1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Photographers' Trafalgar Square protest: Home Office statement

Discussion in 'News - Discussion' started by CSBC, Jan 25, 2010.

  1. Ferrisc

    Ferrisc Well-Known Member

    Bank of America - I went to have a look at this at lunchtime today (my companys HQ is close by) and the two hi-viz jacket guys that were outside in 'guarding pose' two weeks ago were absent. I'm back up there tomorrow so will have a look again. I just wonder if at the time Grant(?) the architectural photographer got hassled, there was a 'specific threat' against American interests?
     
  2. Mark

    Mark Well-Known Member

    The classification systems for ethnicity monitoring seems to change almost as often as the paperwork. I'm reliably(!?) informed that - depending on if the classification is 'officer-defined' or 'self classified' - some forces appear to be practically / operationally phasing out the IC 1-6 and 1-7 systems, others use the standard PNC system, and more are using the 16+1 system. Confused? Me too. So are they...
     
  3. Mark101

    Mark101 Well-Known Member

    Yes, I'm always threatning American interests :D
     
  4. ermintrude

    ermintrude Hinkypuff

    Not at all sweetpea. Just not sure of its relevance to the thread. :rolleyes:
     
  5. Smudger79

    Smudger79 Well-Known Member

    I think the logic was that if there was no religion there would therefore be no terrorist threat from the fundamental islamists, and therefore no issues with stop and search under the terrorism act.

    :)
     
  6. 3rdQueens

    3rdQueens Member

    Hi ermintrude, Owen is absolutely correct, I was beginning to think that everyone these days had forgotten what was always said by most, to be the underlying reason for most wars ever fought, whether that reason is true or false, that is, or was, the most popular thinking. But on saying that, I was only trying to make light of a discussion that seems to be getting to serious as we are only on page five of this forum, think what page 100 will be like, I dread to think, perhaps it will be talk of SAS style photo missions into the Capital at 04.00hrs. The serious portion of my life has now past, its time for a lough, and getting uptight about every mortal problem thats thrown at me is no longer an option. Remember that song "all ways look on the bright side of LIFE", its good advice. I'm not saying this situation we are in is not a problem, but what's the point in losing our sense of humour. So, TO ME, it is the right thread. Go on, SMILE.

    Regards to ALL.
    KP
     
  7. beejaybee

    beejaybee Marvin

    but the people who think that way would find something else to be fundamnetally terrorist about.

    Religion is a red herring, forget it. Islam is crushingly damning of terrorism. So is Catholicism, but that didn't stop the Provisional IRA using religion as a (bad) justification for their nefarious activities.
     
  8. 3rdQueens

    3rdQueens Member

    Well, I'm glad that I'm not so naive.
    KP
     
  9. Hotblack

    Hotblack Dead Horse Flogger

    Then you'd get fundamentalist Darwinians v fundamentalist Dawkinsians. :(
     
  10. 3rdQueens

    3rdQueens Member

    This thread is turning out to be quite diverse don't you think.
    Keep smiling, be happy
    KP
     
  11. Smudger79

    Smudger79 Well-Known Member

    It wouldn't surprise me, people will always find something to hate each other over.
     
  12. Smudger79

    Smudger79 Well-Known Member

    As far as I am concerned all religion is as nonsensical as each other (especially when you consider that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the very same God!! :D ). But in the case of these current troubles, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss religion as being nothing to do with it. It has pretty much everything to do with it.
    i.e. It's not a red herring, in my opinion. When the Al Qaeda raison d'etre is to rid the middle east of non Muslims ("Americans and it's allies") in order to protect muslims, it would appear that religion has everything to do with it.
    I don't quite understand the link you make to the IRA, are you saying that because the religion in general condemns terrorist activity, that the terrorists can't really believe that the war is about religion?

    I agree that the liklihood is that people would find something else to be upset about, but I just can't think what. I don't think that there is anything else that divides opinion so massively and aggressively as Religion, or even has the potential to (perhaps politics). I don't think there is anything simply because it based on a faith, belief, and most importantly interpretation and not any physical entity.
    The fact that religion is so subjective and open to interpretation is at the heart of the "conflict" between religions. I can't think of anything that is held in such esteem as religion, that has the same blind faith and subjectivity that would cause two different opinions to wage war. As I say, politics is perhaps the only other one I can think of.

    :)

    For people's reference this is the "mission statement" if you will of Al Qaeda, as spoken by the Bin Bag himself:

    "In compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies - civilians and military - is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa mosque and the holy mosque [in mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim"

    :mad: :mad:
     
  13. LeeJay

    LeeJay Well-Known Member


    Whilst I agree in one sense with your the first comment, the list of proscribed photographic locations is already well defined in law by the Secretary of State, namely government buildings, shipyards, naval bases, etc etc etc. The public busybodies who believe they have the right to question anyone taking a picture of - for example - an empty swimming pool, needs to have said list rammed into their skulls width-ways, and be told that if it ain't on the list, don't bother asking silly bl**dy questions or harassing the poor sod holding a larger than average lens (ooer missus, etc.) As for any arrest, I merely point to the large number of "oh yes sir, sorry about that sir" letters that the police have thus far had to send out. I also look forward, as I've said before, to a judge in a court room telling the police to put up or shut up about photographers being terrorists. I only hope that the EHCR will continue it's stance on the Section 44 rubbish and will invalidate it in primary legislation.
     
  14. Smudger79

    Smudger79 Well-Known Member

    Me too. I'd also like them to look at the Public Order offences as well - far too generic for my liking!

    :)
     
  15. 3rdQueens

    3rdQueens Member

    Owen.
    Thanks, I couldn't have put your religion/war comments better myself. I didn't realise that my original ref. to PHOTOGRAPHY/ATHEISM would cause such debate here. Perhaps I should have known and kept my big mouth shut.

    LeeJay.
    Thanks bringing this thread back on track.
    Regards
    KP
     
  16. ermintrude

    ermintrude Hinkypuff

    Maybe so but what he actually said was:

    Which obviously is of no relevance since they do not require grounds for suspicion anyway.

    Anyway, thread has wandered so I will too :rolleyes:
     
  17. Smudger79

    Smudger79 Well-Known Member

    Ha ha. :D
    Ok Erm, I don't think it was ever meant to be taken this seriously, and appeared to me to be more of a throw away comment, using the logic that if EVERY photographer was Atheist then they couldn't be confused with islamic terrorists, that sort of thing.

    :)
     
  18. Smudger79

    Smudger79 Well-Known Member

    Ha Ha, even the most inoccuous of comments can be pedantically picked apart!

    :D
     
  19. DaveS

    DaveS Well-Known Member

    We need a fighting fund, so the next time plod arrests some poor 'tog, we can hit them with a big, fat, expensive lawyer.
    Dave
     
  20. ermintrude

    ermintrude Hinkypuff

    Have no fears, I dont take trolls seriously :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page