Police were "concerned about the way he was using his camera". WTF? Just how many "ways" are there to "use" a camera?

Originally Posted by Don

Police were "concerned about the way he was using his camera". WTF? Just how many "ways" are there to "use" a camera?

He was using a Leica as well; to non-photography types, the Leica is a small discrete camera, favoured by those photographers who are into reportage and documentary image making.

Welcome to the liberal democracy that is Britain Don, just don't use your camera in a public place or "the world's finest police service" may be inclined to question and / or arrest you.

Hi,

yes it is arbitrarily unlawful to film in a public place - one of the joys of living in a Police State where the police have lost sight of who they are employed by and the drop in standards of those recruited.

One of the joys of overturning centuries of tried and tested Law and Justice and imposing, largely against the will of the people, the undemocratic control methods of the malign EU - it will get increasingly worse as the police state takes on more and more control.

Watch this:
YouTube - Disgusting Police Brutality On Women

There are other joys in a Police State:
YouTube - Petition? Nay Laddie

You don't even need to take a picture!:
YouTube - UK police brutality

Then of course there are the pointless and brural killings - murder if anyone else did it but corruptly covered up and rewarded when the police are out of control, ill disciplined and utterly incompetent leading to what I consider to be a murder - when one man goes armed to kill and due to poor disciplin, poor training, incompetent leadership and arrogant disregard needlessly kills people.

There are around 37 instances on my blog alone. The Home Office is unable to identify a single solitary execution by the police that irrefutably saved a single life!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

You do have to wonder where the concept of policing by consent has gone; I think you are absolutely on the money Greg when you write that the police have forgotten who they are employed by, with the result that ordinary members of the public can seemingly no longer participate in what was a previously accepted and lawful hobby without fear on a polce hand on their shoulder. Normally I'm not a fan of the 'thin end of the wedge' argument, however, given the police service's repeated 'anti-terrorism' motivated overstepping of the mark regarding photographers, I do wonder where it will all end: photography today, what next tomorrow?

Originally Posted by Don

Police were "concerned about the way he was using his camera". WTF? Just how many "ways" are there to "use" a camera?

As long as its done in the privacy of ones home whos counting?

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

You do have to wonder where the concept of policing by consent has gone; I think you are absolutely on the money Greg when you write that the police have forgotten who they are employed by, with the result that ordinary members of the public can seemingly no longer participate in what was a previously accepted and lawful hobby without fear on a polce hand on their shoulder. Normally I'm not a fan of the 'thin end of the wedge' argument, however, given the police service's repeated 'anti-terrorism' motivated overstepping of the mark regarding photographers, I do wonder where it will all end: photography today, what next tomorrow?

Hi,

sadly for an answer to your question you need only read and understand The Lisbon Treaty to realise the answer is a full blown Police State in a desparate attempt to forcibly maintain suppression of the people to try pointlessly to make the fatuous experiment of a communist style undemocratic EUropean Union work - which will of course inevitably collapse and it is towards surviving that collapse, which has the propensity for upwards of 200,000,000 deaths in EUrope.

The wars of disassociating are a scarey inevitability - already the whole of EUrope is a nett food importer with virtually nothing produced to sustain any meaningfull export market and thus no way to earn the money that is needed to buy the food required, largely due to crass missmanagement of agriculture and commerce by the inept idiocy of the centralised and corrupt EU.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Originally Posted by Greg Lance-Watkins

Hi,

sadly for an answer to your question you need only read and understand The Lisbon Treaty to realise the answer is a full blown Police State in a desparate attempt to forcibly maintain suppression of the people to try pointlessly to make the fatuous experiment of a communist style undemocratic EUropean Union work - which will of course inevitably collapse and it is towards surviving that collapse, which has the propensity for upwards of 200,000,000 deaths in EUrope.

The wars of disassociating are a scarey inevitability - already the whole of EUrope is a nett food importer with virtually nothing produced to sustain any meaningfull export market and thus no way to earn the money that is needed to buy the food required, largely due to crass missmanagement of agriculture and commerce by the inept idiocy of the centralised and corrupt EU.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

I'm setting off on a stroll down tangent lane here, but I remember hearing an expert on demographics stating, and without hyperbole or hystrionics, that to be truly self-sufficient, Britain needed to have a population of approx. 30 million. Rather than control the population, this Govt and its EU friends appear intent on removing most meaningful forms of immigration control and doing so to the point where no matter how efficient our agricultural sector becomes (not likely given the current crazy EU rules) the UK will be unable to feed itself.

