Bill Sikes;1179965 wrote: Except that there is no law whatsoever in the UK making it illegal to photograph *anyone* in a public place, no matter what their age - with the exceptions of taking pictures of unclothed minors in certain situations, and photographs of police *in certain situations* "which are likely to be used by terrorists in furtherance of their crimes".
So, you can legally photograph anyone, in normal circumstances.
What can't *you* photograph in the 'States? Yes, it's true you can photograph in a public place Bill..... but you can not photograph individuals. They even have the right to take your camera and report you to police. I know this for fact due to police explaining in great detail at police/residents surgeries and conversations with local police.
Should we have the right to protect our home and property?
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Should we have the right to protect our home and property?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Should we have the right to protect our home and property?
First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, Freedom of Religion, and of assembly; right to petition.
The press is allowed to photograph anyone at any time. Why then is it the John Q Public can't?
The press is allowed to photograph anyone at any time. Why then is it the John Q Public can't?
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Should we have the right to protect our home and property?
oscar;1180013 wrote: Yes, it's true you can photograph in a public place Bill..... but you can not photograph individuals. They even have the right to take your camera and report you to police. I know this for fact due to police explaining in great detail at police/residents surgeries and conversations with local police.
Sorry, but this is absolute and complete twaddle - completely untrue:
"you can not photograph individuals" - yes, you can (and may).
"They even have the right to take your camera" - they most certainly don't.
"They even have the right to .. report you to police" - well, yes, one may indeed "report" anyone for absolutely anything, but what the police will make of it depends entirely on circumstances.
"I know this for fact due to police explaining in great detail" - then you have misinterpreted their words, or they are wrong. There isn't another explanation.
If you *really* believe that there's some sort of general prohibition along the lines you suggest, supply a pointer to a reference to the actual law.
Sorry, but this is absolute and complete twaddle - completely untrue:
"you can not photograph individuals" - yes, you can (and may).
"They even have the right to take your camera" - they most certainly don't.
"They even have the right to .. report you to police" - well, yes, one may indeed "report" anyone for absolutely anything, but what the police will make of it depends entirely on circumstances.
"I know this for fact due to police explaining in great detail" - then you have misinterpreted their words, or they are wrong. There isn't another explanation.
If you *really* believe that there's some sort of general prohibition along the lines you suggest, supply a pointer to a reference to the actual law.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Should we have the right to protect our home and property?
I found this. Hope it clarifies. I can't vouch for the guy's true expertise.
The law can essentially be summed up like this:
1. You can take a picture of anything you see - especially when you are in public.
2. You CANNOT take pictures where there is an expectation of privacy such as in a rest room or locker room. (more about Expectation on Privacy on Wikipedia)
3. You cannot legally trespass, but if you are on a side walk and you were so inclined you can photograph people in their back yards or on their porch. I think the back yard is over the line though.
4. You can take pictures of people or children in any public context. BUT DON’T FOLLOW LITTLE KIDS OR YOUNG WOMEN AROUND AND SCARE THEM. Legally though, you can follow people to get that shot - remember the Princess Diana chase. Perfectly legal.
5. You cannot profit from your work without signed releases. But to restate, feel free to snap away. It is only your commercial use that is limited.
6. You NEVER have to surrender your camera to or discuss the nature of your photography with anyone without a court order.
The law can essentially be summed up like this:
1. You can take a picture of anything you see - especially when you are in public.
2. You CANNOT take pictures where there is an expectation of privacy such as in a rest room or locker room. (more about Expectation on Privacy on Wikipedia)
3. You cannot legally trespass, but if you are on a side walk and you were so inclined you can photograph people in their back yards or on their porch. I think the back yard is over the line though.
4. You can take pictures of people or children in any public context. BUT DON’T FOLLOW LITTLE KIDS OR YOUNG WOMEN AROUND AND SCARE THEM. Legally though, you can follow people to get that shot - remember the Princess Diana chase. Perfectly legal.
5. You cannot profit from your work without signed releases. But to restate, feel free to snap away. It is only your commercial use that is limited.
6. You NEVER have to surrender your camera to or discuss the nature of your photography with anyone without a court order.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Should we have the right to protect our home and property?
