please empty your brain below
|
I was also on the Greenway Bridge yesterday and I must admit that I was taken a bit by suprise at how many people were there, the cyclists that you mention looked very jolly all smiling for their group photo despite the fact that they all had thick lines of mud up their backs, you on the other hand DG looked as though you knew exactly what you were doing there and where you were going at about 11.30 on a fresh sunny Saturday morning.
fishislandskin | 07.12.08 - 8:21 a.m. | #
|
Extra points for a photograph of a bike against the wall ...
Debster | Homepage | 07.12.08 - 8:54 a.m. | #
|
Extra points!
(fishislandskin does not appear in this photo)
diamond geezer | Homepage | 07.12.08 - 9:00 a.m. | #
|
I notice that whoever put the website together for 100 New Bridge St has as poor a command of English as they do of common sense: "It comprise of", indeed. Harrumph!
Autolycus | Homepage | 07.12.08 - 9:54 a.m. | #
|
Ha ha wrong wall! You really need to park it under the sign saying no bikes with the guy coming out saying no photos. You get a full house for that.
Or indeed a night in the slammer.
Debster | Homepage | 07.12.08 - 10:49 a.m. | #
|
I think you should organise a "flash mob" event and we'll all turn up at 100 New Bridge Street with our (flash) cameras and engage in taking loads and loads of photos.
If a building is going to go to the trouble of putting art on the outside, why stop people admiring it?
Stupid jobsworth - with that attitude to photographers, I bet he is an ex-tube station worker.
IanVisits | Homepage | 07.12.08 - 11:00 a.m. | #
|
Well I'm all for a mass visit to 100 New Bridge Street!
Andrew | Homepage | 07.12.08 - 11:29 a.m. | #
|
By motorbike!
Debster | Homepage | 07.12.08 - 12:12 p.m. | #
|
If they don't like people taking photographs of their building I would have told him to not leave it out in the street where anyone might see it.
Invicta | 07.12.08 - 12:15 p.m. | #
|
I think you should organise a "flash mob" event and we'll all turn up at 100 New Bridge Street with our (flash) cameras and engage in taking loads and loads of photos.
Damn, you beat me to it, Ian. I might pop up there this afternoon. On a bike.
darryl853 | Homepage | 07.12.08 - 2:21 p.m. | #
|
You need a copy of the photographers' rights to carry around and hand out as necessary. Had I not lost a lot of data recently, I could let you have one...
*scurries off*
*returns*
It's here for download : http://www.sirimo.co.uk/
ukpr.php...rs\\_rights\\_guide
Blue Witch | Homepage | 07.12.08 - 6:19 p.m. | #
|
A photo of my house now appears on Google Street View. I don't know whether I should be worried about this. However, I do feel aggravated that it was done without my knowledge or permission.
Great Aunt Annie | 07.12.08 - 8:44 p.m. | #
|
Someone tried to look at me the other day. I got so angry that I demanded to see their paperwork and legal documents permitting them to look at me. Makes me sick, people thinking they can just poke their nose into anyone's business.
But on a serious note there are photographer's rights as Blue Witch pointed out, and they're definitely worth exercising. Britain is not quite North Korea just yet, despite what the Daily Mail might have you believe. If I was standing on a public right of way, taking pictures of buildings, and someone came out of a building requesting that I stop, i'd just laugh in their face and tell them to call the police. Even then, the police wouldn't be able to do anything.
So you've got the upper hand in this situation. It's always a laugh to see the jobsworths acting high & mighty until they realize they don't actually have any power or authority at all. Usually they'll just get themselves into trouble of their own, they tend to forget that by attempting to take your camera they are committing theft.
Blackstock | 07.12.08 - 9:13 p.m. | #
|
Extra points!
(fishislandskin does not appear in this photo)
diamond geezer | Homepage | 12.07.08 - 9:00 am | #
I think that Debster is refering to the wall at the rear of 100 New Bridge Street and not to me appearing in any photograph, thankfully I was not confronted by any Security guards on the Greenway whilst taking my photograph of our very own DG taking his photograph of The Olympic Stadium site.
fishislandskin | 07.12.08 - 10:13 p.m. | #
|
I got excited (sad I know) to think I might have seen a photo of DG's back...but now I am confused which is not unusual.
I saw an amusing sign in the Cineworld cinema in Luton over the weekend. Apparently Cineworld reserve the right to evict a person if they are found to be patronising (amongst other things) another person. The sign had no punctuation.
I would like to see an eviction for patronising Another. I wonder if sarcasm and irony will be "offences" soon?
The sign was more entertaining than Quantum of Solace.
Amused | 08.12.08 - 2:34 a.m. | #
|
Nothing says artistic importance like attaching a laminated printout.
Heather | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 4:36 a.m. | #
|
If I was standing on a public right of way, taking pictures of buildings, and someone came out of a building requesting that I stop, i'd just laugh in their face and tell them to call the police. Even then, the police wouldn't be able to do anything.
Of course they could - depending on the exact circumstances.
What they should be doing is charging the security guard with harassment (Harassment Act 1997). Basically this involves either trying to prevent someone not to do something that that they are perfectly entitled to do or trying to make them do something something illegal. Unfortunately the harasser's "course of conduct" must involve at least two occasions. It is not clear whether this must be be to the same person.
Of course I doubt if the police actually would do this even if you pointed out the specific offence that had been committed.
See, for example, www.harassment-law.co.uk for more details.
Pedantic of Purley | 08.12.08 - 7:11 a.m. | #
|
|
|
TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy
|