I don't know whether we are sleep walking into a police state, but our historic rights and the balance of power between police, state and citizenry has changed: you can now be arrested for any offence, the police can search you without reasonable cause in designated areas and refusal gets you arrested, CCTV is everywhere, the police hold the DNA of 10,000s of innocent people (unlawfully), the Police have become increasingly more politicised i.e. their calls for extended detention without trial. All this has occurred against a backdrop of an increasing political shift of power from the nation state to the EU, which of course means that what little power the individual citizen had has been further diminished. Not looking great really.

There's been such an outcry about the way in which the police have interpreted various sections of the 2000 terrorism act that the Home Office were forced to put up a web page detailing exactly what powers the police have under these. It can be found here - Photography and Counter-Terrorism legislation | Home Office.

If there are any keen photographers amongst forum members, it's wise to make sure you know about these powers so that if you are ever stopped by the police you know what to say and do, the most important of which is to ascertain which section of the act you're being stopped under. The commonest is section 44, which reads "...enable uniformed police officers to stop and search anyone within an authorised area for the purposes of searching for articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism. The powers do not require a reasonable suspicion that such articles will be found." It's very loosely worded and unspecific as to what is an authorised area, and the sentence that the authorities "...do not require a reasonable suspicion..." is particularly iniquitous.

There's a print-out card it might be wise to carry with you if you do go taking photos in places where there have been known to arrests; it can be found here - Photographer not a Terrorist. A summary of the main points are below:-

Your Rights

If you are stopped and searched under section 44 of the Terrorism Act, you do not have to give your:

‣ Name
‣ Address
‣ Date of Birth
‣ DNA, or
‣ Reason for being there
‣ Nor do you have to explain where you are going However, if the police decide that there is reasonable suspicion to arrest you for an offence, you do have to give your name and address.

• You do not have to comply with any attempt to photograph you, although you cannot flee the scene.
• The Police cannot delete any images on your camera. They can only view them in very limited circumstances.
• If you are driving a vehicle, when stopped you must give your name and address.
• Failure to stop or obstructing a police constable acting under section 44 is a criminal offence.

Police Powers

Under s44, a police constable in uniform is entitled to:

• Pat you down
• Detain you for the duration of the search
• Remove outer clothing
• Require you to remove any item which he reasonably believes you are wearing to conceal your identity
• Look through your pockets and anything you are carrying
• Seize any article he reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism.
• Search your vehicle and anyone in it.

What You Should Do

• Insist on a written record of the search
• Make sure it is legible and includes details of the officers’ shoulder number and the reason for the stop.
• Note exactly why they said you were being stopped and searched – this may be more extensive than the reference in the record slip.
• Ask to see the officers’ warrant card and note the number. (This is useful when making a complaint if they have moved stations and their shoulder number changes)

Note

A Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) may not perform a s44 search without a police officer present.

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

I don't know whether we are sleep walking into a police state, but our historic rights and the balance of power between police, state and citizenry has changed: you can now be arrested for any offence, the police can search you without reasonable cause in designated areas and refusal gets you arrested, CCTV is everywhere, the police hold the DNA of 10,000s of innocent people (unlawfully), the Police have become increasingly more politicised i.e. their calls for extended detention without trial. All this has occurred against a backdrop of an increasing political shift of power from the nation state to the EU, which of course means that what little power the individual citizen had has been further diminished. Not looking great really.

What you see is exactly what happens historically in all states on the slippery slope of leftist politics. It is an ideal of government controlling the people rather than the people controlling the government. It is the belief that only government knows what is good and proper for the individual and that to achieve that 'good and proper' state control of the people is essential. At its worst dissenters are stood against the wall or carted off for re-education, at it's best we give up essential freedom for temporary safety, to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin. The 'nanny' state. I say that, knowing full well, that the total opposite is also as bad in it's way. It's in striking a balance that the problem lies.

Originally Posted by Midas

There's been such an outcry about the way in which the police have interpreted various sections of the 2000 terrorism act that the Home Office were forced to put up a web page detailing exactly what powers the police have under these. It can be found here - Photography and Counter-Terrorism legislation | Home Office.

Essentially this is so vague and subjective that one can apparently be stopped for almost anything that the officer believes is, to him, reasonably suspicious, which is to say for almost anything anywhere. Sounds like it was dictated by a cop to a bureaucrat. I know, from experience, that if you give a cop more discretionary power, he's likely to use it in a non discretionary manner. It's human nature. Give me a hammer, all I'm gonna see are nails. See that guy digging hurriedly in his camera bag? He may be pulling out a handgun, or maybe it's just a different lens? More control of the individual.

