Originally Posted by
PhoenixRev
If it is an artform, it is producing bad art.
It also is circular reasoning: It is suspicious because it is.
I am reminded of a tired cliche that use to inundate American television dramas in the 1970. The script trotted out a 60ish married male character and placed him in a restaurant having a candlelit dinner with a very pretty, 18-year-old female who was not his wife. There is giggling and laughing and then the man would present the woman with a gift, usually jewelry. Next, one of them kisses the other on the cheek. The story would then focus on this man and who was that woman he was with that wasn't his wife and they would spin the suspicion that he was having an affair until the big reveal: he took his granddaughter out for dinner on her birthday and gave her earrings as a present followed by a kiss on the cheek (or she kissed him on the cheek out of gratitude) and isn't everyone just horrible for thinking the worst of the man. Tsk, tsk.
Like photography in airports, no one knows why it is suspicious, but why let facts stop people from thinking the worst of innocent people doing nothing more than enjoying themselves?
Plane spotting in the UK is a popular hobby. Legions of people gather at a weekend to take pictures etc. The persons partaking in this are able to pursue this recreation without being harassed. I suppose it must be a question of normal activity, location, reason for presence, demeanour etc all combining to = no suspicion
Originally Posted by
PhoenixRev
So, we have a solution in search of a problem.
We have this equation: photographing security areas/personnel + X = possible terrorism.
So far, no one has stated what X is other than a whim or pure speculation without any data to back it up.
OK Rev. Having thought about it. I think if it is to be a formula it can't be solved with just 'x' more like x+y+z where each is a contributing variable of different criterIa used to form a reasonable suspicion.
Not much, but best I can do.
Originally Posted by
patom
I make no such assumption but if you do some research you will find that Bilal Abdullah and Kafeel Ahmed had very limited help with their attempts in London and with the GLA blast.
I'm not at all in agreement with that patom. You will be aware then, that the GLA event followed approx 24hrs after a failed attempt on a night club in London where the thing was made safe by the ordnace guy as the mobile attached to it was ringing. Well done to that guy!! I am pretty sure it was reported that the two events were linked in some way by some sort of evidence and therefore a significant cell would seem to have been active across the length of the UK in a co-ordinated way. As you would expect with 2 events in that short time span