Police Incident with my camera
Discussion
MDMetal said:
No problem 
Yup ultimately since we (and the OP) don't know what other factors are involved then it's all one sided. The majority of people have wisely pointed out that taking the photo SHOULDN'T be an issue in normal circumstances and that there is another factor that we and the OP aren't aware of.
If there is then you can rest assured that I will let you know. Yup ultimately since we (and the OP) don't know what other factors are involved then it's all one sided. The majority of people have wisely pointed out that taking the photo SHOULDN'T be an issue in normal circumstances and that there is another factor that we and the OP aren't aware of.DT398 said:
Why do you presume to think anyone will rest assured by knowing the outcome of this complete drivel? You obviously crave the attention and probably quite like the fact that the old bill has felt your collar a few times. It obviously hasn't bothered you enough to alter your behaviour in any way to prevent it happening again, so an observer from another planet might think you quite like it and thats why you behave the way you do.
There's the door, close it on your way out....Fastdruid said:
This boils down to the OP annoying the equivalent of one of those (often drunk) nutters who goes off on one "are you looking at my bird".
Remove the photograph and that's what it boils down to, someone has got a bee in their bonnet about the OP "looking at his woman" and has complained to the police.
Now if said nutter went up to the police and complained that "someone was looking at his wife/gf/mistress/whatever in a supermarket car park" they'd rightfully be laughed out of the station but because there is a photograph (potentially) involved the police are for some reason investigating when the response should have been exactly the same.
Thank you for understanding my point of view. You put it far better than I seem to be able to do.Remove the photograph and that's what it boils down to, someone has got a bee in their bonnet about the OP "looking at his woman" and has complained to the police.
Now if said nutter went up to the police and complained that "someone was looking at his wife/gf/mistress/whatever in a supermarket car park" they'd rightfully be laughed out of the station but because there is a photograph (potentially) involved the police are for some reason investigating when the response should have been exactly the same.
V6Pushfit said:
threespires said:
I see where you're coming from now - so I'll rephrase
"If there is then I will let you know."
Better?
Sigh. It seems some people were put on this planet to waste their own time and that of others. "If there is then I will let you know."
Better?
This whole issue was born out of lack of communication which, as it would have been known at the time, would lead to further involvement for everyone rather than an attitude of getting things over with and then getting on with the next thing.
And as for the '365'?
Well dippidy doo
Which brings me right back to page 1 where I admitted that I chose not to reply to the complainant I can say something or use an expression that can be interpreted in a different way to that intended.
Thank you for your confirmation that keeping schtum was the right option.
Edited by threespires on Thursday 4th February 11:21
Edited by threespires on Thursday 4th February 11:39
FrankAbagnale said:
With the comment "she passes by every day" and "Now they say that dogs can resemble their owners - or am I being cruel". That comes across as a bit odd to me. But, each to their own.
To set your mind at rest, she's a friend I've known for 35 years, I worked with her brother for some years at TVR. She would have a good giggle at my comment. So thank you for illustrating that what you see or hear and the way you interpret it can differ from person to person, shown by the many opposing views on this thread.
This is partly why I chose not to engage the complainant in conversation. Many have been hard on me for not explaining my actions to the complainant, I understand that and if I were a visitor to this thread I'd probably say the same. But experience has taught me that explanation does not calm the situation down, it often escalates it.
AstonZagato said:
Therefore:
1. Nothing to do with photography (as we have all been saying)
2. You did take a photo (you said on here you didn't)
3. The photo you took was not of the cathedral, the birds or the Tesco sign but of a car.
Doesn't really make your past posts look truthful.
>>>>>>>>>>>2. You did take a photo (you said on here you didn't)1. Nothing to do with photography (as we have all been saying)
2. You did take a photo (you said on here you didn't)
3. The photo you took was not of the cathedral, the birds or the Tesco sign but of a car.
Doesn't really make your past posts look truthful.
I didn't take a photo of the people
>>>>>>3. The photo you took was not of the cathedral, the birds or the Tesco sign but of a car.
I said that there were various opportunities available:- the Cathedral, Tesco sign, a bird flying and 3 cars in the foreground.
V6Pushfit said:
It might have been, but I doubt you have been telling the full facts on here or to the Police.
Better get back to your '365' then. Yawn.
>>>>>>Better get back to your '365' then. Yawn.
but I doubt you have been telling the full facts on here or to the Police.
You're intimating that I'm a liar, that is one of the problems I face when on the receiving end of 'Oy why are you taking photo's'.
Hopefully you can now understand why I decided not to engage in conversation, this man is convinced I took a photo of his wife yet I didn't but he would still be convinced that I did and would call me a liar insisting that he saw me taking a picture of his wife.
NRS said:
No, he's clearly calling you a liar, as you are. Look at your posts which were quoted and then look at the picture. You clearly lied about what was in the picture or you have posted a picture which is not the real one. Why be offended about being called a liar when it's very clear you did?
Now you've totally lost me. I didn't take a photo of the complainant, I never said I did.I said that there were various opportunities open to me, you've seen the one I chose.
Again, thanks for illustrating exactly why I chose not to engage the complainant in conversation.
I'm not going to look at this thread anymore, thank you to everybody for your input whether it was good or bad.
To finish, I agree most of the 365 pix are not very thrilling but there are some 25,000 car pix there which might appeal to P/H people.
My stats have gone wild since a link to my pix was posted.
20,000 views in two days, mostly linked from P/H so thanks fellow P/Hers, this has taken my total views to just over 9 million.
To finish, I agree most of the 365 pix are not very thrilling but there are some 25,000 car pix there which might appeal to P/H people.
My stats have gone wild since a link to my pix was posted.
20,000 views in two days, mostly linked from P/H so thanks fellow P/Hers, this has taken my total views to just over 9 million.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff