> Excellent letter Bob. Perhaps we should have a mass photo take session > in the market and really wind him up... >
I'm tempted to organise one, specifically targeting his stall, but that would amount to harrassment. Unless it happened spontaneously, of course. > Only thought is, is who owns the market? If it's Greenwich Council > property then it's public; if it's privately owned, they can make up > any petty rules they like (not that the prat should take it upon > himself to police it single handedly). In the MK Snowdome, they'll > sell (yes, sell) you a permit, but you have to have a criminal record > check done first! > > Chris The market is owned by the Greenwich Foundation (who also own Pete's flat), which is ultimately owned by the Ministry of Defence, which is ultimately owned by, er, me. They could, in theory, ban photography, but they'd be a laughing stock - the market is one of the principal attractions in the most popular tourist spot in London. What could be more public than a market? And how would they go about enforcing such a prohibition? In any case, the idiot who tried to stop me would have no authority to do so even if the market tried to ban photography - he's just an interfering busybody. His claim that he could arrest me is an absurd figment of his imagination. Citizen's arrest only applies to indictable offences, which means offences that can be tried in a Crown Court - ie, serious crimes. Even the police have no power to arrest people for infringing some silly private property rule. His 'arrest' simply amounts to common assault, whatever the situation with regard to the permissibility of photography. The most anyone can do to enforce a rule like that is order you to leave the property, and possibly prosecute for trespass. I can't see Greenwich Market trying that with every tourist with a camera. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
