[Closed] Another brainless idea from Gordy and Mandy.

And your source for this is?

I love Gordon's ideas.

They provide a brief moment of merriment safe in the knowledge that he has now run out of time and won't be able to enact anything else to cause even more damge to the country.

Hahahaha. That is really funny.

Not seen/heard anything about this - link ?

I'd quite like to see a link or reference, so I can see what has been actually said.

So [i]if[/i] this is true then I wonder if they've told Google who are systematically photographing everything in the world from land and from space!!

I thought this issue had been in a state of remission? Are you saying that it has become even more draconian?

I saw that Boring Frown was due to make a speech at New Old Labour's "catchphrase" launch party on the tele, but quite honestly whenever I see mention of this or similar, I either switch over or off to avoid inadvertantly decorating the wall with my stomach lining...

It's been mentioned on a few threads on here the last one was [url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/flickr-what-licence-setting ]Here[/url]

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Bill ]wiki page[/url]

[i]Il Presidente has come up with the most stoopid idea that he has yet managed to think up. Gordy, prompted by Mandy, wants to ban all photography in public places. [/i]

Have you seen your tablets recently?

Load of pish.

sources?

They want us to take a 2nd look at them...............................................Yep done that doesnt change a thing, still think they are a buch of brainless lying no hopers who dont have a clue. So they think doing a speech in front of a load of Labout toerag supporters will get them the vote they need, poor deluded souls.

TandemJeremy - Member
Load of pish.

sources?

BikePawl - Member
It's been mentioned on a few threads on here the last one was [url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/flickr-what-licence-setting ]Here[/url]

wiki page

where has this come from? the nearest I can find is [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7888301.stm ]this BBC news item[/url]

"From [i]16th february[/i], anyone taking a photograph of a police officer could be deemed to have committed a criminal offence.

That is because of a new law - Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act - which has come into force.

It permits the arrest of anyone found "eliciting, publishing or communicating information" relating to members of the armed forces, intelligence services and police officers, which is "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism".

That means anyone taking a picture of one of those people could face a fine or a prison sentence of up to 10 years, if a link to terrorism is proved. "

"It's been mentioned on a few threads on here the last one was Here

wiki page"

which is actually about digital copyright infringement? could you provide a better source than one seemingly about an entirely different topic?

No I can't, been looking back but got bored after 15 pages.
It might have been in a thread by simonfbarnes.
I'll have anotyher look

BS then 🙂

lol fair do's

Is this anything to do with this?
[url= http://www.copyrightaction.com/forum/uk-gov-nationalises-orphans-and-bans-non-consensual-photography-in-public?page=1 ]UK Government nationalises orphans and bans non-consensual photography in public[/url]

The relevant paragraph is about 1/3 of the way down 'The ICO code : put that camera away, my face is private'.

A link in that section goes to here:
[url= http://ico-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/cop/pio?pointId=1061680#document-1061680 ]ICO - Codes of Practice[/url]

I'm not sure what's going on, personally I have no plans to change my photography habits in the slightest. Obviously the first link could well be biased and inflammatory. Also, it apparently only applies to professional photographers, though how you'd tell the difference in a crowd (size of camera?!), will be interesting.

I wonder if this is opening the way for legal cases similar to all the ambulance chaser adverts on the TV... "have you been photographed when you hadn't given permission? You may be entitled to compensation..."

Kind of not true really- linky here (about half way down after the digital commerce/orphan works bit):
http://tiny.cc/HZRO7

basically the gist is an apparent ban on pro (not amateur) photogs taking pictures without permison of anyone who appears in them due to data protection...but you can see where this will lead due to legislation creep and the hysterical public who seem to regard anyone with a camera as a nonce or terrorist...never mind the fact we are captured on cctv a zillion times a day without complaint (oh and it wont apply to cctv)

beaten to it - damn kids distracting me

sorry, no kids here 🙂

If this policy on photography will lead to a decimation of 'the tourist industry', then surely this is a good opportunity to rid ourselves of The Windsors (note, a bunch of foreigners, who have infiltrated Britain under a cover alias)- as tourism seems to be the main justification from the toadies for keeping them.
Yeah, it might turn out to be a good policy... 😉

Surely the point of the governments interest in limiting photography (even in 'moderate' already existing forms) is to stop the public gathering evidence of government misbehaviour - such as beating up people in demonstrations, getting rid of evidence of torture, not seeing MPs doing compromising things and such like? Yet it is OK to digitally strip us public naked and photograph us if we want to travel by plane. We are being led like sheep into a fear culture where to question or record government behaviour is nearly at the point of becoming a criminal.
I never thought I would write that about my own country 🙁