Web
Analytics
Photographers Rights in the UK | Photography and Video Forum | Page 2 | 28DaysLater.co.uk
  • Welcome to 28DaysLater.co.uk - 28DL - The UK Urban Exploring / Urban Exploration / Urbex Forums.

    Asylums and Hospitals, High Stuff, Industrial, Leisure Sites, Residential Sites, Military Sites, Mines and Quarries, ROC Posts, Theatres and Cinemas, Draining, Underground Sites, European and International Sites, Leads, Rumours and News, Kit, Clothing, Equipment, Photography and Video sections, plus Private & Local Groups and a lot more.

    Please feel free to browse this website as a guest. However, creating an account allows you to search, post replies, start new threads, use bookmarking, live chat, messaging and notification systems. Also, it removes some ads.

    Create an account | Login | Request new password

Photographers Rights in the UK

the beard

28DL Full Member
28DL Full Member
#16
the problem with this is that most 'normal' photographers would think pulling on a pair of wellies and going down a drain to take photos is a little odd, so half the people on this site are potential terrorists :D
Photographing sewers and drains is a little odd I'll grant you, regardless of your footwear, but no-one sees you doing that (probably) but hostile reconnaissance takes place in places frequented by the publc and airports, stations, shopping areas and sports stadia are favourite places for terrorist attacks and as such under CERTAIN circumstances people taking photographs shouldn't be surprised if they get stop/accounted. But, and it's a big but, there's a question of proportionality. There have been too many cases of Sec 44 being used inappropriately and as such it was brought, in my opinion, into disrepute. I don't see why anyone would object to a person being stopped if he/she is taking photographs of CCTV cameras or door locks, security guards' I.D. cards or Police Warrant Cards, Police stations or the structure of airports or stations. There's a very good reason taking pictures in outbound security at airports is not allowed.

@the beard - what colour is the sky on your home planet mate?

My last stop under 'anti terror laws' was at 9 a.m, in a sleepy Somerset Town, on a public street, on a Sunday, whilst with my son - I just happened to be carrying (carrying, not using) a camera in the same road as a police station.

Does that make me one of your ""Hostile reconnaisance" (sic) suspects?
Ludicrous! That's all I can say about your experience. What reason were you given for that? That is exactly what I mean about the inappropriate use of Sec 44. As far as I'm aware there was, and still is a need to explain why the Police stop a member of the public and ask what he/she's doing and I can't see why the posession of a camera constitutes reasonable grounds. Did you ask for an explanation either from the officer or from his superiors later? Hostile reconnaissance does take place but many, if not most, of the most contentious cases of people being stopped while photographing, or not in your case, are caused by those who completely miss the point or who are simply trying to hit targets.

I don't think there is anything I've put in this post that suggests that photographers, and I include myself in that category, shouldn't be allowed to take pictures of pretty much whatever they want but all I'm saying is that there are others who use photography as a means of intelligence gathering and we shouldn't take our liberty so much for granted anymore.

No death threats yet so I think I'm ahead so far. Still there's plenty of time yet
 

johnsalomon

Germany is the "wurst"
Regular User
#17
Goddammit so mad - I had written up a huge response to you and my browser crash.

I work in security and risk management - a significant portion of what I do involves analyzing physical security. So I have some idea what I'm talking about.

Fundamentally we may agree, but on some of your points, you are very, very wrong, and I'll try to point out why.

The very basis on which risks and threats are handled whenever "terrorism" is concerned is flawed.

"but hostile reconnaissance takes place in places frequented by the publc and airports"


"Terrorists" do not rely on camera reconnaissance in the kind of Bourne Identity KGB Warsaw Pact 1337 Spai way that you are thinking of. Put yourself in the shoes of someone planning a hypothetical (more on that later) attack - you would use (a) some clean-cut guy to walk around and mentally note things (one of my clients once fell victim to industrial espionage from a guy with a photographic memory who surreptiously joined a tour group in a new factory) or (b) existing images online. Search Google images for "Heathrow airport security" - two of the very first pictures to show up are a clear view of one of the armored glass security gates, and an overhead view of an entire check area from the Daily Mail.

Second, stopping photographers does nothing. I will either (a) use my 400mm from a bush, or (b) hide a camera in an anorak collar (think of how good an iPhone 4S camera is? Now think of how small it is - you can buy good tiny spy cameras for low double digits online). The entire idea is wrong. It's the same reason why it's hilarious that people advertise the Zenit Photosniper (hi styru!) as a "KGB camera". If you were a KGB agent trying to take pics discreetly, would you really carry around a massive black chunk of metal shaped like a grenade launcher?

