|
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 03:03:52 -0800 (PST), The Real Doctor
wrote: On 24 Feb, 00:09, Charles Ellson wrote: On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:50:31 -0800 (PST), Boltar I think he was, otherwise you could turn the argument around and say people have no right to refuse to be photographed. ITYF that in general they do not. OTOH they might have a number of rights available to them WRT publication of any such photographs, depending on the manner and purpose of such publication. OK, you two, take out your cameras, go for a stroll round your local town and insist on your right to take photographs of people form a distance of, say, three feet. Be sure to point out to them that they have no right to refuse to be photographed. Where did I say I had a right to photograph them ? I'll bring you some grapes. Ian |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
On 24 Feb, 15:13, Roland Perry wrote:
So if the mob doesn't like you, it's an offence for you to do something the mob objects to? Mob rule in England, circa 2008. No, just a sensible precaution against incitement. Ian |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
In message , at 21:46:13 on
Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Charles Ellson remarked: If you see a sign, for instance, that says, "This is a prohibited place within the meaning of the Act" I wish signs like that would say *which* Act. IME they are usually "headlined" with the Act's name if worded as above. "Prohibited place" signs on the barbed wire outside a military base might, but I don't think the ones (eg on the doors to checkin hall) at civilian airports purporting to ban photography do. The signs in (eg) immigration purporting to ban use of cameras and mobile phones don't either. Maybe I should take a photo of one of the notices next time I see them - from the public side of the line in the sand, obviously :) -- Roland Perry |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
In message
, at 15:02:40 on Sun, 24 Feb 2008, The Real Doctor remarked: So if the mob doesn't like you, it's an offence for you to do something the mob objects to? Mob rule in England, circa 2008. No, just a sensible precaution against incitement. There have been times and places where being Jewish was an incitement. This is a very slippery slope. -- Roland Perry |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
On 25 Feb, 07:18, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:02:40 on Sun, 24 Feb 2008, The Real Doctor remarked: So if the mob doesn't like you, it's an offence for you to do something the mob objects to? Mob rule in England, circa 2008. No, just a sensible precaution against incitement. There have been times and places where being Jewish was an incitement. Paging Godwin. Paging Godwin. This is a very slippery slope. I think you overstate it a bit. It's not the job of the police to protect people who wish to goad others. Ian |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
In message
, at 23:48:55 on Sun, 24 Feb 2008, The Real Doctor remarked: So if the mob doesn't like you, it's an offence for you to do something the mob objects to? Mob rule in England, circa 2008. No, just a sensible precaution against incitement. There have been times and places where being Jewish was an incitement. Paging Godwin. Paging Godwin. Trainspotters, $race, $religion, photographers, pediatricians, the list is endless. The broader the brush, the more unjust it is. This is a very slippery slope. I think you overstate it a bit. It's not the job of the police to protect people who wish to goad others. So the person who parks on the pavement outside my house in the morning can't expect police protection because he's goading me? -- Roland Perry |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
On 25 Feb, 09:54, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 23:48:55 on Sun, 24 Feb 2008, The Real Doctor remarked: I think you overstate it a bit. It's not the job of the police to protect people who wish to goad others. So the person who parks on the pavement outside my house in the morning can't expect police protection because he's goading me? I am not quite sure what you are getting at. You seem to be saying that it is wrong for the police to protect people from harassment - is that right? Ian |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
Roland Perry wrote:
23:48:55 on Sun, 24 Feb 2008, The Real Doctor remarked: I think you overstate it a bit. It's not the job of the police to protect people who wish to goad others. So the person who parks on the pavement outside my house in the morning can't expect police protection because he's goading me? If the only way in which he is goading you is by parking his car, then my advice would be to keep quiet, lest the nice police officer trots off to see a couple of doctors... -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p11938606.html (57 010 at Sytch Lane (Slindon), 31 Jan 2005) |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:21:01 +0000, Chris Tolley wrote
Roland Perry wrote: 23:48:55 on Sun, 24 Feb 2008, The Real Doctor remarked: I think you overstate it a bit. It's not the job of the police to protect people who wish to goad others. So the person who parks on the pavement outside my house in the morning can't expect police protection because he's goading me? If the only way in which he is goading you is by parking his car, then my advice would be to keep quiet, lest the nice police officer trots off to see a couple of doctors... Get some large 'please don't park on the pavement' stickers printed up - the sort that leave a mess behind when you try to peel them off glass :-) |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
In message