Originally Posted by Midas

There's been such an outcry about the way in which the police have interpreted various sections of the 2000 terrorism act that the Home Office were forced to put up a web page detailing exactly what powers the police have under these. It can be found here - Photography and Counter-Terrorism legislation | Home Office.

If there are any keen photographers amongst forum members, it's wise to make sure you know about these powers so that if you are ever stopped by the police you know what to say and do, the most important of which is to ascertain which section of the act you're being stopped under. The commonest is section 44, which reads "...enable uniformed police officers to stop and search anyone within an authorised area for the purposes of searching for articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism. The powers do not require a reasonable suspicion that such articles will be found." It's very loosely worded and unspecific as to what is an authorised area, and the sentence that the authorities "...do not require a reasonable suspicion..." is particularly iniquitous.

There's a print-out card it might be wise to carry with you if you do go taking photos in places where there have been known to arrests; it can be found here - Photographer not a Terrorist. A summary of the main points are below:-

Your Rights

If you are stopped and searched under section 44 of the Terrorism Act, you do not have to give your:

‣ Name
‣ Address
‣ Date of Birth
‣ DNA, or
‣ Reason for being there
‣ Nor do you have to explain where you are going However, if the police decide that there is reasonable suspicion to arrest you for an offence, you do have to give your name and address.

• You do not have to comply with any attempt to photograph you, although you cannot flee the scene.
• The Police cannot delete any images on your camera. They can only view them in very limited circumstances.
• If you are driving a vehicle, when stopped you must give your name and address.
• Failure to stop or obstructing a police constable acting under section 44 is a criminal offence.

Police Powers

Under s44, a police constable in uniform is entitled to:

• Pat you down
• Detain you for the duration of the search
• Remove outer clothing
• Require you to remove any item which he reasonably believes you are wearing to conceal your identity
• Look through your pockets and anything you are carrying
• Seize any article he reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism.
• Search your vehicle and anyone in it.

What You Should Do

• Insist on a written record of the search
• Make sure it is legible and includes details of the officers’ shoulder number and the reason for the stop.
• Note exactly why they said you were being stopped and searched – this may be more extensive than the reference in the record slip.
• Ask to see the officers’ warrant card and note the number. (This is useful when making a complaint if they have moved stations and their shoulder number changes)

Note

A Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) may not perform a s44 search without a police officer present.

In other words, don't carry any proof of id in your outer clothing. Given the European Courts recent ruling that s.44 is excessive and unlawful (British Journal of Photography - UPDATE: Section 44 powers remain in place despite European Court decision), it should be interesting to see what would happen if someone subject to these powers refuses to comply, after all, one is not obliged to comply with an unlawful request from plod.

Why diddnt the guy just give a false name and address and go on his way? or was he just being a prat

Originally Posted by Streetwalker

Why diddnt the guy just give a false name and address and go on his way? or was he just being a prat

Why should he give his name and address to the police if he's not doing anything wrong? Why did the police conjour up some complete BS reason to arrest someone for doing something clearly neither illegal nor "anti-social"? Perhaps having been called fascists for so many years, the police now actually believe that they actually are fascists and can act accordingly.

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

Why should he give his name and address to the police if he's not doing anything wrong? Why did the police conjour up some complete BS reason to arrest someone for doing something clearly neither illegal nor "anti-social"? Perhaps having been called fascists for so many years, the police now actually believe that they actually are fascists and can act accordingly.

The point being he wouldn't be giving HIS name and address. He walks away and the stupid copper is happy that shes filled in another page of the notebook

Originally Posted by Streetwalker

The point being he wouldn't be giving HIS name and address. He walks away and the stupid copper is happy that shes filled in another page of the notebook

The point is he shouldn't have to resort to such a ruse in the first place. By complying, even by lying, he would be re-enforcing the officers sense of mistaken entitlement.

Originally Posted by Don

The point is he shouldn't have to resort to such a ruse in the first place. By complying, even by lying, he would be re-enforcing the officers sense of mistaken entitlement.

Yeah and couldn't lying actually give the officer due course to detain you further if it was exposed as a lie later on? Did anyone see that protester outside the so called 'blair trial' at the Iraq Inquiry? A seemingly quite well-to-do chap, whilst being led away by the police for causing a disturbance, he shouted "If we're going to have a police state, at least organise it properly!" Could be a Conservative Election slogan that

Originally Posted by Midas

Under s44, a police constable in uniform is entitled to:
[INDENT]• Pat you down
• Detain you for the duration of the search
• Remove outer clothing

Can I demand this as a right?

