Things I Hate

[devilof76]

He meant all Marvel products.

 

[Uncanny Web-Slinger]

I think he also means Green Lantern figs

And the Suckerpunch girls

You guys know me too well

 

[thenammagazine]

I think he also means Green Lantern figs

I know, but Depp was funnier.

 

[intothevoid]

TDK figs...?

 

[Voorhees27]

 

[intothevoid]

:

 

[Skiman]

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

 

[devilof76]

FTW...

 

[Lejuan]

Sorry to cut in on the flag waving. Further to my rant on photographing our kids, it appears that the Scottish PC brigade can be even nuttier than we Aussies. Get a load of this crap

https://www.smh.com.au/world/father...ughter-in-shopping-centre-20111012-1ljq7.html

 

[devilof76]

Wow. I remember a few incidents like that in the first months after 9/11. People had photography equipment confiscated if they were caught by NYPD taking pictures of buildings around Manhattan. I don't know if it's still happening now.

People don't have the brightest concept of security, do they?

 

[intothevoid]

That's just outrageous

 

[Lejuan]

The rules on photography in shopping malls, swimming pools and other privately-owned, publicly-frequented spaces in Australia are typically related to privacy rather than security. The Scottish shopping mall in the article responded to the public outcry by immediately changing its policy on photography, so security can't have been the primary motivation for the ban.

 

[devilof76]

You figure it was just an excuse?

 

[Lejuan]

You figure it was just an excuse?

You mean security concerns being used as a reason for banning photography? Nah, not in shopping malls and swimming pools etc, it's all about personal privacy over here. We share a fair bit of culture with our British cousins, and our penchant for safeguarding personal privacy is fervent. We have CCTVs all over the place - but point a camera at someone and there's every chance they'll not take kindly to it at all.

Privately-owned places are free to impose these bans, so that Scottish Mall was well within its rights to enforce it via their security staff. But I think the outcry was a protest against privacy-gone-mad. This guy was obviously just taking a picture of his young daughter eating an icecream during a break from a shopping trip - based on how the story was reported, most people felt that some discretion on the part of both security staff and the police could have been exercised. The same people complaining about the ban would likely not have any issues with bans imposed for genuine commercial or security reasons.

What I was talking about earlier on in this thread was many pools in this country are privately owned nowadays. And yes, these pools typically impose photography bans. So if your kid's first swim is at one of these pools, you can't capture the moment. We'll see this more and more the more facilities come into private ownership. Malls, pools, what next?

 

[devilof76]

No, I meant security concerns. What you said about them backing down to public outcry. I was under the impression that the mall cited security concerns as the reason for the policy.

"They raised this terrorism issue when I said I had taken two photos of my daughter, and that he was allowing me to keep the images on this occasion and concluded that the shopping centre security guard was quite within his powers to ban me from the shopping centre," Mr White told the BBC.

And further down...

"We will reserve the right to challenge suspicious behaviour for the safety and enjoyment of our shoppers. The two retail assistants and the member of our security staff were faced with a situation they genuinely thought was suspicious."

If it was a legitimate concern, they wouldn't change policy on account of a collective temper tantrum. I didn't actually understand why the PC motive was brought into it.

 

[Valfar]

FTW...

No no ____ you...best country right here..

 

[devilof76]

Ok. Honestly, I'm not making much distinction between quality of countries these days. I think they all suck for the most part. There's one exception, but I won't bring it up because it's too combustible for discussion, and even they're getting worse by the day.

I just like the philosophy that my flag represents. First country to commit to that worldview again will be the best, just like the last country that tried.

 

[intothevoid]

A which country is best war is certainly unadviseable - there can be no winner and just a big mess for mods

 

[Lejuan]

No, I meant security concerns. What you said about them backing down to public outcry. I was under the impression that the mall cited security concerns as the reason for the policy.



And further down...



If it was a legitimate concern, they wouldn't change policy on account of a collective temper tantrum. I didn't actually understand why the PC motive was brought into it.

Ah, I get you, and yes, that's the part about it that doesn't add up. If photography presented a genuine security issue, the ban wouldn't have been retracted because of a facebook outcry. I can't see our airports, banks and power stations, for example, deciding to permit photography as a direct response to a facebook campagn. But what would I know, I haven't used facebook in years so I am unaware of the true reach of its power and influence. Perhaps it is evolving into an instrument for citizen-initiated referendums. Oh the possibilities!

Edit: I'm afraid I can't contribute to the flag debate because I think the Australian flag kind of sucks.

 

[Skiman]

All I know is at the end, Batman can't even save Void.