 pleasant experiences
In message <m38f74d4jq4i3nfeuip2s13ibb8bbdbqus@>, at 19:12:12 on
Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Charles Ellson <charles@ellson.> remarked:
>>> Yes. The byelaws are OK as far as they go, but despite many prohibitions
>>> fail to mention photography.
>>
>>Nor is photography mentioned in the Conditions of Carriage. As it's not
>>mentioned in either place, it must be permitted...
>>
>No. "Being permitted" applies if there is positive permission. If
>there is no positive permission than an otherwise unrestricted
>activity is capable of restriction if the occupier/landowner lawfully
>wishes it to be restricted.
There's no prohibition in the Byelaws or the Conditions of Carriage, so
we believe there's no general intent for it to be restricted.
>The lack of any initial prohibition (e.g.
>no notices saying "XXXXXXX is prohibited") does not mean the
>occupier/landowner is prevented from later imposing a prohibition as
>long it does not conflict with any obligation upon him.
But where is the "later imposition" of this restriction? That's what we
are looking for.
--
Roland Perry |