His or my outer clothing? Does it state clearly? I only ask as I may be entitled to get patted down by a scantily dressed officer which could be pleasurable and grounds for recompense too

Originally Posted by uncon

Can I demand this as a right?

His or my outer clothing? Does it state clearly? I only ask as I may be entitled to get patted down by a scantily dressed officer which could be pleasurable and grounds for recompense too

Otherwise known as "having one's cake and eating it too".

Originally Posted by Don

The point is he shouldn't have to resort to such a ruse in the first place. By complying, even by lying, he would be re-enforcing the officers sense of mistaken entitlement.

I agree ,no he shouldn't have to lie in the first place,but the game is staying on step ahead of Bill,and avoiding a couple of hours in the nick.
I myself was asked for my name and address not long ago for the reason of taking a claw hammer (offensive weapon) home on a Friday to do some DIY over the weekend.After my initial "you must be a'ving a laugh" rant the piglett was happy to send me on my way with a warning and "my" name in his book.

Originally Posted by Streetwalker

I agree ,no he shouldn't have to lie in the first place,but the game is staying on step ahead of Bill,and avoiding a couple of hours in the nick.
I myself was asked for my name and address not long ago for the reason of taking a claw hammer (offensive weapon) home on a Friday to do some DIY over the weekend.After my initial "you must be a'ving a laugh" rant the piglett was happy to send me on my way with a warning and "my" name in his book.

In my book that meets the definition of a nascent police state. First it's guns (and I don't wish to start a 'gun control' debate), then knives and now they've progressed to claw hammers. What's next, rocks? If not a police state, then at the very least a 'nanny state'. We are the government and will protect you from all harm, cradle to the grave, whether you want it or not.

Is it illegal to lie to a police officer in the UK as it is here? Here, they can lie to you but you cannot lie to them.

Originally Posted by Streetwalker

I myself was asked for my name and address not long ago for the reason of taking a claw hammer (offensive weapon) home on a Friday to do some DIY over the weekend.After my initial "you must be a'ving a laugh" rant the piglett was happy to send me on my way with a warning and "my" name in his book.

A warning?
He must have been joking. A claw hammer is not an offensive weapon per se.
To prove "offensive weapon in a public place" the article has to be made, adapted or intended to cause injury.
As you said you were going to do some DIY, the officer knew at that point that you were not committing an offence.

Unfortunately there are some very badly trained Police Officers, and even worse, PCSOs, who have no clue regarding the points to prove for specific offences.

Originally Posted by Barry

A warning?
He must have been joking. A claw hammer is not an offensive weapon per se.
To prove "offensive weapon in a public place" the article has to be made, adapted or intended to cause injury

Then I'd be in trouble as I have one that must have been 'intended to cause injury'. About half the time I use it, it hits my thumb instead of the nail.

You have to be careful when carrying tools in public. If you can show that you had "reasonable cause" as a result of your Job or some other sensible and believable reason, then your OK to a point. However carrying an Axe, baseball bat, hammer or similar item in public that also double as a weapon will always attract the attention of the Police, and to be honest so it should. If you have nothing to hide, then there is no issue, but what would you say if a Police officer ignored a man walking down the road with a claw hammer and he then killed your wife/daughter whatever because he was a paranoid Psytsophrenic?

I understand and fully support the idea of NOT living in a Police state, but in this type of instance, unlike blooming photography, the Police should perhaps ask the question...but I accept it is HOW they ask that is important.

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

You have to be careful when carrying tools in public. If you can show that you had "reasonable cause" as a result of your Job or some other sensible and believable reason, then your OK to a point. However carrying an Axe, baseball bat, hammer or similar item in public that also double as a weapon will always attract the attention of the Police, and to be honest so it should. If you have nothing to hide, then there is no issue, but what would you say if a Police officer ignored a man walking down the road with a claw hammer and he then killed your wife/daughter whatever because he was a paranoid Psytsophrenic?

I understand and fully support the idea of NOT living in a Police state, but in this type of instance, unlike blooming photography, the Police should perhaps ask the question...but I accept it is HOW they ask that is important.