"stations, shopping areas and sports stadia are favourite places for terrorist attacks"


Populated areas are favorite places for terrorist attacks. Stopping photographers does _nothing_ to prevent this. Every single documented attack on, say, an airport, ranging from the Athens, Rome, and Lod shootings in the 1970s over Vienna in 1985 and Glasgow in 2007 was a brute force assault on the most vulnerable, crowded area in an airport - the bit before the security check. The Glasgow attack was stopped by a simple, cheap method (barriers) in use by jewelry stores for years, and the only reason the Rome attackers were able to get on a plane and start throwing firebombs is because there was no security inspection. None. Even a basic barrier could have stopped them. Remember this old chestnut that I like - "when you're in a group of people running from a bear, you don't need to be the fastest, just don't be the slowest". The high-tech international terrorist who will stop at nothing to bring down a hardened, challenging target is myth.

Furthermore, just about no successful "terrorist" attack in the past 20 years that I can think of relied on the kind of "reconnaissance" being "prevented" - neither the IRA mortar bombs against Downing St., nor the ETA Corte Inglés bombings, nor 7/7, none of these. It was guys walking into a populated area and setting off (or leaving) bombs, or just plain shooting up the place. Nothing nearly as intricately planned and complex as what's being suggested. Do you know why there have not been more terrorist attacks in the UK than there really were? To a degree, it's because of good investigative police and intelligence work. But that is only a small part of it. Most of the reason is because people really don't hate you that much! And of the ones who do, even fewer have the intelligence and determination to do something nasty. Cool, huh?

In fact, focusing on photographers is actively dangerous insofar as it sends the message that "something is being done" - when nothing is being done. This is an element of what Bruce Schneier calls "Security Theater" - it sends the impression that "the authorities" are being proactive, while disregarding underlying real threats.

Importantly, there is the economic argument - The Economist lists ca. 7,500 deaths from "terrorism" (very broadly defined) worldwide in 2010. That is less than three times the number of road deaths in the UK. Think about that for a second. Most of those were in places like Pakistan's tribal areas, Southern Thailand, Mindanao, or other areas where there's as much tribal and ethnic conflict as anything else, or in areas with at least a semblance of open guerilla warfare (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.)

Now compare the cost of countermeasures to imagined threats to the economy to their actual result. The ratio is HUGE and disproportionate.

Those acts of terror that have hit the UK could not have been stopped by surveillance (7/7 for example) or by limitation of photographic reconnaissance. They simply could not have. Just like the Bali discotheque attacks, as well as the bombings in Marrakech, Madrid, and elsewhere, not a single such attack could have been foiled by anything but difficult, expensive police work. Even, arguably, the information that something was afoot before 9/11 could have been acted on. I even maintain that a focus on "Maginot Thinking" like banning guns on planes contributed to the impact of the latter attack, by detracting from proven countermeasures (like passenger / public education - you'll note that this is what stopped two separate bombing incidents on airliners in the 2000s). I repeat - 7/7 could not have been stopped by any "active" countermeasures, horrible as it was. What might have stopped it, at least partially, is more people paying attention - "report abandoned bags" is one of the cheapest, most sensible, most effective ways to increase public attention and limit the likelihood of bombings on those very very very rare occasions when they do occur.

"we shouldn't take our liberty so much for granted anymore."

The hell we shouldn't. This is exactly the kind of thinking that underpins ineffective, expensive policies that DO NOTHING. Read that again. They have NO result. There is a reason why you should oppose this even beyond the philosophical "having your rights stepped on" aspect - and that is that it condones a sloppy, lazy approach to security that targets entirely the wrong people.

You cannot stop a determined attacker, even if he exists. You can prevent, and mitigate attacks, however. But that is hard work, and makes for neither good electoral politics nor newspaper sales.

Think about that for a second.
 

BenCooper

Mr Boombastic
Regular User
#18
What John said - much better than I ever could.

There is a massive industry which benefits from selling us security, and almost all of it doesn't work. Not usually in the narrow sense that the hardware itself doesn't work (though look at the bomb detectors sold to Iraq which were a box with a LED on them), but that they target a threat that doesn't exist.

