Photographer threatened with arrest and forced to delete images
in [UK Photography]
|
From: joe on 9 Aug 2010 15:17 spike1(a)freenet.co.uk wrote: > And verily, didst joe <joeparkin(a)btinternet.com> hastily babble > thusly: >> Is that so nobody can see her metamorphosing into an > extraterrestrial >> lizard or vice-versa? > > > > I can quite believe they had a law in Magna Carta a few hundred > > years before the photograph was invented. > > It's called sarcasm, learn to recognise it in text. The problem is, the intelligence of some of the posters here is so low, it is hard to tell. --
From: Albert Ross on 10 Aug 2010 10:04
On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 15:52:06 +0100, peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid (Pd) wrote: >rightsadvocates <admin(a)rightsadvocates.com> wrote: > >> On 6 Aug, 09:46, Mike Bristow <m...(a)urgle.com> wrote: > >snippage > >> > If you want people to believe you, yes. If you mean s58 or s58A >> > of the Terrorism Act 2000 then I think you are mistaken in your >> > interpretation of the law. >> > >> > If you mean something else, then I have no idea what you are talking >> > about. >> >> I will not waste time with you, but hundreds have been arrested based >> on the anti terrot laws and taking photographs. Here is a link about >> this: > http://photographernotaterrorist.org/ > >There's a wonderful piece of circular reasoning. Because people have >been arrested under the Terrorism Act, that proves it must be all right >and proper. After all, the police would hardly break the law, would >they? You are a Terrorist unless you can prove otherwise |