, at 02:04:53 on Mon, 25 Feb 2008, The Real Doctor remarked: I think you overstate it a bit. It's not the job of the police to protect people who wish to goad others. So the person who parks on the pavement outside my house in the morning can't expect police protection because he's goading me? I am not quite sure what you are getting at. You seem to be saying that it is wrong for the police to protect people from harassment - is that right? Someone seemed to be suggesting it was wrong for the police to protect photographers from harassment (on the possibly tenuous grounds that some people might be goaded into their own acts of public disorder by his actions). -- Roland Perry |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
In message , at 10:21:01 on
Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Chris Tolley remarked: I think you overstate it a bit. It's not the job of the police to protect people who wish to goad others. So the person who parks on the pavement outside my house in the morning can't expect police protection because he's goading me? If the only way in which he is goading you is by parking his car, then my advice would be to keep quiet, lest the nice police officer trots off to see a couple of doctors... And the same for photographers, I hope. -- Roland Perry |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 07:15:48 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 21:46:13 on Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Charles Ellson remarked: If you see a sign, for instance, that says, "This is a prohibited place within the meaning of the Act" I wish signs like that would say *which* Act. IME they are usually "headlined" with the Act's name if worded as above. "Prohibited place" signs on the barbed wire outside a military base might, but I don't think the ones (eg on the doors to checkin hall) at civilian airports purporting to ban photography do. The signs in (eg) immigration purporting to ban use of cameras and mobile phones don't either. I've tried Googling gov.uk with various combinations of words to drag out some kind of specific regulation to back up such signs in airports but I don't get anything to suggest that such signs are other than DIY efforts with no supporting regulation. There are such things as :- http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story....§ioncode=1 which suggest that BAA seem to think they have some God-like powers which I would bet at least a fiver on the local magistrates telling them they haven't. Maybe I should take a photo of one of the notices next time I see them - from the public side of the line in the sand, obviously :) |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:48:55 -0800 (PST), The Real Doctor
wrote: On 25 Feb, 07:18, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 15:02:40 on Sun, 24 Feb 2008, The Real Doctor remarked: So if the mob doesn't like you, it's an offence for you to do something the mob objects to? Mob rule in England, circa 2008. No, just a sensible precaution against incitement. There have been times and places where being Jewish was an incitement. Paging Godwin. Paging Godwin. Being vaguely Semitic was liable to get you into trouble in many places long before Mr Shickelgruber's great-grandad was a twinkle in someone's eye. snip |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
In message , at 17:08:00 on
Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Charles Ellson remarked: "Prohibited place" signs on the barbed wire outside a military base might, but I don't think the ones (eg on the doors to checkin hall) at civilian airports purporting to ban photography do. The signs in (eg) immigration purporting to ban use of cameras and mobile phones don't either. I've tried Googling gov.uk with various combinations of words to drag out some kind of specific regulation to back up such signs in airports but I don't get anything to suggest that such signs are other than DIY efforts with no supporting regulation. There was a bit of a fuss in USA after 9/11 when the airports started demanding photo-ID from domestic passengers. Some people asked why, and they said there was a law. When people asked which law, they said "the law says we can't tell you" (a sort of D-notice with the enabling law, perhaps). As you can imagine this didn't go down well in "the land of the free [to travel], and a constitution dammit" and someone was taking the authorities to court over it, but I lost track of what the result was. -- Roland Perry |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
On 25 Feb, 12:32, Roland Perry wrote:
Someone seemed to be suggesting it was wrong for the police to protect photographers from harassment (on the possibly tenuous grounds that some people might be goaded into their own acts of public disorder by his actions). So are you saying that it's right for the police to protect photographers from harassment? In which case, I really can't see why it's wrong for the police to protect groups from harassment. More confused than ever, Ian |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:08:00 on Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Charles Ellson remarked: "Prohibited place" signs on the barbed wire outside a military base might, but I don't think the ones (eg on the doors to checkin hall) at civilian airports purporting to ban photography do. The signs in (eg) immigration purporting to ban use of cameras and mobile phones don't either. I've tried Googling gov.uk with various combinations of words to drag out some kind of specific regulation to back up such signs in airports but I don't get anything to suggest that such signs are other than DIY efforts with no supporting regulation. There was a bit of a fuss in USA after 9/11 when the airports started demanding photo-ID from domestic passengers. Some people asked why, and they said there was a law. When people asked which law, they said "the law says we can't tell you" (a sort of D-notice with the enabling law, perhaps). As you can imagine this didn't go down well in "the land of the free [to travel], and a constitution dammit" and someone was taking the authorities to court over it, but I lost track of what the result was. Gilmore v. Gonzales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilmore_v._Gonzales Gilmore lost, unfortunately. -- Michael Hoffman |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