What's the best way to do detailed surveillance on a site? Quite a few of us here are good at that, cos we look for ways in. I normally rely on a pretty good memory but if I didn't, or I wanted a record, I'd use a mobile phone going to an answering machine. Stroll around, chatting into the phone - nothing could be more normal at an airport. What's the point of taknig a picture of a CCTV camera? We all know what a CCTV camera looks like already - what a picture won't tell you but a voice description will is what direction it's pointing.
 

Ordnance

Moderator
Moderator
#20
During the N.I. Troubles almost all Terrorist Intelligence captured was Pen or Pencil Drawings - The Security Services made use of photographers for mug shots of known players.

Watching them - Watching us.
 

the beard

28DL Full Member
28DL Full Member
#21
Thank you for a very comprehensive reply. I'm sure you are right and we have nothing to fear from intelligence carried out by people with devices capable of taking photographs. However, you make quite a few assertions. Firstly, the response from some on here, which frankly was fairly predictable, is that people should be able to take photographs of pretty much what they wish, which in an ideal world would be the case. However, we don't live in an ideal world. I'd be very surprised if anyone carried out a terrorist attack based purely on the basis of a photograph, however, in the case I mentioned above the person in question was using an Internet enabled Black Berry not a Zenit with a 400mm and shoulder stock so the user could send images aross the world in seconds which can HELP someone outside this country plan, or discount an attack. The user of the device can be instructed to record images of the structure (as in this case) from different angles showing the structure and by placing his foot on the steel. He can point his phone at the glass from a different angle can tell the planner if the glass is armoured, toughened or just plate glass. The big planners often never even visit the country where an attack will take place and a picture is worth a thousand words. As for lurking in the bushes with your big lens, personally I can't think of many ways you're more likely to get stopped while carrying a camera.

Most of the spotters (Dickers if you like) who carry out reconnaisance are not very well trained and certainly don't have photographic memories. They also don't act like they are in a Bourne film so a camera/phone is a useful accessory. It's also pointless to compare past terrorist attacks such as the hijacks that ended up at Dawson's Field or attacks at Rome and Lod, or even the Munich Olympics as the authorities are far more aware now than even 11 years ago. I'm sure an attack can go ahead if the attackers are determined enough, but bear in mind digital cameras, the Internet and smart phones weren't invented there either. It's true that it was a lasse-faire attitude in the U.S. was partly responsible for the success of 9/11, but as the use of metal detectors, X-ray machines plus body searches are now compulsory, at least in the UK, that risk is also much smaller.

Barriers like those at Glasgow won't stop a motorcycle, or for that matter someone on foot. Ironically the Glasgow attack, and the other bombs associated with the two doctors was foiled as much by incompetence in as much as they opened the petrol containers before they hit a speed hump at Glasgow which spilt fuel into the car too soon resulting in the death of at least one of them by burning. In response to a comment above I looked at an airport I know very well on Google Earth and looked at two vehicle/pedestrian access points and trust me, there is nothing there for anyone planning an attack. The only way you could get any information on those points is to get close. I know that at one of them a vehicle as small as a Transit could have forced its way onto the apron and then be driven at an aircraft with 40 tons of fuel on board, but no longer. A photograph would provide that kind of info.

At no point during these posts did I say photography shouldn't be allowed. At no point did I state that photographers were enemies of the state. Also at no point did I suggest that the only way of planning an attack was by means of photographs. I've been taking pictures since 1977 and I value my freedom, but I'm also not foolish or blinkered enough to think photography whether by use of cameras or smart phones does not play a part in the planning. John states that he works in the field of security which I don't doubt although I won't be asking what aspect he deals with but I too have some dealings with security at potential targets but unlike most people, I could well be the one of the victims as could colleagues I have a great deal of affection for. I could be one of the corpses you see on TV covered in dust and peppered with glass shards. Or with limbs missing from the blast. Or with nuts and bolts embedded in my body. A body my wife will not be able to identify.

What John said - much better than I ever could.

There is a massive industry which benefits from selling us security, and almost all of it doesn't work. Not usually in the narrow sense that the hardware itself doesn't work (though look at the bomb detectors sold to Iraq which were a box with a LED on them), but that they target a threat that doesn't exist.

