

JN wrote:
The unacceptable issue here is taking a photo which has the interior of
someones personal property visible and posting it on the web.

Perhaps you would correct me if I am in error, but as far as I am aware
there are no such laws of privacy in England and Wales, but there is the
separate ethical issue which you raise.

There may be no direct law but there is obviously some laws which could
be applied or peeping Tom's would have free reign. Try this outside some
higher profile houses and I believe he will soon find out about the law.

My point is purely ethical, I don't mind external views but when the
bulk of the image is focused on the internals I believe this is too far.

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:37:05 -0800, jamie_p84 wrote:
The comment was less about you and more about the hypocrisy and dual-
standards of certain usenet posters...

That is to be expected.

In bourgeois democracies, politicians and government always tends to
reflect the ethics, morals, and prejudices. of the electorate.

Thus one should not be at all surprised when you see the same features of
the current government and politicians exhibited by members of the
general public and of course newsgroup posters.

With regards to the police in the UKofGB&NI today, there are two key
factors to consider, the better known unaccountable ACPO

http://www.acpo.police.UK/

and the almost unknown, but highly influential, an insidious social
conditioning (brainwashing) organisation, "Common Purpose",

http://www.commonpurpose.org.UK/home.aspx

On 18 Feb, 09:59, J G Miller wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:37:05 -0800, jamie_p84 wrote:

* * The comment was less about you and more about the hypocrisy and dual-
* * standards of certain usenet posters...

That is to be expected.

In bourgeois democracies, politicians and government always tends to
reflect the ethics, morals, and prejudices. of the electorate.

Thus one should not be at all surprised when you see the same features of
the current government and politicians exhibited by members of the
general public and of course newsgroup posters.

With regards to the police in the UKofGB&NI today,

Oh do stop that. Do you realise how silly it makes you look?

there are two key
factors to consider, the better known unaccountable ACPO

* * * * http://www.acpo.police.UK/

and the almost unknown, but highly influential, an insidious social
conditioning (brainwashing) organisation, "Common Purpose",

* * * * http://www.commonpurpose.org.UK/home.aspx

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 02:30:15 -0800, Mike wrote:
Oh do stop that.

Do you realise how silly it makes you look?

Do stop what?

Do you realise how silly it makes you look?

Barking out unclear instructions in the manner of an RSM makes you look
silly.