I was shooting on the WC run and took lots of pics like this one of Nick Craig.

That was taken just above the point it turned into this.

Also shot quite a lot of stuff before the finish like this.

Plus usual finish shots and some other bits and pieces.

(and the reason I'm not currently adding numbers to pics is because I'm waiting for another gallery to upload)

Just sorting the photos, which will be available at http://www.rightplacerighttime.co.uk – maybe tomorrow, or possibly Wednesday – searchable by rider number.

Just looking at the pics, Johnny Pugh was first over the line and Nick Craig was second. If the clock was right on my assistant's camera then they finished at 13.43 and 13.49 respectively. Last finisher, who would have done the shortened course, was at 17.29

m-f

About 2000 words ago you said

I am happy to accept I may be wrong

You know what, I'm not sure I believe you.

He provided the picture to the magazine, not someone else.

OK good point – I misremembered what he had said BUT he would still have had to have been made aware of such T&Cs

It's not sufficient that they were available in a locked filing cabinet in locked room with a sign saying beware of the leopard.

And all of this sort of stuff on the BBC site has only come about in the last few years with the rise of citizen journalism on the web.

Ah – I see you've now added a bit more to the BBC bit.

Look at point 8, first line.

the BBC example clearly shows what I am saying may well be correct

No it doesn't.

I see you've just added the BBC bit to your post.

It's irrelevant. The OP didn't supply the pic to the mag, someone else did, but they had no right to.

Works the same way as stolen goods. Even if you receive stolen goods in good faith, they don't belong to you.

m-f

You're wrong.

I was trying to make a helpful analogy to help you understand why. If i didn't know I was right I wouldn't have bothered.

What's the point of "taking a devils advocate perspective"? it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.

You've already told us you don't actually know the law on this, but I do.

Also, it may be the case that the publication has T&Cs available that state all images supplied become their property.

You can't unilaterally reassign someone else's copyright – it would require a positive action by the OP.

Stop digging.

Without T&Cs surely they could equally argue that he gave the image to them.

Quite the reverse I would have thought. In the absence of a contract then the copyright would be presumed to be his.

If someone was driving a car and couldn't produce the Registration Certificate, you wouldn't assume that they must have been given it would you?

Photographers very rarely reassign their copyright. Generally they sell a license to use the image in certain ways. Very much like software actually. Just because you've bought a copy, doesn't mean you can then pass it on to someone else. Likewise, just because someone offers you a pirate copy, doesn't make you less guilty if you get caught using it.

You do have to make a bit of an effort at toddler groups etc. I'm a fairly self contained sort anyway, so it didn't really bother me that I wasn't "one of the gang". I just did my bit making the tea, getting stuff out etc and played with the kids. On the whole the mums were polite but not overly friendly, though there was one woman there who had the same green interests as me and we hit it off, did a bit of babysitting swapping etc and she now goes to spinning classes with my wife, her youngest comes around quite often to play with ours etc.

Going to toddler groups and stuff is quite important as it is useful to build up a support network of other parents with kids the same age as yours. As they get older they will play together, and it is good to be able to take turns taking the kids to sports / social things etc, or do babysitting swaps with other parents – otherwise as they get older you might find a lot of demands on your time as chauffeur / chaperone.

Having other people's kids round to play is also a good thing. The kids like it, but it also makes your life easier as they get on with playing and free up your time to do other things – even if just sitting down for a cup of tea.

It's your copyright unless you explicitly handed it over.

If your friend gave them the pics to use with a specific article and they used it for something else they were a bit naughty. But I have to say this sort of behaviour is rather common.

If I were you I would write to them and point out that they are using the pic for a commercial purpose never intended when it was supplied and ask them if they would like to offer you some money for continued use of it.

If it is in some promotional literature they are unlikely to want to put your credit on the pic, but they may well be prepared to bung you a few quid, though probably tens of £ rather than thousands of £

Or they might just drop your pic and use someone else's and your claim to fame will be gone.

It's probably not worth suing them.

Fair point El-bent but what choice do most people have at this point as money is badly needed to put food on the table.