Bill Sikes;1180141 wrote: Sorry, but this is absolute and complete twaddle - completely untrue:
"you can not photograph individuals" - yes, you can (and may).
"They even have the right to take your camera" - they most certainly don't.
"They even have the right to .. report you to police" - well, yes, one may indeed "report" anyone for absolutely anything, but what the police will make of it depends entirely on circumstances.
"I know this for fact due to police explaining in great detail" - then you have misinterpreted their words, or they are wrong. There isn't another explanation.
If you *really* believe that there's some sort of general prohibition along the lines you suggest, supply a pointer to a reference to the actual law.
Bill, we have been discussing this issue for years with our police. One of the problems we have here and cctv camera's outside our home is that we live right next door to a primary school and nursery. When we put them up, we were not allowed to put them at any angle that could have filmed the children even innocently going and leaving school. We had an officer even come out to our home and checked the camera's and came back to check once they were up.
Some weeks ago, a woman totally ignored 'no vechicle access' signs and drove into our private road, smashing into our car in the drive. She would not give my husband her insurence details so as she went to get in the car and drive off, he got his mobile phone out to take pics of her reg number. To cut a long story short, she assaulted him, grabbed his phone and drove off with it. His passenger got her reg as she was leaving and she was traced by the police and charged. She could not be charged with leaving the scene of an accident which was a great shame because our road is private and not under the highways and byways laws.
She was charged with assault and criminal damage to his phone. In her interview under caution she claimed my husband was taking pics of her and thats why she had fled. Complete lies but all the same when the officer took my husbands statement, he was very very care-full to word it so that it was only her reg number he was photographing as if he was photographing her, she would have had a right to take his camera and make a formal complaint. It didn't work for her as in the end, she confessed everything.
Anyone under the age of 17 yrs old in Britain is classed as a child. It is why most criminal cases can not name youths to the press.
During the years of vandalism we had at the war memorial, I was advised by police that i could photograph the memorial and anyone on it as it was a public place. However, if i had of targeted individuals under 17 yrs old, i would have been in trouble.
If you think i'm talking twaddle, then i suggest you point a camera in some-one's face in the street or even a public place. Give them your address and i bet the police are round to you within the hour.
"you can not photograph individuals" - yes, you can (and may).
"They even have the right to take your camera" - they most certainly don't.
"They even have the right to .. report you to police" - well, yes, one may indeed "report" anyone for absolutely anything, but what the police will make of it depends entirely on circumstances.
"I know this for fact due to police explaining in great detail" - then you have misinterpreted their words, or they are wrong. There isn't another explanation.
If you *really* believe that there's some sort of general prohibition along the lines you suggest, supply a pointer to a reference to the actual law.
Bill, we have been discussing this issue for years with our police. One of the problems we have here and cctv camera's outside our home is that we live right next door to a primary school and nursery. When we put them up, we were not allowed to put them at any angle that could have filmed the children even innocently going and leaving school. We had an officer even come out to our home and checked the camera's and came back to check once they were up.
Some weeks ago, a woman totally ignored 'no vechicle access' signs and drove into our private road, smashing into our car in the drive. She would not give my husband her insurence details so as she went to get in the car and drive off, he got his mobile phone out to take pics of her reg number. To cut a long story short, she assaulted him, grabbed his phone and drove off with it. His passenger got her reg as she was leaving and she was traced by the police and charged. She could not be charged with leaving the scene of an accident which was a great shame because our road is private and not under the highways and byways laws.
She was charged with assault and criminal damage to his phone. In her interview under caution she claimed my husband was taking pics of her and thats why she had fled. Complete lies but all the same when the officer took my husbands statement, he was very very care-full to word it so that it was only her reg number he was photographing as if he was photographing her, she would have had a right to take his camera and make a formal complaint. It didn't work for her as in the end, she confessed everything.
Anyone under the age of 17 yrs old in Britain is classed as a child. It is why most criminal cases can not name youths to the press.
During the years of vandalism we had at the war memorial, I was advised by police that i could photograph the memorial and anyone on it as it was a public place. However, if i had of targeted individuals under 17 yrs old, i would have been in trouble.