The question is not should a policeman stop me if I'm carrying a hammer, the question should be, in a burgeoning police state, where does it end? I'm carrying a hammer, I get asked why I have a hammer. Answer is to do some DYI at home. Should the cop follow me home to be shown what I plan to do, just to be safe. Then to be truly safe, perhaps he should stay and watch. Absurd scenario? Yes, now, but how about next week after someone lies to the police and offs the Missus with the hammer instead? We don't call this a slippery slope in the US for nothing. At what point do you give up your right to be left alone, especially if you have not exhibited, what any reasonable man would deem, anti-social behavior. I prefer to stick with Benjamin Franklin and not give up 'essential liberty for temporary safety'.

So I had better sell my cameras before I am arrested?!?!

Originally Posted by Ian The Poet

So I had better sell my cameras before I am arrested?!?!

Ian, it is deemed perfectly acceptable to take out your cameras, during the dark of the new moon, and fondle them to your heart's content, as long as said fondling is not done in an antisocial manner.

Originally Posted by Don

The question is not should a policeman stop me if I'm carrying a hammer, the question should be, in a burgeoning police state, where does it end? I'm carrying a hammer, I get asked why I have a hammer. Answer is to do some DYI at home. Should the cop follow me home to be shown what I plan to do, just to be safe. Then to be truly safe, perhaps he should stay and watch. Absurd scenario? Yes, now, but how about next week after someone lies to the police and offs the Missus with the hammer instead? We don't call this a slippery slope in the US for nothing. At what point do you give up your right to be left alone, especially if you have not exhibited, what any reasonable man would deem, anti-social behavior. I prefer to stick with Benjamin Franklin and not give up 'essential liberty for temporary safety'.

Tell that to someone whose loved one was murdered. Being a US Citizen, with all due respect, your opinion of Policing the UK is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

Tell that to someone whose loved one was murdered. Being a US Citizen, with all due respect, your opinion of Policing the UK is irrelevant.

Given your newness to this forum, with all due respect, it is as relevant as it is for members who are not US citizens to comment on subjects such as US Health Care, US gun control, the US Military, former US Presidents ad infinitum. I suggest you learn a bit about the company you are in before you begin putting us in our place.

Originally Posted by Don

Given your newness to this forum, with all due respect, it is as relevant as it is for members who are not US citizens to comment on subjects such as US Health Care, US gun control, the US Military, former US Presidents ad infinitum. I suggest you learn a bit about the company you are in before you begin putting us in our place.

Don, what goes on in the US is a matter for the US people and I would only comment on something that has an impact here, such as a decision by the US President regarding International Affairs, anything else is bugger all to do with me or the population of any other country. It is people interfering with other nations internal affairs that has historically caused most of the problems in the world we live in.

Anyway, I said your point of view was irrelevant, I did not say you should not post it did I.

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

Don, what goes on in the US is a matter for the US people and I would only comment on something that has an impact here, such as a decision by the US President regarding International Affairs, anything else is bugger all to do with me or the population of any other country. It is people interfering with other nations internal affairs that has historically caused most of the problems in the world we live in.

Anyway, I said your point of view was irrelevant, I did not say you should not post it did I.

Bully for you. That is not the attitude of most here and frankly, it would be a boring forum it it were. I welcome comments from those of other nations about things that seem to be strictly of US internal concern. In fact they often are of a wider concern, especially when they are directed at the rights of other human beings. Just as things such as a developing police state should concern all free men.

Irrelevant to you perhaps, but not necessarily to all who post here. I suggest you simply skip my replies if you think they are irrelevant

Originally Posted by Don

Given your newness to this forum, with all due respect, it is as relevant as it is for members who are not US citizens to comment on subjects such as US Health Care, US gun control, the US Military, former US Presidents ad infinitum. I suggest you learn a bit about the company you are in before you begin putting us in our place.

Off on a tangent here Don, but gun control isn't necessarily the answer to high-crime / homicide: Canadians possess more firearms per person than Americans yet their homicide rate is far lower. Ok, some (i.e. gun hating Europeans) might argue, but Canada has more gun control, and fair enough yet the homicide rate of the majority of (limited gun control) northern States is on a par with (higher degree of gun control) Canada. Hmmm.

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

Off on a tangent here Don, but gun control isn't necessarily the answer to high-crime / homicide: Canadians possess more firearms per person than Americans yet their homicide rate is far lower. Ok, some (i.e. gun hating Europeans) might argue, but Canada has more gun control, and fair enough yet the homicide rate of the majority of (limited gun control) northern States is on a par with (higher degree of gun control) Canada. Hmmm.

