Police Incident with my camera

Police Incident with my camera

Author
Discussion

MDMetal

2,776 posts

149 months

Thursday 4th February 2016
quotequote all
threespires said:
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.
>>>>>>
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.
Did he actually say you were taking photos of his wife? I'm assuming the subject matter of your photo has something to do with the car park parked on hatched lines? Is the guys car out of shot also on hatched lines?

threespires

Original Poster:

4,295 posts

212 months

Thursday 4th February 2016
quotequote all
No, he was parked perfectly. I'm unsure why the hatched lines are there.

bitchstewie

51,319 posts

211 months

Thursday 4th February 2016
quotequote all
How have we gone from:

"The photo I framed included the local Cathedral in the background, a bird flying above a Tesco sign and three cars in the foreground, one of the cars had a man and a woman loading their shopping into the back of the car."

To a photo of an Audi?

Something stinks here and either you were lying then, or you are now.

NRS

22,189 posts

202 months

Thursday 4th February 2016
quotequote all
threespires said:
>>>>>>
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.
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?

anonymous-user

55 months

Thursday 4th February 2016
quotequote all
This whole thing stinks

threespires

Original Poster:

4,295 posts

212 months

Thursday 4th February 2016
quotequote all
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.

anonymous-user

55 months

Thursday 4th February 2016
quotequote all
I'm glad it's resolved. The PC who received the incident was probably like, "What is this garbage?", and wanted it erased from their memory as quickly as possible.

On a side note, are you going to enter that photo in the Sony World Photograph competition next time it's open?


Variomatic

2,392 posts

162 months

Thursday 4th February 2016
quotequote all
threespires said:
Yesterday I went to a supermarket. Walking from my car to the entrance I saw a photo opportunity & pulled my camera out, framed the photo and I may or may not have taken a photo.
You might want to check the time / date setting on your camera. The camera thinks the photo you posted was taken at 12:33pm on the 28th Jan, which would have been the day before yesterday when you started the thread wink

Roo

11,503 posts

208 months

Thursday 4th February 2016
quotequote all
Ten seconds to show the bloke the photo you took would've ended that on the spot.

Greendubber

13,222 posts

204 months

Thursday 4th February 2016
quotequote all
Variomatic said:
You might want to check the time / date setting on your camera. The camera thinks the photo you posted was taken at 12:33pm on the 28th Jan, which would have been the day before yesterday when you started the thread wink
You've gotta love exif data.

I'm calling total bullst. OP bore off and take some more boring photos and stop posting ste.

NRS

22,189 posts

202 months

Thursday 4th February 2016
quotequote all
threespires said:
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.
No, but you either lied in the original post description of the photo, or it is not the same photo. So yes, you have lied here. Nothing to do with the complainant being in the photo.

anonymous-user

55 months

Thursday 4th February 2016
quotequote all
Bloody Fraudster. For goodness sake get a life OP

AstonZagato

12,712 posts

211 months

Thursday 4th February 2016
quotequote all
threespires said:
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)
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.
Nope. Let me quote exactly what you said and in which context:

On point 2:
In answer to my point:
threespires said:
AstonZagato said:
He could dispel the suspicion here by posting the innocent photo (that he may or may not have taken - weird). He has chosen not to do so. Weird.
threespires said:
how can I show a photo on here that I didn't take. Is that weird?
That is a direct response to a request to see the innocent picture. Therefore your statement is unequivocal that you took no picture, not that you didn't take a picture of the people.

On point 3:

threespires said:
The photo I framed included the local Cathedral in the background, a bird flying above a Tesco sign and three cars in the foreground, one of the cars had a man and a woman loading their shopping into the back of the car
That is photo singular. Not the photos (plural). So you clearly stated that you framed one photo that included these objects and people. Now the actual photo (if indeed that is the photo) is different.

You are not consistent.

Edited by AstonZagato on Thursday 4th February 18:14

pinchmeimdreamin

9,966 posts

219 months

Thursday 4th February 2016
quotequote all
threespires said:
4] A zoomed shot of a black Audi with black wheels and tints that was parked next to the complainants VW. This could have been an interesting shot for either Pistonheads or one of the many car photo groups that I belong to.
Something certainly seems fishy wink

Vaud

50,583 posts

156 months

Thursday 4th February 2016
quotequote all
threespires said:
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.
Was that shot at full zoom? He may have perceived that you were filming him. 270 is not exactly an ultra zoom, but maybe he thought you were a perv/DWP/etc?

People filming in Tesco car parks with SLRs isn't exactly normal. "Filming you? Oh no, I was just taking a photo of that parked Audi"... yeah, right

You really, really need to retain your rights. I'm with you on that. At the same time, you REALLY need to look at how you integrate and behave in society where rights are balanced by responsibilities.

pinchmeimdreamin

9,966 posts

219 months

Thursday 4th February 2016
quotequote all
threespires said:
I'm not going to look at this thread anymore Because I have otally forgotten which bits are truth and which bits I made up

Vaud

50,583 posts

156 months

Thursday 4th February 2016
quotequote all
OP - you are about as good at sustaining a fact based discussion as you are a photographer.




On an unrelated topic:
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

threespires

Original Poster:

4,295 posts

212 months

Thursday 4th February 2016
quotequote all
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.

stuartmmcfc

8,664 posts

193 months

Thursday 4th February 2016
quotequote all
That's a lot of dissapointed people.

paintman

7,691 posts

191 months

Thursday 4th February 2016
quotequote all
Most likely a 'spot the loony' sort of thing.