No, this isn’t about guns. It’s about photography. Via Insty comes this classic of governmental statist-speak. First the reaffirmation of a right, from Brit HomeSec Jacqui Smith:

‘First of all, may I take this opportunity to state that the Government greatly values the importance of the freedom of the press, and as such there is no legal restriction on photography in public places,’ Smith writes.

Then the shading:

‘Also, as you will be aware, there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place.’

And then, the hammer:

‘Decisions may be made locally to restrict or monitor photography in reasonable circumstances. That is an operational decision for the officers involved based on the individual circumstances of each situation.

‘It is for the local Chief Constable, in the case of your letter the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Force, to decide how his or her Officers and employees should best balance the rights to freedom of the press, freedom of expression and the need for public protection.’

So, to illustrate this concept in an American scenario: while we nominally have the freedom to take pictures of anything, if Mayor Daley doesn’t want you taking pics of, say, Chicago policemen beating a man to death, then the law would be on his side, not yours?


I don’ theenk so, Lucy.


I can understand the need for not allowing photos of, for example, a secret military institution. I can’t think of any other instances where photography should be prohibited by government of any description or jurisdiction.


Some years ago, I recall that two guys were arrested for taking pictures of some reservoir in New York state. The judge properly tossed the case out of court.


I note that the U.S. Forestry Service (the people who patrol, amongst other things, our national monuments) have been harassing people for taking pictures. Screw ‘em, the jumped-up little gauleiters.


Yes, I know that photos can be used to plan an attack on something or someone. I also know that taking a cop’s pic while he’s beating someone with a nightstick may cause some embarrassment to a cop—or may even be dangerous to him, if he can be identified thereby, and thus be set up for some kind of retribution.


Tough titty. The only reason a government (ours, or anyone’s) would want to prohibit a record of some proceedings is to cover up misdeeds, and as such, there can be no restriction.


Yeah, it’s inconvenient for government. So is the prospect of an armed populace. But the thought of millions of eyes and ears standing watch with their Nikon Coolpix cameras over our government and their actions is as important to our liberty as the thought of millions of firearms lying in readiness in our closets.


A pox on them, and a pox on anyone who supports their disgusting “reasonable restrictions”.

Finally a use for a Pink Floyd song:
Paranoid Eyes
button your lip don't let the shield slip
take a fresh grip on your bullet proof mask
and if they try to break down your disguise with their questions
you can hide hide hide
behind paranoid eyes
you put on your brave face and slip over the road for a jar
fixing your grin as you casually lean on the bar
laughing too loud at the rest of the world
with the boys in the crowd
you hide hide hide
behind petrified eyes
you believed in their stories of fame fortune and glory
now you're lost in a haze of alchohol soft middle age
the pie in the sky turned out to be miles too high
and you hide hide hide
behind brown and mild eyes

Now to upset things some more Jacqui Smith is absolutely correct in her comments.

1) ‘Also, as you will be aware, there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place.’

Appears to be a comment about the police taking photos of people taking photos which is perfectly legal.


2) ‘Decisions may be made locally to restrict or monitor photography in reasonable circumstances. That is an operational decision for the officers involved based on the individual circumstances of each situation.

Its just another of those things that authorities world wide have the ability to do should the need require it, these laws have been in effect for god knows how long (certainly since WW1) and for the most part are not enacted or enforced.

3) ‘It is for the local Chief Constable, in the case of your letter the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Force, to decide how his or her Officers and employees should best balance the rights to freedom of the press, freedom of expression and the need for public protection.’

Long may it remain so.What you seem to have over looked here in an effort to dig up a conspiracy is that this is a response to a letter about the police taking photos of people taking photos in public places and stating that there is no presumption of privacy in public places ie they are entitled to do it.

I note that the U.S. Forestry Service (the people who patrol, amongst other things, our national monuments) have been harassing people for taking pictures. Screw ‘em, the jumped-up little gauleiters.]

Yep and the second one of these national monuments is destroyed or damaged you will be here blaming the media, liberals, communists and "anti-gun" campaigners for the failings of society.

Yeah, it’s inconvenient for government. So is the prospect of an armed populace. But the thought of millions of eyes and ears standing watch with their Nikon Coolpix cameras over our government and their actions is as important to our liberty as the thought of millions of firearms lying in readiness in our closets.

An no post is complete without a mandatory gun sales pitch no matter how unrelated it is to the topic at hand.

Re Jacqui Smith. Two takes on freedom. I could quote Pink Floyd and The Wall, but I won't.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1035361/Big-Brother-database-recording-calls-texts-e-mails-ruin-British-way-life.html




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1035315/Father-branded-pervert--photographing-children-public-park.html

I almost got kicked out of a mall for taking a couple of pictures. It's a freaking shopping mall, and an empty one at that. There are never any more than about 50 people in the entire million square foot structure at once.

If I'm going to bomb something, wouldn't I pick a better target than this dump?

Originally Posted by The Other Guy

I almost got kicked out of a mall for taking a couple of pictures. It's a freaking shopping mall, and an empty one at that. There are never any more than about 50 people in the entire million square foot structure at once.

If I'm going to bomb something, wouldn't I pick a better target than this dump?

The issue is benchmarking. It's ridiculous but that's the real reason.

Not necessarily (TOG), as the best targets for them are the ones unexpected as well as high occupancy. Someone would probably plant the explosive and watch for the place to be packed, when satisfied with the numbers, their goes Lucy.

Originally Posted by AikiRooster

Not necessarily (TOG), as the best targets for them are the ones unexpected as well as high occupancy. Someone would probably plant the explosive and watch for the place to be packed, when satisfied with the numbers, their goes Lucy.

Except for the fact that they were closing the place in a week and officers outnumbered shoppers.

Common sense.

Common sense? Most over used terminology ever. Common sense only becomes so after you know it/ learned it. They are being cautious and with good reason, better safe than sorry in the times we live in.

If Common Sense and Society ran together then we wouldn't have the problems we have today. Common Sense is in no way common in today's society.

Common sense?

more like Rare sense.


Also, i know if i was going to bomb somewhere, no pictures would be taken. Hell, i doubt if i'd even make the explosives before the day i was going to do it.