I think there are lots of factors that are linked to Gun control. I have always been uncomfortable linking Gun ownership to murder. If someone is determined to kill someone, then they will, afterall murder existed way before Guns. Rather simplistic I know, but most criminals, certainly in Europe, do not use Legal guns to commit crime, so some of the anti-gun lobby are wrong to link legal guns to crime. In the US things are different from Europe and the culture is different too, all that impacts the perception of gun use and gun ownership. I lived/worked there for 5 years almost 20 years ago and I was not able to buy a Gun in the States..I still own 5 in Canada though. The only people who can comment on US gun control is the American people, they are the ones who have to live with it, but I think you will find that the majority of Americans probably see Gun control as a bit of a moot point as criminals are hardly likely to hand them over regardless of how tough they make any laws....but Don is the best person to answer that as I am in danger of being a hypocrite.

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

I think there are lots of factors that are linked to Gun control. I have always been uncomfortable linking Gun ownership to murder. If someone is determined to kill someone, then they will, afterall murder existed way before Guns. Rather simplistic I know, but most criminals, certainly in Europe, do not use Legal guns to commit crime, so some of the anti-gun lobby are wrong to link legal guns to crime. In the US things are different from Europe and the culture is different too, all that impacts the perception of gun use and gun ownership. I lived/worked there for 5 years almost 20 years ago and I was not able to buy a Gun in the States..I still own 5 in Canada though. The only people who can comment on US gun control is the American people, they are the ones who have to live with it, but I think you will find that the majority of Americans probably see Gun control as a bit of a moot point as criminals are hardly likely to hand them over regardless of how tough they make any laws....but Don is the best person to answer that as I am in danger of being a hypocrite.

I don't really understand why, in a forum such as this, one's nationality should be considered a bar on commenting upon a particular issue. For instance, gun control is frequently cited by many Europeans as being a key factor in the US having a higher homicide rate. You don't have to be an American to believe that this is, as you have allueded to, an over simplification - particularly when it is considered that the homicide rate in most northern states is on a par with Canada. It appears that culture is the key here, particularly as the further south you go in the US generally that higher the homicide rate.

I don't have a problem in commenting on this and I don't have a problem with Don or anyone else who is not British commenting on "British" issues; sometimes a third party can offer a far more objective outlook than those of us who experience the particular problem, in this case an over zealous police force who have been granted far too many powers by a control-freak Government. Imho.

Can we please keep this discussion to the topic of public photography in the UK......

I have won prizes for my photos of tramps in London so was that illegal? This country's police have gone way down in my estimation, it looks like photographers are the new easy targets instead of the murderers and rapists.

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

The only people who can comment on US gun control is the American people, they are the ones who have to live with it, but I think you will find that the majority of Americans probably see Gun control as a bit of a moot point as criminals are hardly likely to hand them over regardless of how tough they make any laws....but Don is the best person to answer that as I am in danger of being a hypocrite.

First off, I have no problem with anyone commenting on U.S. issues, and I intend to continue commenting on issues concerning other countries. You,, of course are correct. By definition, criminals don't comply with laws so why should anyone expect that they would comply with gun laws. It is illogical for them to do so and it is just as illogical for misguided souls to expect them to.

I wonder how many terrorism plots, either here in the UK or abroad, have actually been foiled because a Policeman noticed a person taking pictures...hmm?

And anyway, why would terrorists need to go around taking pictures of public places they intend to attack, when Google Streetview has already done them the favour!

Originally Posted by Don

First off, I have no problem with anyone commenting on U.S. issues, and I intend to continue commenting on issues concerning other countries. You,, of course are correct. By definition, criminals don't comply with laws so why should anyone expect that they would comply with gun laws. It is illogical for them to do so and it is just as illogical for misguided souls to expect them to.

Aha...you see Don...we actually agree on something...people might talk you know, and start rumours..

Originally Posted by akPRO

I wonder how many terrorism plots, either here in the UK or abroad, have actually been foiled because a Policeman noticed a person taking pictures...hmm?

And anyway, why would terrorists need to go around taking pictures of public places they intend to attack, when Google Streetview has already done them the favour!

Listen...when has common sense and the blatantly obvious truth ever stopped Government or the Police from knee jerk reacting?

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

Listen...when has common sense and the blatantly obvious truth ever stopped Government or the Police from knee jerk reacting?

Thank you Jim for showing me the error of my views

Originally Posted by akPRO

Thank you Jim for showing me the error of my views

That's OK..glad to be of service..