text:
Clint Bowen tapped to coach KU linebackers; replaces DeMontie Cross, who is headed to TCU
1:02 p.m. Update:
KU coach Charlie Weis moved fast in replacing TCU-bound linebackers DeMontie Cross, announcing Friday afternoon that current assistant coach Clint Bowen would slide into the role vacated by Cross.
Here's the official statement from KU:
---Kansas head football coach Charlie Weis announced Friday that special teams coordinator Clint Bowen will now coach the Jayhawk linebackers. Bowen, who had previously been working with the KU secondary where he coached safety Bradley McDougald to All-Big 12 honors, takes over the linebackers as DeMontie Cross left Kansas to pursue other opportunities.---
No time table has been given for filling the final spot on KU's staff, but it seems logical to assume that Weis will take his time and make sure that he gets the right fit. In many ways, with Bowen now giving stability to the linebacker position, the final spot on Weis' staff could be used as a wild card of sorts.
Say another top-notch receivers coach expresses interest or an elite recruiter wants to join the staff, KU could then get creative with its titles and make the new coach an assistant receivers coach or a cornerbacks coach. Basically, they can give whatever coach they want any title just to get him on board.
Such an option is made possible by the fact that defensive coordinator Dave Campo is so well versed at coaching the entire secondary.
Expect the final spot to be filled well before spring ball begins on March 5, but most likely not until after signing day — Feb. 6 — which typically marks the final wave of coaching movement during the college football year.
10:58 a.m. Update:
Kansas University linebackers coach DeMontie Cross is leaving the program to take a similar job at TCU, sources told the Journal-World on Friday morning.
Cross, who played college football at Missouri and later coached at MU, Iowa State, Wisconsin and with the NFL's Buffalo Bills before coming to Kansas, was hired by KU coach Charlie Weis last offseason.
During his one season with the Jayhawks, Cross oversaw a linebacking corps that featured two of the top players on the KU defense in sophomores Ben Heeney and Jake Love. Heeney led the Jayhawks — and finished third in the Big 12 rankings — in tackles, with 112, and Love finished eighth on the team, with 36 stops, despite starting just four games. Junior linebacker Huldon Tharp also finished in KU's top five with 55 tackles.
No word or timeline has been given about a possible replacement for Cross, but one likely candidate is current KU assistant coach and special teams coordinator Clint Bowen. Bowen, a former KU defensive coordinator who coached KU's safeties last season, has experience coaching linebackers and already knows the roster and the rest of the coaching staff.
Replacing Bowen in the secondary would be an easier task considering the presence of defensive coordinator Dave Campo, who coached the KU cornerbacks in 2012 and was a longtime secondary coach with the Dallas Cowboys.
Original post, 10:23 a.m.:
Well, it looks like last week's blog about it being a relatively quiet offseason for the KU football program may have been a little premature.
Reports out of Fort Worth, Texas, are indicating that KU linebackers coach DeMontie Cross may be hired by TCU for the same position.
Cross, who played college football at Missouri and later coached at MU, Iowa State, Sam Houston State, Wisconsin and with the NFL's Buffalo Bills before coming to Kansas, was hired by KU coach Charlie Weis last offseason.
Still trying to nail down confirmation on this, one way or the other, so stay tuned.
If the report, which cites two unnamed sources, is true, it will be interesting to see where Weis looks for a replacement.
There are a couple of options inside the program that would make sense — most notably current special teams coordinator Clint Bowen, who has experience working with linebackers and would provide KU immediate stability at the position. In addition, with KU defensive coordinator Dave Campo in place, he could handle coaching the entire secondary as he did for years with the Dallas Cowboys and throughout last season.
Notre Dame alum Maurice Crum and former KU and NFL player Rod Jones also could be considered. Both have solid football knowledge and also have the luxury of knowing the roster and the rest of the coaching staff already.
As we've seen, Weis also is capable of going anywhere to pull in coaches and he could consider someone from another school or perhaps even the NFL ranks.
It definitely will be interesting to see how this plays out. I always was very impressed by Cross, both in terms of his ability to coach kids up and his dedication to what Weis was trying to accomplish here.
Turnover rarely is a good thing for a coaching staff, but losing Cross, though disappointing, would not be the end of the world for the KU defense.
We'll see what happens.
Relatively quiet offseason bodes well for KU football program
In 2009, fans of Kansas University football watched the unfolding of a witch hunt that quickly turned into the departure of one coach and the search for another.
A year later, a good chunk of the offseason was spent trying to explain what happened under first-year coach Turner Gill while assessing where the program was headed at the same time. That also marked the beginning of the Brock Berglund fiasco, which garnered more ink and lasted way longer than a player who never suited up for a single game ever should have received.
And then there the 2011 season, when KU said goodbye to another head coach and began yet another coaching search.
