Fat Freddy's Cat wrote:
|| "Rob" <email@example.com> wrote in message
||| Unlikely since I have never made that claim. Not that you would
||| allow fact to influence you in your diseased rantings.
|| The only thing a bit poorly in this thread Rob was your opening
|| The muppet OP made a stupid post about police not acting within
|| certain laws when taking photographs of public demonstrations and
|| its been pointed out that they like anyone else do not need specific
|| laws to allow them to do this.
I agree they don't need specific laws to allow this, nor would I want them
to, however I don't appear to have that reply (pointing that out) in my
reader, but I do have your erroneous statement that anyone can photograph
anything they like.
|| But clearly thats not the kind of answer that fits in with your
|| anti-establishment, anti-police bias is it? Get it right up em eh?
I don't have an anti-police bias, you must be mistaking me for someone else.
|| As for your assertion that people in public taking photos run a real
|| risk of police harrassment is absolutely ludicrous. You state it as
|| if it happens all the time!
Just how the hell 'risk of police interference' can be construed as 'running
a real risk of police harrasment' and 'it happens all the time' I cannot
fathom, I wonder why you choose to read it that way?
What I *am* saying is that it *does* happen. Law abiding people have either
been arrested, threatened with arrest, or had their cameras taken, or told
to stop etc. It's not an opinion, it's just a simple fact.