What's the best way to do detailed surveillance on a site? Quite a few of us here are good at that, cos we look for ways in. I normally rely on a pretty good memory but if I didn't, or I wanted a record, I'd use a mobile phone going to an answering machine. Stroll around, chatting into the phone - nothing could be more normal at an airport. What's the point of taknig a picture of a CCTV camera? We all know what a CCTV camera looks like already - what a picture won't tell you but a voice description will is what direction it's pointing.
I couldn't comment on what products security companies to Iraq, or any other countries for that matter. However, how many road blockers at point a? How many security staff at point b? Which entrances have cameras covering them? What type are they? How many doors to the police station? Which are the armed response vehicles and which carry unarmed cops. What kind of weapons do they carry? What are sight lines like? Where are the escape routes (if you want one)? Where do people stand while waiting for passengers? Would that make a good place to leave a bag with explosive? Pictures can also be used in briefing the attackers. After all, armies all over the world use photo-reconnaissance before an attack. The Dam Busters used them. Pin-point attacks on targets by other precision bombing squadrons also used photos at briefings. Not good enough for terrorists?

After Mumbai it was widely believed a similar attack would take place here, so much so that at one airport all unarmed officers and PCSOs were confined to the police station or sent home and extra armed cops brought in and all hi-vis clothing was removed. If that was to take place police officers and building would be targetted first. If you want to know where all the exits from that building were you'd have to get close and photos would make the best way of passing that on.

Bravo, John. the beard: you'll do well to read Risk by Dan Gardner.
Thanks for the reference, I'll see if I can find it in the library. However, people write books most of the time to either make money or get across a point, or both. But, for every book or television programme espousing a particular point of view there is another preaching the opposite.

During the N.I. Troubles almost all Terrorist Intelligence captured was Pen or Pencil Drawings - The Security Services made use of photographers for mug shots of known players.

Watching them - Watching us.
I think things have moved on a bit since then. If you draw a diagram or map you then have to do something with it. If you are seen on one of the hundreds of CCTV cameras and intercepted by the police it could be a bit difficult to explain away your sketch. Using an iPhone means you can record the images, send them thousands of miles then delete both the images and the record of the transmission.
 

Oxygen Thief

Admin
Staff member
Admin
#22
...Using an iPhone means you can record the images, send them thousands of miles then delete both the images and the record of the transmission.
That doesn't mean it didn't happen. If you were seen on CCTV as you suggested, and they don't find any pictures or transmissions, then you're going to be gang-probed by GCHQ. Every transmission is recorded and maybe intercepted, in multiple places, whether that be phone, email, text...
 

Brian

28DL Full Member
28DL Full Member
#23
@thebeard

Sunny





(I just mention this, as I imagine you are too paranoid to actually go outside or open your curtains)

What an amazing, bur poorly researched, rant.

I admire the way you have not let trivia such as facts cloud your 'unusual' view of the world.

An entertaining, but uninformative set of ramblings.
 

johnsalomon

Germany is the "wurst"
Regular User
#24
Thank you for a very comprehensive reply. I'm sure you are right and we have nothing to fear from intelligence carried out by people with devices capable of taking photographs. However, you make quite a few assertions. Firstly, the response from some on here, which frankly was fairly predictable, is that people should be able to take photographs of pretty much what they wish, which in an ideal world would be the case.
No, this has nothing to do with "ideal".

The entire nature of secrecy or sensitivity classification puts the onus squarely on the person/organization attempting to restrict access to a certain thing or place. This is one of the fundamental hallmarks of a free, modern society - that "openness" is the default setting, if you will. Nobody has yet managed to come up with any justification, beyond rank speculation and hypothesis, behind justifying the restriction of photographic access to public places.

Furthermore, restriction of anything requires strong, transparent oversight by trusted bodies. Beyond the hard core of understandably classified assets (e.g. defense research establishments and military bases, information covered by various privacy laws such as patient data" this has nowhere been the case, not in the United Kingdom, not in the United States.

Edit: I forgot to mention that this is also the only correct way to do this in any company or for that matter, any environment. You start with a default of "open" and restrict access from there. It's just the way it's done.

<...stuff>
Horsefeathers. Again, rank speculation. As a counter to your rank speculation I place my rank speculation that anyone actually wishing to reconnoiter an area, even if that area is covered by photography restriction rules, will do so. You yourself mention the immediacy of photo uploading. I will google for "spy store", buy a teensy camera that your badly trained G4S, PCSO, or officious citizen will not spot, dress up in a nice haircut and polo shirt, and do my filming while oohing and awwing at the nice buildings, as the bored hired security stands by and does fuck-all. Done. That requires no "Bourne film" anything. That requires 50 pounds. It is NOT DONE.