In message , Charles Ellson
writes On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 07:16:36 +0000, Ian Jelf wrote: In message , The Real Doctor writes On 23 Feb, 22:57, Ian Jelf wrote: In message , The Real Doctor writes The toilets in Euston Station are a public place. Do users of them have a reasonable expectation of privacy? I suspect in this case they're *not* a "public place" insofar as they are private land and the owners can allow entry on condition of not participating in certain activities. Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. We can't have degenerated to this already? No, we haven't. I think you've just misunderstood what I meant or else I put it badly. I fully understand that private property can be a public place. That - for example - is how non-smoking legislation can be extended to privately owned premises, even if the owner would be willing to permit it. Incorrect. The legislation can apply to a private place which is a workplace, as applies to most offices. Yes I understand that; you're right of course. Workplaces are - as it were - in addition to the "public places" that I was referring to here. -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
Surely if BTP are looking to employ someone to have a go at
photographers on Tube stations there are plenty of people on NR stations with lots of experience in this line of work? Maybe BTP could induce one of them to deploy his/her expertise within the LU network? -- gordon |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:10:08 +0000, Ian Jelf
wrote: In message , Charles Ellson writes On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 07:16:36 +0000, Ian Jelf wrote: In message , The Real Doctor writes On 23 Feb, 22:57, Ian Jelf wrote: In message , The Real Doctor writes The toilets in Euston Station are a public place. Do users of them have a reasonable expectation of privacy? I suspect in this case they're *not* a "public place" insofar as they are private land and the owners can allow entry on condition of not participating in certain activities. Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. We can't have degenerated to this already? No, we haven't. I think you've just misunderstood what I meant or else I put it badly. I fully understand that private property can be a public place. That - for example - is how non-smoking legislation can be extended to privately owned premises, even if the owner would be willing to permit it. Incorrect. The legislation can apply to a private place which is a workplace, as applies to most offices. Yes I understand that; you're right of course. Workplaces are - as it were - in addition to the "public places" that I was referring to here. I don't know if you intended it to be read that way but WRT privately-owned premises there is no optional extension of the no-smoking regulations. Premises or vehicles are either subject to the regulations or not as defined in the regulations WRT to being workplaces or places to which the public are admitted. |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
In message
, at 11:18:05 on Mon, 25 Feb 2008, The Real Doctor remarked: Someone seemed to be suggesting it was wrong for the police to protect photographers from harassment (on the possibly tenuous grounds that some people might be goaded into their own acts of public disorder by his actions). So are you saying that it's right for the police to protect photographers from harassment? In which case, I really can't see why it's wrong for the police to protect groups from harassment. The police should protect both, or prosecute either, depending on who is actually the more threatening (to the other). Not as a result of some perceived but non-existent threat. -- Roland Perry |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 21:46:13 on Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Charles Ellson remarked: If you see a sign, for instance, that says, "This is a prohibited place within the meaning of the Act" I wish signs like that would say *which* Act. IME they are usually "headlined" with the Act's name if worded as above. "Prohibited place" signs on the barbed wire outside a military base might, but I don't think the ones (eg on the doors to checkin hall) at civilian airports purporting to ban photography do. The signs in (eg) immigration purporting to ban use of cameras and mobile phones don't either. On a tour of Terminal 5 we all took photos of the no photos signs, because we could. Maybe I should take a photo of one of the notices next time I see them - from the public side of the line in the sand, obviously :) Italy appears to go in for signs saying things like "Keep off the grass (act 12345/678 a90(b) (1974))" -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:46:21 +0000, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 17:25:56 on Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Peter Masson remarked: However, the Public Order Act creates the offence of 'in a public place using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour whereby a breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned' and someone taking photographs of children so that their parents took exception could well fall foul of this. Which of those activities would be, just the "threatening", or some of the others? And why isn't a parent's reaction equally threatening and/or abusive? That would be up to the police officer or magistrate who had to deal with the situation. It doesn't seem to me that taking a photo will often be "threatening" within the meaning of this law. Whereas expressing a desire to thump the photographer, is. AFAIR where anticipation of a simple breach of the peace is concerned (without resorting to the POA) then any party taking part is liable to arrest if necessary to prevent the anticipated breach. So could someone be nicked for being openly insert minority of choice in a place where national front types happened to be able to see them? Perhaps wearing a skullcap or turban in the same park as a Combat 18 picnic, or something. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