If you think i'm talking twaddle, then i suggest you point a camera in some-one's face in the street or even a public place. Give them your address and i bet the police are round to you within the hour.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Should we have the right to protect our home and property?
Bill Sikes;1178186 wrote: That is absolute rubbish. Where on *earth* do you get this idea?
It comes under "Child protection " as far as voluntary organisations go etc,, im not sure about actual laws. I was involved with youth football and we had to be vetted,(CRB check) and attend child preotection sessions etc,, we were informed no one was allowed to photograph or video the children wihtout their parents permission.,,which is ok for a team photo,, but meant we couldnt allow parents to take photos at games, or video games as we didnt have permission of all the other childrens parents ie. the opposing teams:rolleyes: it caused quite a lot of rows with parents i can tell ya:rolleyes:
Mind most of it is money making as we had to pay for pour own CRB checks and Child protection courses, and first aid courses, etc etc and anythhing else they could think of really:yh_rotfl
It comes under "Child protection " as far as voluntary organisations go etc,, im not sure about actual laws. I was involved with youth football and we had to be vetted,(CRB check) and attend child preotection sessions etc,, we were informed no one was allowed to photograph or video the children wihtout their parents permission.,,which is ok for a team photo,, but meant we couldnt allow parents to take photos at games, or video games as we didnt have permission of all the other childrens parents ie. the opposing teams:rolleyes: it caused quite a lot of rows with parents i can tell ya:rolleyes:
Mind most of it is money making as we had to pay for pour own CRB checks and Child protection courses, and first aid courses, etc etc and anythhing else they could think of really:yh_rotfl
FOC THREAD PART1
In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
Martin Luther King Jr.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Should we have the right to protect our home and property?
kazalala;1180190 wrote: It comes under "Child protection " as far as voluntary organisations go etc,, im not sure about actual laws. I was involved with youth football and we had to be vetted,(CRB check) and attend child preotection sessions etc,, we were informed no one was allowed to photograph or video the children wihtout their parents permission.,,which is ok for a team photo,, but meant we couldnt allow parents to take photos at games, or video games as we didnt have permission of all the other childrens parents ie. the opposing teams:rolleyes: it caused quite a lot of rows with parents i can tell ya:rolleyes:
Mind most of it is money making as we had to pay for pour own CRB checks and Child protection courses, and first aid courses, etc etc and anythhing else they could think of really:yh_rotfl
Yes your absolutely right.
In cases with reporters, you have the right to take their camera if they are photographing you against your will but most cases reported in the press are because the camera gets smashed and then rightfully, the reporter can claim criminal damage.
In the case with the woman who hit our car, some of the pics Mr O got had the woman in the frame with the car. We have been told we can not produce those in court (had she pleaded not guilty) as she could claim he was photographing her against her will and got away with it.
There was also an occassion some years ago when we were photographing damage to the war memorial and a complaint was made to police by a kids parent. We had to show the police the pics to prove we were photographing in general and not targeting kids in particular.
Mind most of it is money making as we had to pay for pour own CRB checks and Child protection courses, and first aid courses, etc etc and anythhing else they could think of really:yh_rotfl
Yes your absolutely right.
In cases with reporters, you have the right to take their camera if they are photographing you against your will but most cases reported in the press are because the camera gets smashed and then rightfully, the reporter can claim criminal damage.
In the case with the woman who hit our car, some of the pics Mr O got had the woman in the frame with the car. We have been told we can not produce those in court (had she pleaded not guilty) as she could claim he was photographing her against her will and got away with it.
There was also an occassion some years ago when we were photographing damage to the war memorial and a complaint was made to police by a kids parent. We had to show the police the pics to prove we were photographing in general and not targeting kids in particular.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Should we have the right to protect our home and property?
oscar;1180212 wrote: Yes your absolutely right.
In cases with reporters, you have the right to take their camera if they are photographing you against your will but most cases reported in the press are because the camera gets smashed and then rightfully, the reporter can claim criminal damage.
In the case with the woman who hit our car, some of the pics Mr O got had the woman in the frame with the car. We have been told we can not produce those in court (had she pleaded not guilty) as she could claim he was photographing her against her will and got away with it.