Call me out of touch, but I think you'll find that actually, very few people actually need money to "put food on the table"

Whereas, lots of people want money to pay for their second car, mobile phone contract, overseas holidays, convenience food, sky TV etc etc.

And BTW, I'm not saying this because I think people should take pay cuts (apart from that Birmingham bin man). I'm saying it because I think there are a lot of people, who could live on a lot less money whilst out on strike if they needed to.

Me.

We've got kids who are now 6 (Agnes) and 5 (Arthur). My wife took about 6 months off after each and she is also a teacher so we have a reasonable amount of time together with the kids. In the early days we had a child minder one day a week, then once they were old enough we took up the Labour introduced (little bit of politics) free nursery places for 2 days a week. That gave me enough time to do other things and not go barmy. As well as looking after the kids I managed to spend quite a bit of time doing up the house, cooked from scratch each day, worked an allotment and started my photo business. I can't say that our house is spotlessly clean or always tidy, but that's one of the areas I'm prepared to compromise on.

Now the kids are at school full time, I'm doing up a different house, running my photo business and still doing cooking and gardening, but now I also have time for exercise again! (went for an hour's run today).

On the whole I would say it is a nice arrangement for everyone. My wife is a little bit conflicted over missing time with the kids V being quite into her job, but other than that I don't think there are any real problems.

I'm trying to think back and see if I can offer any tips for the early days. Other's may have other ideas, but I would say that time spent getting them to eat properly, sleep regularly, be interested in books (by reading to them A LOT), is time well spent and will pay back later. Go to a toddler group (or groups). Go for lots of walks. Use the local library. Don't use the electric babysitter. Embrace the opportunity to spend time buying/cooking decent food. Don't buy (or accept) any toys that make annoying noises. Get a backpack with a baby seat etc etc.

In summary – go for it – it won't do you or your child any harm.

Option 3 – no interest.

I might possibly feel a shade of sympathy, knowing how much more they would be enjoying themsleves if they weren't obese, but maybe that is patronising?

andrewh

Council man was interviewed and he said 'It didn't cost council-tax payers a penny. The money came from DEFRA.'
IT'S ALL TAX-PAYER'S MONEY YOU &*%@ING HALFWIT! They don't get the concept that we all pay for stuff, regardless of which budget it comes from.

You are right, but you don't seem to get the concept that "They" are also part of "we"

Ha ha, talkemada – thanks for bringing me that bit of lunchtime fun.

Just in case any of you missed that link:

made me laugh.

Didn't you mention something earlier about absurd responses?

You know the difference between funny peculiar and funny ha ha?

Some criminals work pretty hard. Just because it's not legal doesn't mean it's not hard.

molgrips, have you watched that video yet?

tiger roach, it's a parable.

molgrips,

Have a look at "money as debt" on youtube – it explains how money becomes concentrated in the hands of the already wealthy.

You need to understand how money is created before you can understand why it doesn't "trickle down" from the wealthy to the poor.

I was thinking more along the lines of costs saved because it might be more effective in changing the mindset of offenders so they are less likely to offend again.

Also depending on where they went – you might find that things like tagging are unnecessary.

I think it is a good idea, though I see some areas that might be open to abuse.

Maybe this scheme could be offered as a voluntary alternative to sitting in one of our very expensively maintained prison cells?

What party put that forward then?

luked2,

Can you try making your point again – not sure what you mean.

Which things? Food, travel, motoring, computing, telecoms, clothes etc have never been cheaper.

Just to take one example – but an important one I think – petrol/diesel?

Some people might include that as a cost in your categories of travel and motoring, but of course it is having a knock on effect into ALL of the other areas.

Happy to go through them one by one, but maybe someone else would like a go?

I'm familiar with the term, yes. But you'll be unsurprised to hear that I don't subscribe to the thoery.

hora,

I've tried to make this point already, but there is more to this than politics.

Things are getting more expensive due to the fundamental limits of economic growth on our planet.

In the last 20 years the world population has grown from less than 5 billion to nearly 7 billion AND those of us in the west in particular are consuming ever more resources. We are running short of wood, fish, water, space and perhaps most importantly, oil.

