Preventing attempted Camera theft

Discussion in 'UK Photography' started by john woods, Aug 13, 2012.

  1. john woods

    AlanG Guest

    I have one of those and wouldn't dream of damaging it. It's the only
    SLR I ever owned or wanted. I was tempted once by a minolta x300 since
    it was one of the few modern SLRs that would work without batteries.
    The advantages didn't match the cost of new lenses and filters so I
    stuck with the Zenit. Still use it when I want to work with 35mm
    instead of digital. But only at home cos the bugger is too heavy to
    hump around at my age
     
    AlanG, Aug 14, 2012
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. john woods

    Rob Morley Guest

    I have several, which may get used some time - I agree that they appeal
    to a certain sort of user, but these days they're more likely to be
    bought so the lens can be bolted onto a digital body, and the clockwork
    brick left unappreciated in a cupboard. It would probably still work
    after it had been used to batter a chav about the head anyway.
     
    Rob Morley, Aug 14, 2012
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. john woods

    Adam Funk Guest

    Actually some people really hate Motörhead.
     
    Adam Funk, Aug 14, 2012
    #23
  4. john woods

    Tired Guest

    Peter Parry wrote:
    :: On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 16:30:04 -0700 (PDT), Szymon von Ulezalka
    ::
    :::: Carrying it for self defence against a possible threat is not a
    :::: lawful excuse.
    :::
    ::: .. so what is?
    ::
    :: In this case, there isn't. A folding baton is defined in law as an
    :: offensive weapon. It has no other purpose.
    ::
    :: If the offensive weapon is carried as a general precaution against
    :: the possibility of attack then case law has determined this does not
    :: constitute a reasonable excuse.
    ::
    :: Evans Hughes [1972] Crim.L.R. 558
    :: http://www.rjerrard.co.uk/law/cases/densu.htm
    ::
    ::
    :: However, it might constitute a reasonable excuse if a person thought
    :: that he was about to be attacked imminently and carried the weapon to
    :: defend himself against a specific danger.

    Such as picking up a knife/scredriver/baseball bat in your house because you
    hear an intruder and you need to defend yourself.
     
    Tired, Aug 14, 2012
    #24
  5. }On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 16:30:04 -0700 (PDT), Szymon von Ulezalka
    }
    }>> Carrying it for self defence against a possible threat is not a lawful
    }>> excuse.
    }>
    }>.. so what is?
    }
    }In this case, there isn't. A folding baton is defined in law as an
    }offensive weapon. It has no other purpose.

    To a photographer it could be a prop for use in photographs.
     
    Charles Bryant, Aug 14, 2012
    #25
  6. That is not a public place.

    David
     
    David Littlewood, Aug 15, 2012
    #26
  7. Evans Hughes [1972] Crim.L.R. 558http://www.rjerrard.co.uk/law/cases/densu.htm
    thanx for link
    another question (possibley silly): what about having an "offensive
    weapon" (are there any defensive?) in a private place? e.g. if someone
    works in an office (private company)? or in company car etc?
    simon
     
    Szymon von Ulezalka, Aug 15, 2012
    #27
  8. john woods

    Rob Morley Guest

    Carrying something in a car is the same as carrying it in your pocket
    on the street. You can keep many "offensive weapons" legally in your
    home - from chef knives to baseball bats, but if you get caught with
    them on the street you'd better be going to cookery class or baseball
    game.
     
    Rob Morley, Aug 15, 2012
    #28
  9. john woods

    AlanG Guest

    You can have anything on private premises that is not actually
    unlawful to own. Even if you have a gun permit you would be breaking
    the law if you kept a firearm loaded and readily available. But there
    is nothing to stop you having a cricket bat or a hammer or a big
    screwdriver or even a sickle in your own home or office.

    Cars are used on a public road so considered to be in a public place.
    See
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...to-court-for-carrying-work-scythe-in-van.html
     
    AlanG, Aug 15, 2012
    #29
  10. john woods

    Paul Hyett Guest

    IMO the whole law of self-defence is completely fucked! :(

    I bet >90% of the public would agree that people should be allowed to
    carry a means of defending themselves from attack, without having to
    worry about the legal consequences of doing so!