There was also an occassion some years ago when we were photographing damage to the war memorial and a complaint was made to police by a kids parent. We had to show the police the pics to prove we were photographing in general and not targeting kids in particular.
the thing is with a lot of these laws or rules such as in the child protection for voluntary organisations such as the youth footy,, they are put there for good and proper reason,, but as usual are used by the wrong people for the wrong reason ,, exploited..for their own ends:rolleyes:
In cases with reporters, you have the right to take their camera if they are photographing you against your will but most cases reported in the press are because the camera gets smashed and then rightfully, the reporter can claim criminal damage.
In the case with the woman who hit our car, some of the pics Mr O got had the woman in the frame with the car. We have been told we can not produce those in court (had she pleaded not guilty) as she could claim he was photographing her against her will and got away with it.
There was also an occassion some years ago when we were photographing damage to the war memorial and a complaint was made to police by a kids parent. We had to show the police the pics to prove we were photographing in general and not targeting kids in particular.
the thing is with a lot of these laws or rules such as in the child protection for voluntary organisations such as the youth footy,, they are put there for good and proper reason,, but as usual are used by the wrong people for the wrong reason ,, exploited..for their own ends:rolleyes:
FOC THREAD PART1
In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
Martin Luther King Jr.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Should we have the right to protect our home and property?
kazalala;1180215 wrote: the thing is with a lot of these laws or rules such as in the child protection for voluntary organisations such as the youth footy,, they are put there for good and proper reason,, but as usual are used by the wrong people for the wrong reason ,, exploited..for their own ends:rolleyes: I totally agree with the laws. For one, i know what it's like to have a camera shoved in your face when you've got no make up on against you will :wah: For anyone, it is an invasion of privacy. Also, the laws need to be there to protect kids from pervs. Unfortunately, the law protects scroats up to no good also. If you take my situation..... we need cctv to protect our property due to crime in our area but there could well be a perv living next door to a school and nursery for the wrong reasons.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Should we have the right to protect our home and property?
oscar;1180222 wrote: I totally agree with the laws. For one, i know what it's like to have a camera shoved in your face when you've got no make up on against you will :wah: For anyone, it is an invasion of privacy. Also, the laws need to be there to protect kids from pervs. Unfortunately, the law protects scroats up to no good also. If you take my situation..... we need cctv to protect our property due to crime in our area but there could well be a perv living next door to a school and nursery for the wrong reasons.
Oh I agree with it Oscar and the reasons they are they in the first place,, i have no problems at all with those laws,,especially the camera ones, its when other use the child protection rules to their own advantage,,eg. i was quoted child protection cos i wouldnt call the games off after it had been raining for 5 minutes:rolleyes: I just said,, i aint calling them off but i cant forse you to play ,, you make the decision wether to play or not. honestly it had oly been raining five minutes!! they let their kids play out oin the snow for ages making snowmen but dont think they should have to play footy as it started raining:rolleyes: more like they didnt want to be stood in the rain,, the kids love it:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl
Oh I agree with it Oscar and the reasons they are they in the first place,, i have no problems at all with those laws,,especially the camera ones, its when other use the child protection rules to their own advantage,,eg. i was quoted child protection cos i wouldnt call the games off after it had been raining for 5 minutes:rolleyes: I just said,, i aint calling them off but i cant forse you to play ,, you make the decision wether to play or not. honestly it had oly been raining five minutes!! they let their kids play out oin the snow for ages making snowmen but dont think they should have to play footy as it started raining:rolleyes: more like they didnt want to be stood in the rain,, the kids love it:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl
FOC THREAD PART1
In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
Martin Luther King Jr.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Should we have the right to protect our home and property?
oscar;1180184 wrote: Bill, we have been discussing this issue for years with our police.
In that case, you will be able to provide a pointer to the actual law.
However, as there isn't any such thing, I shan't be surprised not to see one from you.
In that case, you will be able to provide a pointer to the actual law.
However, as there isn't any such thing, I shan't be surprised not to see one from you.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Should we have the right to protect our home and property?
kazalala;1180190 wrote: It comes under "Child protection " as far as voluntary organisations go etc,, im not sure about actual laws. yh_rotfl
We're talking about street photography - and there isn't a law prohibiting it except in the most unusual circumstances (see previously posted).