The Real Doctor wrote:
On 24 Feb, 00:09, Charles Ellson wrote: On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:50:31 -0800 (PST), Boltar I think he was, otherwise you could turn the argument around and say people have no right to refuse to be photographed. ITYF that in general they do not. OTOH they might have a number of rights available to them WRT publication of any such photographs, depending on the manner and purpose of such publication. OK, you two, take out your cameras, go for a stroll round your local town and insist on your right to take photographs of people form a distance of, say, three feet. Be sure to point out to them that they have no right to refuse to be photographed. On the other hand, you could try wandering round Cambridge (or similar place) in a college gown, evening dress, straw hat or some other "native costume", and picking a fight with every tourist who tries to take a photo of you. It'd be a sort of Rorke's Drift with Batman outfits. Japanese to the southeast... Thousands of them. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
Charles Ellson wrote "Prohibited place" signs on the barbed wire outside a military base might, but I don't think the ones (eg on the doors to checkin hall) at civilian airports purporting to ban photography do. The signs in (eg) immigration purporting to ban use of cameras and mobile phones don't either. Non-military and indeed non-Govermental installations that could be declared Prohibited Places under the Official Secrets Acts included railways and seaports so it is quite likely that airports have been added since 1920. I've tried Googling gov.uk with various combinations of words to drag out some kind of specific regulation to back up such signs in airports but I don't get anything to suggest that such signs are other than DIY efforts with no supporting regulation. There are such things as :- http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story....§ioncode=1 which suggest that BAA seem to think they have some God-like powers which I would bet at least a fiver on the local magistrates telling them they haven't. Maybe I should take a photo of one of the notices next time I see them - from the public side of the line in the sand, obviously :) Hee. Since even that might be illegal. -- Mike D |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:30:58 +0000, Arthur Figgis
wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:46:21 +0000, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 17:25:56 on Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Peter Masson remarked: However, the Public Order Act creates the offence of 'in a public place using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour whereby a breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned' and someone taking photographs of children so that their parents took exception could well fall foul of this. Which of those activities would be, just the "threatening", or some of the others? And why isn't a parent's reaction equally threatening and/or abusive? That would be up to the police officer or magistrate who had to deal with the situation. It doesn't seem to me that taking a photo will often be "threatening" within the meaning of this law. Whereas expressing a desire to thump the photographer, is. AFAIR where anticipation of a simple breach of the peace is concerned (without resorting to the POA) then any party taking part is liable to arrest if necessary to prevent the anticipated breach. So could someone be nicked for being openly insert minority of choice in a place where national front types happened to be able to see them? Perhaps wearing a skullcap or turban in the same park as a Combat 18 picnic, or something. I think that might be at least a theoretical "yes" as IMU the person being arrested does not have to be behaving criminally (in the usual sense) if it is dealt with as a Common Law (England and Wales) breach of the peace which is either occurring or anticipated but the behaviour falls short of the Public Order Acts standard for prosecution. At worst they are probably going to get a binding over order without IIRC a criminal record if they aren't just released later after being removed from the vicinity. |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:48:55 -0800 (PST), The Real Doctor
wrote: On 25 Feb, 07:18, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 15:02:40 on Sun, 24 Feb 2008, The Real Doctor remarked: So if the mob doesn't like you, it's an offence for you to do something the mob objects to? Mob rule in England, circa 2008. No, just a sensible precaution against incitement. There have been times and places where being Jewish was an incitement. Paging Godwin. Paging Godwin. I think he's probably a bit busy with Wikipedia... :) |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
On 25 Feb, 23:10, Arthur Figgis wrote:
Italy appears to go in for signs saying things like "Keep off the grass (act 12345/678 a90(b) (1974))" I once came across a French missile base near Aachen which wasn't on the maps and was surrounded by signs saying "No Entry. No Photography. Use of Deadly Force Authorised." I've got a picture of the sign somewhere ... Iaj |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
On 25 Feb, 23:30, Arthur Figgis wrote:
So could someone be nicked for being openly insert minority of choice in a place where national front types happened to be able to see them? Perhaps wearing a skullcap or turban in the same park as a Combat 18 picnic, or something. In much the same way that a C18 headcase could be arrested for trying to disturb a holocaust survivors march? Ian |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
