"Undercover" photography at new Colchester garrison.

oldbaldy

LE
Moderator
#5
Fallschirmjager said:
I think those photos come under the 1962 total w@nk and pointless photo act. I can't believe the follow up post said they were interesting!
Some people get excited about building sites.
 
#6
pimpernel said:
Well he is certainly not helping the first unit in, security and lay outs do spring to mind.
The lay out of a camp means nothing nowadays. Google Earth provides some extensive clear shots of barracks around the UK.
 
#7
what a idiot... and all of them on there he even said

a lot of the pics i posted are the new buildings in the garison. at the moment the buildings are not used by milatry but on the main pass i have it does state no cameras allowed on site
so either these idiots can read or jsut dont care...

maybe we should send these photos to the bosses and they can find out who it is... how many white van drivers there have a 'teddy bear' with a blue hat saying 'bad boy'???

c'mon get this man on the doll
 
#9
Fuss over nothing me thinks, also posted Colly, pics show nothing of intrest... boring.
 
#10
And your point with the photo's IS - Oh look I can take a piccy out the side window of a car.

FCK ofF W@NKER.
 
#11
Undercover photography MY FKN ASS. For fk sake go and get a reality check you fkn knob.

BT. :D
 
#13
That website is full of fruitloops anyway. FFS, they start foaming at the mouth whenever my current base is mentioned. :D
 
#14
the_matelot said:
That website is full of fruitloops anyway. FFS, they start foaming at the mouth whenever my current base is mentioned. :D
well at least it keeps the fruitloops away from train and bus spotting. got to say that site and people like this make me feel normal 8O
 
#16
I think I spotted Bob The Builder in one of the photos.

I thought he was still at the Betty Ford clinic.
 
#17
datumhead said:
Brew_Time said:
Undercover photography MY FKN ASS. For fk sake go and get a reality check you fkn knob.

BT. :D
and this is directed at.......
You ya knob. Am I led to believe you've tried joining the Army, Police, RAF and even been binned fron the TA. New bloke maybe, but at 36 cant really call youself a sprog eh.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

BT. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
#18
One half intelligent post on that otherwise odd site:

labbeagle said:

Re: colchestor garison....lots of pics
it does state no cameras allowed on site.



Then Dont Fucking Well Put Pics Up On Here Then

The Official Secrets Act is there for a frigging reason, given the fact that this is soon to be a live MOD site peoples lives are at risk, so dont be so ******* stupid as to post stuff on here!
. . but blowed if I know why they're interested. Loking for labouring work? Planning a 'Parkours' event? Aroused by builder's bumcracks?

I wonder if the English bloke who invented the internet had any idea this was on its way . . .
 
#19
datumhead said:
http://www.28dayslater.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=16308

Is this guy breaking the Law? :?
Off the top of my head, he could be if the site upon which he is engaged in clandestine filming remains a 'designated place' within the Official Secrets Act 1911.

Contrary to popular belief, 'signing' the Official Secrets Act (or at least the most comprehensive section of it) as we all do on entering and leaving the Army (and sometimes in between) is devoid of legal effect. It has no more legal effect than signing a copy of the Road Traffic Act 1988 when we pass our driving test or the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 when we marry. The point is that we are bound by its provisions regardless of whether we sign it or not. It binds every man, woman and child in the country whether or not they have seen it or even know of it's existence.

The Act of signing it is simply to draw the attention of the individual to the width of it's provisions. Thus, for example, if the outer perimeter fence within which the site is built on, retains the usual red notice as 'a designated place' then the provisions of the Act which relate to taking and distributing photographs within it will place the individual in breach of the law.

This could well appear to be the case since it appears from his general demeanour that he is aware that such photography is prohibited.

Whether there exists any public interest in prosecuting him is another matter.
 
#20
Brew_Time said:
datumhead said:
Brew_Time said:
Undercover photography MY FKN ASS. For fk sake go and get a reality check you fkn knob.

BT. :D
and this is directed at.......
You ya knob. Am I led to believe you've tried joining the Army, Police, RAF and even been binned fron the TA. New bloke maybe, but at 36 cant really call youself a sprog eh.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

BT. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You are wrong. :D

The title was meant in a sarcastic tone hence the quote marks.

Personally I can't get exited about a few low res cam pics when I can get clear crisp photos from Google earth or live search. I wanted to bring you a little light humour at the expense of a bunch of conspiracy junkies who like to roam around derelict shitholes after dark.

They should feel right at home in your head.

8)
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top