    The blanket term 'offensive weapon' is absurd too - they are just
    objects. The only consideration should be actual use to start an attack,
    not the mere *potential* to do so - most people wouldn't dream of
    initiating an attack on someone else!
     
    Paul Hyett, Aug 15, 2012
    #30
  11. Cars are used on a public road so considered to be in a public place. in that case- why do i see the signs "do not smoke" "it is against the
    law..." in company cars (yes, i know smoking stinks and its putting
    the value of the cars down)? even in those used only by 1 person (so
    there is no risk of anyone else complaining)? are those rules set by
    employer only (and therefore breaking them isn't actually a breaking
    of law, its not unlawfull /or illegal/)?

    simon
     
    Szymon von Ulezalka, Aug 15, 2012
    #31
  12. Not necessarily the case - see

    http://www.out-law.com/en/topics/regulatory/health--safety/the-smoking-ba
    n-and-company-vehicles/

    David
     
    David Littlewood, Aug 15, 2012
    #32
  13. john woods

    Rob Morley Guest

    A company vehicle is a place of work, and there's a blanket ban on
    smoking in the workplace.
     
    Rob Morley, Aug 15, 2012
    #33
  14. john woods

    Cynic Guest

    No, that is not quite correct. There are several circumstances in
    which smoking in a company vehicle is permitted. One being if the
    vehicle is only normally occupied by a single specific employee.
     
    Cynic, Aug 15, 2012
    #34
  15. john woods

    Rob Morley Guest

    On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:32:36 GMT
    As I read it not normally, but ever, used by more than one employee,
    whether separately or concurrently. But convertibles are OK as long as
    the roof is off. :)
     
    Rob Morley, Aug 15, 2012
    #35
  16. john woods

    Cynic Guest

    The problem with that interpretation is that no employee is likely to
    be 100% certain that the vehicle will *never* be used by any other
    employee in the future. The most that could be stated with certainty
    is that it will not *foreseeably* be used by any other employee.

    If one of my salespeople has an important meeting with a customer, and
    their car broke down, I am not going to tell them to cancel the
    meeting when my company car is available, just because I used to smoke
    in the car.
     
    Cynic, Aug 15, 2012
    #36
  17. john woods

    Rob Morley Guest

    On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:11:34 GMT
    Maybe you should, legally.
     
    Rob Morley, Aug 15, 2012
    #37
  18. john woods

    Cynic Guest

    No, I prefer not.
     
    Cynic, Aug 15, 2012
    #38
  19. john woods

    Nightjar Guest

    The guidance I have seen is that if it is allocated exclusively to a
    single person who is not expected to carry any other employee in the
    course of employment, then it does not need to be a no smoking vehicle.
    Not that I ever allowed smoking in any of my factories or company
    vehicles, even before the ban - medical devices smelling of cigarette
    smoke does not project quite the right image.

    Colin Bignell
     
    Nightjar, Aug 15, 2012
    #39
  20. john woods

    Tired Guest

    Nightjar wrote:
    :: On 15/08/2012 16:49, Rob Morley wrote:
    ::: On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:32:36 GMT
    ::: (Cynic) wrote:
    :::
    :::: On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:27:00 +0100, Rob Morley
    ::::
    ::::: A company vehicle is a place of work, and there's a blanket ban on
    ::::: smoking in the workplace.
    ::::
    :::: No, that is not quite correct. There are several circumstances in
    :::: which smoking in a company vehicle is permitted. One being if the
    :::: vehicle is only normally occupied by a single specific employee.
    ::::
    ::: As I read it not normally, but ever, used by more than one employee,
    ::: whether separately or concurrently. But convertibles are OK as
    ::: long as the roof is off. :)
    ::
    :: The guidance I have seen is that if it is allocated exclusively to a
    :: single person who is not expected to carry any other employee in the
    :: course of employment, then it does not need to be a no smoking
    :: vehicle. Not that I ever allowed smoking in any of my factories or
    :: company vehicles, even before the ban - medical devices smelling of
    :: cigarette smoke does not project quite the right image.
    ::
    :: Colin Bignell

    It's an examption, i imagine to keep self employed one man bands who
    primarily use their own personal vehicle for business purposes. He would be
    able to smoke on his way to the supermarket, but not on his way to a
    customers house.
     
    Tired, Aug 16, 2012
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.