Also, maybe I'll just take a few pictures "by mistake" and happily delete them when the PCSO comes over to yell at me. Then I'm going home and recovering them with PhotoRec.

but as the use of metal detectors, X-ray machines plus body searches are now compulsory, at least in the UK, that risk is also much smaller.
Sorry, but again horsefeathers. Metal detectors do not stop attacks. They catch very rough stuff like knives. X-ray machines do not work, they have been circumvented time and time and time again, either by incompetence on the part of their users, or by malicious circumvention by bribed baggage handlers, or even more basic, this-shit-should-never-happen measures. And like I said, the thing you're going to attack is not the damn airplane, it's the SECURITY LINE. Do you want to know the major reason why you have so many backscatter machines in the UK? It's because the UK security mandarins are just as stupid as the American security mandarins, and tend to slavishly follow and exaggerate the things the already stupid Americans do - and do you know why there are so many such machines in the US? Did you realize that Michael Chertoff, former head of the Transportation Security Administration, is a highly paid consultant to the biggest maker of these things? Hm?

Also, I think it says something that the German federal police did a methodical (i.e. not based on paranoiac delusions) analysis of these things, found them to be utterly ineffective and pointless, and got rid of them.

Or wait, I thought we were talking about public photography here. Are you going to install x-ray machines and metal detectors...where exactly?

Barriers like those at Glasgow won't stop a motorcycle, or for that matter someone on foot. Ironically the Glasgow attack, and the other bombs associated with the two doctors was foiled as much by incompetence in as much as they opened the petrol containers before they hit a speed hump at Glasgow which spilt fuel into the car too soon resulting in the death of at least one of them by burning.
No but they will stop someone with enough ramming power to crack open an airport door with enough explosives to bring down a building. But you are right. It underscores my point that you will never stop a determined attacker against a soft target.

A photograph would provide that kind of info.
So would a notepad. So would a walk by. We're back to that.

At no point during these posts did I say photography shouldn't be allowed. At no point did I state that photographers were enemies of the state. Also at no point did I suggest that the only way of planning an attack was by means of photographs.
At no point did I suggest that this is what you were claiming. You were, however, claiming that it should be permissible to prohibit photography on utterly specious grounds, in complete contradiction of some of the fundamental principles of a free, democratic society.

I've been taking pictures since 1977 and I value my freedom, but I'm also not foolish or blinkered enough to think photography whether by use of cameras or smart phones does not play a part in the planning. John states that he works in the field of security which I don't doubt although I won't be asking what aspect he deals with but I too have some dealings with security at potential targets but unlike most people, I could well be the one of the victims as could colleagues I have a great deal of affection for. I could be one of the corpses you see on TV covered in dust and peppered with glass shards. Or with limbs missing from the blast. Or with nuts and bolts embedded in my body. A body my wife will not be able to identify.
Appeal to seniority is not a basis for security policy. And I deeply deeply regret that you are paranoid and emotional about the topic. This is simply not a realistic appraisal of the probability of your violent, garish death from a mad bomber.

Not good enough for terrorists?
Did you just compare combat zones in Iraq, with an active insurgency going on, to sports stadia and power plants in Western Europe?

After Mumbai it was widely believed a similar attack would take place here, so much so that at one airport all unarmed officers and PCSOs were confined to the police station or sent home and extra armed cops brought in and all hi-vis clothing was removed. If that was to take place police officers and building would be targetted first. If you want to know where all the exits from that building were you'd have to get close and photos would make the best way of passing that on.
The Mumbai attacks were planned from within Pakistan by LeT, using information that was publicly available. Again, it underscores my argument that you cannot stop an attack against a soft target unless you are willing to harden all soft targets, and even then that is not possible. You simply cannot throw up a global security cordon across all discotheques, shopping malls, hotels, cinemas, train stations, and other places where people gather. At the very base of it, it's simply and demonstrably not possible to maintain the level of awareness needed to reliably stop attackers.

Thanks for the reference, I'll see if I can find it in the library. However, people write books most of the time to either make money or get across a point, or both. But, for every book or television programme espousing a particular point of view there is another preaching the opposite.
Bruce Schneier is one of the world's foremost security and risk experts. He's probably the most recognized name among any security expert.

I'm sorry, but you are throwing out uninformed, paranoid, emotional speculation and this entire thread is stupid. I regret that my reply is so uncivil, but I do not like dealing with badly thought out nonsense in a serious discussion that affects me.

