There you are, then - no problem.

Really? Who makes this type of decision for you normally?

Ray

Have a read here.

Ray

AFAICT, they're the UK arm of Simplyelectronics.net, who are Hong Kong-based. If their business practices are anything like their affiliates, then they're to be avoided at all costs, IMO.

Ray

Most of the more malicious virus programmes are intended to allow remote access to your drives in order to steal info, etc. To see if your machine is visible to others, try this:

Go to http://grc.com (type exactly, no "www" needed).

Click on "Shields Up!!"

Scroll down and click on "Shields Up!" in the "Hot Spots" section.

Click on "Proceed" - you may have to confirm this action.

In the resultant window, click on "All Service Ports." Wait for the scan to finish. Unless you get a True Stealth Analysis "Passed" notification, your machine is vulnerable and needs investigating.

HTH.

Point taken. Do you think this is any better?




Ray

Taken on a visit to Claude Monet's garden - lovely place, apart from the crowds of very small children with their teachers. A little early for the little ones to appreciate the beauty and surroundings, I'd have thought. Good day out for the teachers, I suppose!

Anyway, your thoughts would be appreciated.




Ray

I should have quoted The Smoke-free (Signs) Regulations 2007, but my point was a general one, trying to tease out the common-sense angle and relate it to the photographic issues mentioned.

Ray

I was fairly sure that you were, hence the tounge-in-cheek question regarding the alternative. Your later post correctly confirmed that the basis of the current policing methods arrived in 1829. Before that, under the Frankpledge system, you were guilty of whatever the locally-elected bobby thought you were. I wouldn't be surprised if, on the second day of the new rules, Robert Peel's diary entry read "The job's not what it used to be," because that's been an almost daily cry for at least the last 40 years!

You're right, in general terms, regarding your point that a camera is not - in itself - a cause for suspicion. However, this suffers from individual interpretation, as we've seen so frequently of late. The problem is that you can't use a "blanket" policy regarding stop and search - either for or against - without further problems.

Since we've had the smoking ban in for some time now, why do we still need "No Smoking" notices up - it's understood, isn't it? Well, no - it can't be, otherwise they'd be removed. There's no other notices about "understood offences" that I can think of, but perhaps there should be, especially in the case of photography, due to the increase in problems.

I've yet to have a problem, so it's hard for me to be totally objective about it.

Ray

Well, you're about 181 years too late and what do you think the alternative would be. :

Ray

That's SO true! I don't think that I've ever seen (in the last 2 or 3 decades) a piece of legislation, once passed, that hasn't been misinterpreted out of all proportion and common-sense, to the point where it becomes a joke. Recent examples have included parts of PACE, parts of H&SE law, the Terrorism Act generally and anything that touches on stop and search.

The genie's well and truly out of the bottle now and it would take a massive upheaval and probably some European Court action to get it all back to a reasonable position again. Meanwhile, lawyers are nest-feathering and feelings run higher and higher.

Ray.