It is not possible to legislate to increase any of these things. IMO the party to vote for is the one that is most likely to accept that these things are becoming problematic rather than peddling the story that economic growth can go on indefinitely.

I'm afraid it's inevitable that many things will become increasingly expensive in the future, whoever is in power.

rightplacerighttime – how can you propose things that you don't understand? People can be full of all sorts of idealistic views but what's the point without proposing practical steps?

Because you're baiting me. It's why FoI requests can be rejected as vexatious. I already made my point, but your response was similar to a toddler starting the "why?…" because… "why?…" because… loop.

I told you, look it up. Try Googling "maximum wage".

RPRT, don't call debate absurd because not everyone conforms to your point of view, now back on topic

I didn't call debate absurd, I called you absurd. I even spelled out exactly why, but apparently you can't remember what we've already discussed. Just after you said it was the poor who drive consumption I said that I thought a max salary for a CEO might be 20 times their lowest paid employee's wage. Then when I asked how "hard" someone might be able to work in order to justify a huge salary (maybe hundreds of times that of an average emplyee) you asked if I thought everyone should earn the same money. So to sum up, you are absurd, because you ask questions to which you have already been given an answer.

It's got nothing to do with your opinions or ideology, just your propensity for spouting twaddle.

I can't be arsed. You're wasting my time. I don't claim to have thought up these ideas you know. They've been put forward before by eminent sociologists and economists. Go and look them up if you don't believe me.

Well you could (not saying you should) look at the average wage then apply 100% tax on everything 20 times greater than that.

Obviously I've only given that 3 seconds thought, and if I doubled that I might come up with something better, but it does answer your question.

But maybe next time you could give it 3 seconds thought instead and save me doing all this typing?

By your rational, it would mean that no matter what career path you took, as long as you work hard at it then you should all earn the same money?

No, I'm not. You are being absurd. I've tried to give serious responses to your points, but your responses to mine are fatuous.

Did I say everyone should earn the same money, or did I say that I thought a multiple of 20 times from top to bottom was fair?

LHS,are you saying that you would find it hard to get by on takehome pay of just £120 k ?

And when you say 'worked damn hard' just how hard would that be? Would it be as hard say as psychiatric nurse, or a bomb disposal expert, or an underwater welder, or a trawlerman, etc, etc.

See, it's a meaningless thing to say.

On the other hand, Islam doesn't allow usury, so maybe we'd be better off in an Islamic state?

Well not sure why the poor have to get poorer but the rich get richer if they carry on earning which is fine isn't it? We then grab a load of it when they die.

I'm afraid the poor do have to get poorer for the rich to get richer. Our economy is based on debt. As most of us start with nothing, we have to borrow money to do anything (don't get picky – I'm generalising) we then have to pay back that money with interest to the people we borrowed it from. There are various ways this can happen, but essentially it ends up with the poor being obligated to the rich. The odd poor person may end up rich, but generally not.

BTW, what does seem unfair to me is taking home less than 50% of any part of income.

Why? Need some logic for that.

Yes I know that is a stupid question, but I'm just following your lead.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

I love that Ghandi quote.

The area of our society that puts the pressures on for the perfect material goods is the very same area who can't afford these items.

You are categorically wrong.

But what's their fair share? Whatever tax regime is in place?

Good question.

I'm not sure. But it's been suggested that the CEO of a company should earn no more than 20 times the salary of the lowest paid worker. That seems "fair" to me.

As for those who start their own businesses – more tricky – but we can flesh out the finer details once I'm nearer to seizing power.

If you look at the majority of the rich in this country they don't go around showing off all their possessions.

It's not so much what rich individuals do (although there are plenty who flaunt their wealth) it's the way society responds to them and the inequality between top and bottom. People see footballers earning 50 k a week and doing stupid things with it in Hello magazine and think that that is a great way to live. But we can't all live that way, which makes a lot of people unhappy. I'ts not too difficult to see how that works is it? There is loads of research in this area – read Affluenza.