Discussion in 'News - Discussion' started by CSBC, Jan 23, 2008.
..but doesn't it create a new "gang" culture..
I was in the CCF (combinde cadet force - playing soldiers at school), have spoken to former soldirs and have watched the Bad Lads army series on TV.
Taking all that into conisderation I think a proper course of military service does help a lot of young adults (and older people too) to mature and also gain a sense of thier own self worth in the world; whilst also installing a basic understanding of respect and disipline. When you then look at what people say society is lacking in you notice these things keep on appearing. I would support a move to bring national serivce back - it would certainly get the kids off the streets and teach them in an environment where they cannot run away or avoid.
Only if there's a two-tier army/navy/RAF, let's face it there isn't a pro out there who would want to have to rely on some numpty who was dragged screaming into the unit. Would you put your life in to some scally's hands?
Perhaps if said scally got a taste for it and 'became' a professional, then he could 'move over', but the conscripts, by and large would be poor quality servicemen, IMO.
Dunno about 'gang culture', per se, but it certainly breeds rivalry & camaraderie; regimental rivalry, inter-battalion rivalry, inter-company rivalry, inter-platoon rivalry, inter-section rivalry.
But it works, in terms of bringing 'the group' together - whether that group is a 4-man brick, 600 men of a battalion or a whole regiment, or army. It instills trust and respect, reliability and forethought.
Re: National Service
Not quite sure how this topic got diverted to National Service but to get it back on track ( well almost) I saw a thread on another Forum earlier where the guy said this .It happened in Liverpool . If it had happened to me I'd certainly have been concerned about being followed
"Does anyone know if anyone can forbid you from taking photos of buildings, even when you're on the public highway?
I was stopped from capturing shots of an exhibition hall from the outside, by a security guard who told me you can't take pictures of this building 'because of copyright'(?). I told him that the copyright on pictures was mine, and that there was no law to stop me taking shots of skylines and city centres.
He told me then that, in future, my memory card would have to be formatted. The cheek of it!
Incidentally, my car was then followed by another car for about half a mile, before it returned to the site. It all sounds like intimidation to me. What do you all think? I'd like to take this further. "
I'd say it was a load of rubbish. As far as i am aware it is in the public domain and therefore it can be photographed. If it is not a military premises or other such establishment I cannot see any reason why legally you are not allowed to photograph it.
In reality how can it be prevented? You could be taking a picture of something or someone, and that building could be in the background.
I cannot see how copyright comes into it.
Personally because of the job i do I do not like being photographed whilst going about my business, however I am in that public domain, and I know there is nothing I can do about it, so I am sure that must go for buildings too.
Copyright can apply to buildings as well as logos, however there is provision in the copyright act for incidental inclusion. Also depending on how old the building is copyright may not apply, if the architect died more than 70 years ago then copyright will have expired.
I did write an article on dealing with security guards, over officious bobbies and busy bodies Here
Ok I stand corrected re the copyright.
Trusting that everything you have written on your website is correct (and I have no reason to doubt it), I found it very informative. Very Good, and thanks for posting it.
In terms of taking photographs of buildings - Wrong!
Section 62 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) states (essentially) that "The copyright in such a work [building] is not infringed by — (a) making a graphic work representing it, (b) making a photograph or film of it ..." etc.
Copying the design of a building in another building (within the period defined by the Act) would be a prima face infringement ... Logos are a slightly different matter, but generally speaking the inclusion of a logo or trade mark (co-incidentally) in another artistic or graphical representation is not a prima face infringement**.
** If it was, commerce in this country would be crippled, virtually overnight.
As Tacitus said, Section 62 of the Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act provides a specific exemption for this.
Grabbing someone's camera, or forcibly deleting images from a memory card constitutes assault. Repeating the above statement multiple times could be construed as harassment (a course of action likely to cause alarm or distress), for which the employee and employer are jointly liable. If the guard got verbally aggressive/intimidating, this may constitute behaviour likely to cause breach of the peace, or a public order offence (depending on circumstances, etc, obviously) ...
If you have the details there's no reason why you can't take it further. If it were me I think I'd contact both the security firm and the police.
Even copyright can be infringed if the infringement does not include an element of profitability for yourself or another.
Separate names with a comma.