We're talking about street photography - and there isn't a law prohibiting it except in the most unusual circumstances (see previously posted).
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Should we have the right to protect our home and property?
kazalala;1180190 wrote: I was involved with youth football and we had to be vetted,(CRB check) and attend child preotection sessions etc,, we were informed no one was allowed to photograph or video the children wihtout their parents permission.,,which is ok for a team photo,, but meant we couldnt allow parents to take photos at games, or video games as we didnt have permission of all the other childrens parents
This is interesting - since my local primary school allows parents to take pictures at the School Play, Sports Day, etc. I suspect that your organisation has been over-zealous. However, this has nothing to do with street photography.
This is interesting - since my local primary school allows parents to take pictures at the School Play, Sports Day, etc. I suspect that your organisation has been over-zealous. However, this has nothing to do with street photography.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Should we have the right to protect our home and property?
oscar;1180212 wrote: In cases with reporters, you have the right to take their camera if they are photographing you against your will
You have no such "right" - if you try to do so you will deservedly be in trouble quite quickly.
Again, if you think you have the right - where's the law... (there isn't one).
oscar;1180212 wrote: In the case with the woman who hit our car, some of the pics Mr O got had the woman in the frame with the car. We have been told we can not produce those in court (had she pleaded not guilty) as she could claim he was photographing her against her will and got away with it.
You have swallowed someone's line hook, line, and sinker.
oscar;1180212 wrote: There was also an occassion some years ago when we were photographing damage to the war memorial and a complaint was made to police by a kids parent. We had to show the police the pics to prove we were photographing in general and not targeting kids in particular.
You are at perfect liberty to photograph anyone in such circumstances. It's good evidence.
You have no such "right" - if you try to do so you will deservedly be in trouble quite quickly.
Again, if you think you have the right - where's the law... (there isn't one).
oscar;1180212 wrote: In the case with the woman who hit our car, some of the pics Mr O got had the woman in the frame with the car. We have been told we can not produce those in court (had she pleaded not guilty) as she could claim he was photographing her against her will and got away with it.
You have swallowed someone's line hook, line, and sinker.
oscar;1180212 wrote: There was also an occassion some years ago when we were photographing damage to the war memorial and a complaint was made to police by a kids parent. We had to show the police the pics to prove we were photographing in general and not targeting kids in particular.
You are at perfect liberty to photograph anyone in such circumstances. It's good evidence.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Should we have the right to protect our home and property?
kazalala;1180223 wrote: Oh I agree with it Oscar and the reasons they are they in the first place,, i have no problems at all with those laws,,especially the camera ones,
Come on, then - give a pointer to such "laws". Oh dear. There aren't any.
Come on, then - give a pointer to such "laws". Oh dear. There aren't any.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Should we have the right to protect our home and property?
oscar;1180212 wrote: Yes your absolutely right.
In cases with reporters, you have the right to take their camera if they are photographing you against your will [...]
:-2 and do what with it? Keep it?
In cases with reporters, you have the right to take their camera if they are photographing you against your will [...]
:-2 and do what with it? Keep it?
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Should we have the right to protect our home and property?
Bill Sikes;1180269 wrote:
You have swallowed someone's line hook, line, and sinker.
Are you suggesting then that an entire police force right up to senior officers, and head teachers are lying?
In the case where the woman hit our car, we were the one's the officers were trying to get a conviction for and not against. There was no reason to spin a yarn to us as the officer desperately wanted her convicted and not get away wth it. He also told us what her lawyer advised in interview under caution with her and those pictures could have ben a problem.
I know many senior officers and this is something we have had to discuss at length with them. There is a world of difference between using cctv camera's for crime prevention and photographing a person against their will especially under 17 yrs old, in the street.
Why don't you find me the laws that say you can?
You have swallowed someone's line hook, line, and sinker.
Are you suggesting then that an entire police force right up to senior officers, and head teachers are lying?
