The good news is that the scaremongers here in the USA are gone now and there is talk in the congress of prosecuting administration officials..3 cheers...Evan Clarke
The good news is that the scaremongers here in the USA are gone now and there is talk in the congress of prosecuting administration officials..3 cheers...Evan Clarke
Democratically elected civilian leadership has straight little to do with it. It has nothing to do with who you did or didn't vote for.
Anectdotally, my last run-in was making a pinhole image at the park. An anti-Bush park in an anti-Bush town filled with anti-Bush young moms; surprisingly, no anti-Bush stickers on the beer-cooler sized helmets protecting the precious contents of their children's skulls. When one found out I was "taking a picture," you could see the piloerection on her unshaven legs. She didn't want me taking "pictures" of her kid, never mind the explanation of what a minute-long exposure means. The herd was alerted to this weirdo with the box, and I can guarantee you that their avowed respect for the U.S.C. stopped way short of title 18, section 242.
Paranoia and fear-mongering is personal and cultural, not political.
Adrian; spot on! As far as I'm aware there has never been any suggestion that any terrorist group has resorted to photographic surveillance (of any kind) prior to perpetrating any act. I am firmly of the opinion that the UK and US governments are using the paranoia that they've created to keep people fearful and maintain their grip on power. Every government needs a bogeyman to 'protect' its people from so that it can say 'What a good govenrment are that keep you safe. Please vote for us again...."
Actually the ones that really get my goat are the "intellectuals" who tap you on the shoulder and say "if you don't stop photographic kids I'll shove that camera up your a%%e". The irony being that I don't like to have ANY people in my photographs. And what makes it really sad is that there usually aren't any kids around anyway. :rolleyes:
This is why the second amendment is important to protect the first. People tend to be a lot less likely to initiate violence if there is a reasonable assumption that you might be armed.
Please note that Adrian Twiss is in the UK where it is illegal to be armed.
This is why the second amendment is important to protect the first. People tend to be a lot less likely to initiate violence if there is a reasonable assumption that you might be armed.
Note that it's not too late to pick up where Guy Fawkes left off.
The violence of the "wild west" gave proof to the lie that a well-armed society is a very civil society. As does the near-omnipresence of AK-47s in current-day Iraq.
This is starting to get a bit off thread, but any society where anyone who believes they are "in the right" is able to pull a gun to defend that belief is a basket-case. Most fools believe they are in the right (and don't recognise that they are fools).
I note the irony that this post originated from a penal colony for violent criminals.
Touche! But things here have come a long way in 200 years. Violent criminals are now discouraged from carrying guns and roaming the streets here. Sadly not so in many parts of the States...
I'm thinking of having a similar one made along the lines of
"I'm a photographer - Not a peadophile, nor a terrorist - just a photographer
NOW PISS OFF!!!!"
Somewhat rude, I know, but I'm getting sick and tired of being treated with suspicion when I'm out doing something completely lawful. How many perverts do you see with a Bronica on a tripod for God's sake??
Touche! But things here have come a long way in 200 years. Violent criminals are now discouraged from carrying guns and roaming the streets here. Sadly not so in many parts of the States...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?