On 25 Feb, 22:42, Roland Perry wrote:
The police should protect both, or prosecute either, depending on who is actually the more threatening (to the other). Not as a result of some perceived but non-existent threat. Surely the whole point about a threat is perception? If you don't feel threatened, it isn't a threat. Ian |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
In message
, The Real Doctor writes I once came across a French missile base near Aachen Did the Germans know it was there?! -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
Ian Jelf wrote:
In message , The Real Doctor writes I once came across a French missile base near Aachen Did the Germans know it was there?! They knew about the British bases in the British sector and the American bases in the American sector, so they probably suspected there might be French bases in the French sector... |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
In message
The Real Doctor wrote: On 25 Feb, 23:10, Arthur Figgis wrote: Italy appears to go in for signs saying things like "Keep off the grass (act 12345/678 a90(b) (1974))" I once came across a French missile base near Aachen which wasn't on the maps and was surrounded by signs saying "No Entry. No Photography. Use of Deadly Force Authorised." I've got a picture of the sign somewhere ... Miltary bases in Argentina merely have a sign with a silhouette of a soldier with a rifle. You don't even stop, never mind take pictures! -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
In message
, at 02:04:26 on Tue, 26 Feb 2008, The Real Doctor remarked: Italy appears to go in for signs saying things like "Keep off the grass (act 12345/678 a90(b) (1974))" I once came across a French missile base near Aachen which wasn't on the maps and was surrounded by signs saying "No Entry. No Photography. Use of Deadly Force Authorised." Authorised by whom under what law; dear Liza :) -- Roland Perry |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
In message
, at 02:06:51 on Tue, 26 Feb 2008, The Real Doctor remarked: The police should protect both, or prosecute either, depending on who is actually the more threatening (to the other). Not as a result of some perceived but non-existent threat. Surely the whole point about a threat is perception? If you don't feel threatened, it isn't a threat. It's not nearly as simple as that. I could feel threatened by people in baseball caps, but that doesn't excuse me kicking up a huge fuss if one came near me in the park. -- Roland Perry |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 02:06:51 on Tue, 26 Feb 2008, The Real Doctor remarked: The police should protect both, or prosecute either, depending on who is actually the more threatening (to the other). Not as a result of some perceived but non-existent threat. Surely the whole point about a threat is perception? If you don't feel threatened, it isn't a threat. It's not nearly as simple as that. I could feel threatened by people in baseball caps, but that doesn't excuse me kicking up a huge fuss if one came near me in the park. And if the cap wearers had no bad intentions towards you then there would be no actual threat even if you felt one. Conversely one could blithely wander into places where other people would know there was a real threat even though you were unaware of it. Sam |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
In message , John Rowland
writes Ian Jelf wrote: In message , The Real Doctor writes I once came across a French missile base near Aachen Did the Germans know it was there?! They knew about the British bases in the British sector and the American bases in the American sector, so they probably suspected there might be French bases in the French sector... Yes I realise that but the French sector was nowhere near Aachen! -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
On 26 Feb, 15:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 02:04:26 on Tue, 26 Feb 2008, The Real Doctor remarked: I once came across a French missile base near Aachen which wasn't on the maps and was surrounded by signs saying "No Entry. No Photography. Use of Deadly Force Authorised." Authorised by whom under what law; dear Liza :) "Le Loi Nous Sommes Francais Et Nous Faison Ce Que Nous Voulons, Mon Ami" I think they were feeling particularly sensitive when I was there, because shortly after I photog^H^H^H^H^H^Hsaw the signs I got a good view of the inside of the base, and it looked as if a batch of missiles had just been delivered. About two minutes later I was met by a large and armed party of guards. Oddly enough, I suddenly "forgot" all teh french and german I knew ... Ian |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
On 26 Feb, 15:26, Sam Wilson wrote:
And if the cap wearers had no bad intentions towards you then there would be no actual threat even if you felt one. Conversely one could blithely wander into places where other people would know there was a real threat even though you were unaware of it. No, that's being endangered. As you correctly point out, you can be endangered without feeling threatened or threatened without being endangered. Ian |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
In article
, The Real Doctor wrote: On 26 Feb, 15:26, Sam Wilson wrote: And if the cap wearers had no bad intentions towards you then there would be no actual threat even if you felt one. Conversely one could blithely wander into places where other people would know there was a real threat even though you were unaware of it. No, that's being endangered. As you correctly point out, you can be endangered without feeling threatened or threatened without being endangered. Ummm. I think was making a distinction between there being a threat and feeling threatened. I don't think they're the same. Anyone for a philological discussion? Sam |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:45 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk