Preventing attempted Camera theft

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

  1. john woods

    Cynic Guest

    So long as the vehicle is allocated for his sole use (whilst working),
    he is permitted to smoke in it whilst on the way to a customer's

    IIUC, it would also be permitted to smoke in the vehicle on the way to
    a customer's house if his wife, who is not an employee, were to ride
    along with him, but not if another employee (who does not usually use
    the vehicle) were to cadge a lift to the customer, even if that other
    employee happened to be his 30-fag-a-day son.
    Cynic, Aug 16, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  2. john woods

    spacecadet Guest

    The law does not define what is, or is not, an offensive weapon. That's
    a job for the jury.
    In any case there is the defence of self-defence.
    A photographer about his lawful occasions could be in possession of such
    objects as a Thermos flask, tripod, bottle of beer, folding chair, Swiss
    army knife, etc., without suspicion. It's the circumstances of any
    assault which matter.
    The offwep or pointed article law isn't usually used against passers-by
    -unfortunately it's used against those whom the police fancy for
    something worse but can't prove it.
    spacecadet, Aug 17, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  3. john woods

    Davey Guest

    I thought that Swiss Army Knives were pretty much on the 'maybe, maybe
    not' list.
    Davey, Aug 17, 2012
  4. Does it not depend on the blade length? ISTR that the law defines some
    length above which it is prima facie an offensive weapon.

    David Littlewood, Aug 17, 2012
  5. john woods

    Davey Guest

    Could be. The last time I bought one, there was a webpage available
    that talked about it, but I didn't bother to read it!
    Davey, Aug 18, 2012
  6. john woods

    Peter Parry Guest

    Not so. Many items which have no use other than as a weapon are
    defined in law as offensive weapons. They are covered by the Criminal
    Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988 and further subsequent
    orders adding to the list. Included on that list are such items as
    knuckle dusters, swordsticks, telescopic truncheons, swords with a
    curved blade of 50 centimetres or over, straight, side-handled or
    friction-lock truncheon and a stealth knife.

    Further items such as CS or pepper sprays are covered by Section 5 of
    the Firearms Act of 1968
    Which does not apply to the carrying of an offensive weapon merely in
    the expectation of a possible threat.
    Peter Parry, Aug 18, 2012
  7. john woods

    Huge Guest

    Debateably so in some cases, such as ...
    Huge, Aug 18, 2012
  8. I think there may be some confusion here. The above items are restricted
    from sale or possibly even possession (haven't checked the detail),
    which is a more restrictive provision than that of an offensive weapon.
    Something - e.g. a straight bladed or antique sword - may be outside the
    definition above but still an OW, and those things were already prima
    facie OWs even before that act. (As an aside, the sword thing is a
    particularly heroic piece of bureaucratic bullshit, aimed at
    reproduction Japanese samurai swords.)

    David Littlewood, Aug 18, 2012
  9. john woods

    Huge Guest

    Hear, hear.
    Huge, Aug 19, 2012
  10. john woods

    AndyW Guest

    If the blade is under 3 inches and can be closed in a single folding
    action (i.e. no locking mechanism requiring the use of a button, slide,
    switch etc.)then it is not classed as an offensive weapon.
    Anything over and you need good reason to carry it in a public place.

    I am not a lawyer etc

    AndyW, Aug 20, 2012
  11. john woods

    MB Guest

    I would think that a problem could be that an intelligent police officer
    (there is the odd one) might realise that you are unlikely to be using a
    monopod for that type of photography.

    It would be quite reasonable to carry a large torch but as suggested
    earlier, safety in numbers is the best solution - it also means that he
    is less likely to find someone creeping up on him from behind.

    It might be worth telling the police in advance as they could get
    reports of something odd going on but make no suggestion of carrying
    anything for protection.
    MB, Aug 21, 2012
  12. john woods

    MB Guest

    The laws on smoking apply to place of work and a company car is a place
    of work. Though I think a person is allowed to smoke in a company car
    if the sole occupant but there is a complete ban on smoking in a company
    van. The law requires specific signs to be displayed with contact
    details of the responsible person at the company.

    Of course a company can make any rules they want for their own vehicles,
    they could ban eating smarties in the vehicle if they wanted!
    MB, Aug 21, 2012
  13. john woods

    MB Guest

    Only applies to a car not a van so a fat cat executive can smoke in his
    company BMW but the ordinary worker with a small company van cannot.
    MB, Aug 21, 2012
  14. john woods

    MB Guest

    One problem is that the law is very different in Scotland (original
    law), England and possibly Wales.

    If Wee Eck wanted to raise some extra revenue he could get quite a bit
    by stopping light vans, lorries and buses at the border and issuing
    penalties if they do not have the no smoking sign as required in
    Scotland on a window.
    MB, Aug 21, 2012
  15. john woods

    MB Guest

    Another thought, is it possible to lock the camera securely to the
    tripod (and tripod head) so it cannot be removed without a key or
    special tools. It is a lot more difficult to run away carrying camera
    attached to heavy tripod?

    Obviously you do not carry the key / tool on your person.
    MB, Aug 21, 2012
  16. Though i grant you a tripod would be better suited than a monopod i
    find the monopod easier to use as i can retracted to a more managable
    size. In fact i used it to take a photo of the venus jupiter

    Safety in numbers, as you stated, is best. I recall being in an area
    where men cruise or cottage or what ever it is called.
    Richard McKenzie, Aug 21, 2012
  17. john woods

    Cynic Guest

    I do not recall any part of the law that would make that true.
    Cynic, Aug 21, 2012
  18. john woods

    MB Guest

    Could be the Scottish law on smoking which is stricter and more
    complicated than that in England.

    They do not seem to put much effort into enforcing.
    MB, Aug 21, 2012
  19. And how did you do?
    Grimly Curmudgeon, Sep 7, 2012
    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.