My only concern is that people with views like yours are allowed to influence security policy. It makes my job so much harder. Good day.
 
Last edited:

BenCooper

Mr Boombastic
Regular User
#25
how many road blockers at point a? How many security staff at point b? Which entrances have cameras covering them? What type are they? How many doors to the police station? Which are the armed response vehicles and which carry unarmed cops. What kind of weapons do they carry? What are sight lines like? Where are the escape routes (if you want one)? Where do people stand while waiting for passengers? Would that make a good place to leave a bag with explosive? Pictures can also be used in briefing the attackers.
Pictures could be used, but in all those examples you give a verbal or written description would be much more useful. Want to count security staff? You count them, you don't point a camera at them, photograph them, then count the number of people in the photograph.
 

the beard

28DL Full Member
28DL Full Member
#26
That doesn't mean it didn't happen. If you were seen on CCTV as you suggested, and they don't find any pictures or transmissions, then you're going to be gang-probed by GCHQ. Every transmission is recorded and maybe intercepted, in multiple places, whether that be phone, email, text...
There have to be reasonable grounds to even stop and question someone never mind sieze their phone and hand it over to GCHQ. If a PC asks to view images on a camera or phone if he/she thinks they are contentious then it is most likely the person in question is liable to be asked, notice the use of the word "asked" to
delete them. The only time he would get a serious looking at is if he came up as a person of interest, so to speak.
 

the beard

28DL Full Member
28DL Full Member
#28
@thebeard

Sunny





(I just mention this, as I imagine you are too paranoid to actually go outside or open your curtains)

What an amazing, bur poorly researched, rant.

I admire the way you have not let trivia such as facts cloud your 'unusual' view of the world.

An entertaining, but uninformative set of ramblings.
Dark now, but don't worry I was out in daylight although heavily disguised in case someone wanted to take my photograph. Actually, I'm not sure exactly what prompted your comment about paranoia. After all, a strongly held belief that photography CAN be used in the reconnaissance stage of a terrorist attack is perfectly reasonable. That statement is not the end of the world. To date I haven't collapsed in abject terror at the sight of a camera and I've managed to get through my entire adult life without being stopped by the authorities for taking a photograph so I'm not quite sure what the problem is. If people have been stopped from taking pictures, in their mind without justifcation, what's wrong with asking why and if they keep on getting stopped then take your complaint further.

No-one, and I really do mean no-one can state categorically that photography has never been used, or ever will be, in the preparation of a terrorist act. In the current political climate it is an act of sheer folly to discount the possiblility.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Deleting images would be destruction of evidence - if a police officer asked you to do that, they'd be contravening PACE. It'd be a very stupid thing for them to do.
If a Police Officer asks someone drinking in the street to pour their beer down the grid would that be destroying evidence? If a Cop takes a canabis joint from someone in the street and stubs it out with his boot, would that be destroying evidence? That woud be a no then. They would only be contravening any law if the images were destined to be used in evidence. And only then if it was going to be used by the Defence. If he wants to weaken his own case against an individual then, as you say, he would be pretty stupid. His Inspector might want a word.....or two.
 

BenCooper

Mr Boombastic
Regular User
#29
No-one, and I really do mean no-one can state categorically that photography has never been used, or ever will be, in the preparation of a terrorist act. In the current political climate it is an act of sheer folly to discount the possiblility.
No-one, and I really do mean no-one can state categorically that a cheese and pickle sandwich has never been used, or ever will be, in the preparation of a terrorist act. In the current political climate it is an act of sheer folly to discount the possiblility.

See how stupid that sounds?

So a police officer would think an image was dodgy enough to ask someone to delete it, but not dodgy enough to investigate further? Really? Especially in "the current climate"?
 

Brian

28DL Full Member
28DL Full Member
#30
No-one, and I really do mean no-one can state categorically that a cheese and pickle sandwich has never been used, or ever will be, in the preparation of a terrorist act. In the current political climate it is an act of sheer folly to discount the possiblility.

See how stupid that sounds?

Damn it - you're too quick Ben, I was just typing something similar involving something slightly more obscenely biological :rolleyes:

Thebeard - I'm not sure what your agenda is - but you seem to want to argue just for the sake of it!

(just to remind people your initial post on this thread was to be abusive towards this websites owner over his potential misuse of an apostrophe)

I think you need to accept that your slightly 'offbeat' view of the world is somewhat different to people that actually understand the topic.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
PCWOX Photography and Video Forum 7

Similar threads