In the case where the woman hit our car, we were the one's the officers were trying to get a conviction for and not against. There was no reason to spin a yarn to us as the officer desperately wanted her convicted and not get away wth it. He also told us what her lawyer advised in interview under caution with her and those pictures could have ben a problem.
I know many senior officers and this is something we have had to discuss at length with them. There is a world of difference between using cctv camera's for crime prevention and photographing a person against their will especially under 17 yrs old, in the street.
Why don't you find me the laws that say you can?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Should we have the right to protect our home and property?
oscar;1180378 wrote: Are you suggesting then that an entire police force right up to senior officers, and head teachers are lying?
As below - I am *saying*, not *suggesting*, that you have misinterpreted someone's words, or that someone has given you wrong information.
oscar;1180378 wrote: There is a world of difference between using cctv camera's for crime prevention and photographing a person against their will especially under 17 yrs old, in the street.
Why don't you find me the laws that say you can?
So. That, I take it, is an admission from you that there is no such prohibition, 'cos you can't find the pointer I asked for.
Unsurprisingly, there is no law saying you can photograph anyone in the street This is because unless legislation exists to prevent something, that something is "legal".
This explains your complete inability to provide any reference to the law banning street photography. There isn't one. You are just wrong in your assertions.
As below - I am *saying*, not *suggesting*, that you have misinterpreted someone's words, or that someone has given you wrong information.
oscar;1180378 wrote: There is a world of difference between using cctv camera's for crime prevention and photographing a person against their will especially under 17 yrs old, in the street.
Why don't you find me the laws that say you can?
So. That, I take it, is an admission from you that there is no such prohibition, 'cos you can't find the pointer I asked for.
Unsurprisingly, there is no law saying you can photograph anyone in the street This is because unless legislation exists to prevent something, that something is "legal".
This explains your complete inability to provide any reference to the law banning street photography. There isn't one. You are just wrong in your assertions.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Should we have the right to protect our home and property?
Accountable;1180316 wrote: -2 and do what with it? Keep it?
Taking the action Oscar suggests is illegal in the UK - attempting it would justifiably end in trouble. Her further suggestions are bizzarely inaccurate.
FYI some informative links to guides:
US: Bert P. Krages Attorney at Law Photographer's Rights Page
Australie (NSW): 4020 Φ NSW Photographer's Rights
UK: http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf
These from: UK Photographers Rights
Taking the action Oscar suggests is illegal in the UK - attempting it would justifiably end in trouble. Her further suggestions are bizzarely inaccurate.
FYI some informative links to guides:
US: Bert P. Krages Attorney at Law Photographer's Rights Page
Australie (NSW): 4020 Φ NSW Photographer's Rights
UK: http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf
These from: UK Photographers Rights
Should we have the right to protect our home and property?
Bill Sikes;1180270 wrote: Come on, then - give a pointer to such "laws". Oh dear. There aren't any.
Im sorry i thought i had made it clear in my earlier posts that i was unsure wether they were actual laws or not:-3Also the turn of the conversation went slightly off tangent, my fault i think bringing child preotection in,, i shouldnt have used the word Laws,, or i should have said "so called" or i should have made clear i wasnt suggesting it was in fact a law and that i had proof of such...:rolleyes::rolleyes: In fact i shouldnt even be here i suppose as im obviously not well versed enough to participate in a thread such as this:p
Im sorry i thought i had made it clear in my earlier posts that i was unsure wether they were actual laws or not:-3Also the turn of the conversation went slightly off tangent, my fault i think bringing child preotection in,, i shouldnt have used the word Laws,, or i should have said "so called" or i should have made clear i wasnt suggesting it was in fact a law and that i had proof of such...:rolleyes::rolleyes: In fact i shouldnt even be here i suppose as im obviously not well versed enough to participate in a thread such as this:p
FOC THREAD PART1
In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
Martin Luther King Jr.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Should we have the right to protect our home and property?
kazalala;1180567 wrote: Im sorry i thought i had made it clear in my earlier posts that i was unsure wether they were actual laws or not p
You referred to such - however, sorry, I get slightly overwound when gross inaccuracies are put forward (no, not by you!).
You referred to such - however, sorry, I get slightly overwound when gross inaccuracies are put forward (no, not by you!).