So what's the point of rehashing the obvious and somewhat painful past? It's been a while since the offseason was this quiet around the KU football program. Kind of nice, isn't it?
Sure, we've seen a wild and crazy run of recruiting, and, with the current state of KU football that's pretty loud news, but it pales in comparison to the kind of noise that's been made in the past few offseasons around here.
Such stability is imperative to building anything of substance and, with second-year coach Charlie Weis and company determined to make KU a winner again, it's nice to see that the coaching staff and the administration are dedicated to the cause.
That's not the case everywhere. Just this week we learned about Oklahoma State defensive coordinator Bill Young leaving the Cowboys' program. If you remember the name, it's because Young was KU's D-Coordinator from 2002-07. And he's a good one. He won't be out of work for long, but the mere fact that he's no longer wanted by OSU comes as a little bit of a surprise.
Wait, it gets better. Or is it bigger?
Midway during the week, news broke that Notre Dame coach Brian Kelly had engaged in talks with the NFL's Philadelphia Eagles, who have a head coaching opening and are looking at all levels to fill it. If the man who just led the Fighting Irish to a 12-0 regular season and a trip to the national championship game (however ugly it was) is looking around, KU should be awfully thankful that its program and those associated with it have both feet firmly planted on the ground.
The news about Young and Kelly is just the latest example of program unrest in college football, something that's becoming almost as interesting and certainly as relevant as the bowl games themselves each offseason.
Prior to that, coaching vacancies — a few big ones even — popped up everywhere you looked and that led to a reshuffling of coaching staffs and athletic departments throughout the country. Some programs are built to handle it and barely notice when offseason turmoil arrives. Others can be derailed entirely and spend years trying to recover.
For those who respond better to charts, standings and numbers, here's a quick ranking of the top KU football stories this offseason:
- Class of 2013 recruiting
- Seniors preparing for April draft
- Memorial Stadium renovation
- Former players shine in NFL
- Conference realignment
There has not been so much as a peep about coaching turnover or major program changes. That bodes well for the Jayhawks.
- New Parks and Recreation director aims to make department more financially sustainable July 23, 2017 · 4 comments
- Kansas Sen. Roberts pushing to move GOP health plan forward July 22, 2017 · 22 comments
- Editorial: An utter waste of time, money July 23, 2017 · 15 comments
- Thousands in Kansas City area lose power after storms July 23, 2017 · 2 comments
- How a little sweat equity can earn you a bicycle July 23, 2017 · 3 comments
- Why are young legislators rare at the Kansas Statehouse? Money plays a role July 23, 2017 · 2 comments
- Kobach won't acknowledge that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote July 20, 2017 · 58 comments
- Opinion: Deep down we know: Health care is a right July 17, 2017 · 25 comments
- Opinion: GOP tackles nonexistent problem July 23, 2017 · 5 comments
- Kansas data breach gives hackers access to millions of Social Security numbers July 21, 2017 · 8 comments


text:
Prestobarba Excel for Women
New legs every day
Creative Directors: Guido Puch and Alvaro Camilla
Art director: Manuel Aldunate
Copywriter: Agustín Puig
Highest Rated
Is this a lotion that you applied on ur leg and ur leg will look like "new" everyday?
hum....not a bad lotion then:P.
I like this, some women would really want new leg everyday, haha
http://jennywhx.blogspot.com jwhx:Visionary
I think they took this one a bit too literaly.
I think they took this one a bit too literaly.
mmmmmmmm, For an anti landmine organisation fund raising campaign maybe. And while I'm thinking about it ... maybe not. Next!
Popular Reads
Clio Sports
"Say Less, Do More": Words of Inspiration From the 2017 Clio Sports AwardsRead More
Inside the Agency
How DDB's Ari Weiss And Keith Reinhard Are Embracing Ad Legend Bill Bernbach's "Rebel Spirit"Read More
Clio Health
Ward+Robes Designer Gowns Offer Individuality for Hospitalized TeensRead More
Clio Awards
Empathy, Observation, Openness: IDEO's Roshi Givechi on the Narrative of Product DesignRead More

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Explore Handle and more!
REDUCED PRICE Vintage retro ladies cream and by SouthofFranceFinds
As a perfect touch for a small area, this chalkware scottie dog plaque will…
I remember having this when I was very little...I imagine it was my older brother or sister's.
Primitive EnamelWare Rectangular Pan & Tray by DivineOrders
Vintage Large Industrial Wooden Tool Box / by crazeecowgirlvintage, $145.00
Vintage Mongol Colored Pencils Assortment No. by vintagenowandthen
REDUCED Enamel Bread Bin Vintage Enamelware by LesTempsPerdus
Onyx jewelry box made in Italy. 60s. by anticoeno on Etsy
Free Shipping Hall Jewel Tea Autumn Leaf Cake by BehindTheWall
Yelloware Nesting Hen Yelloware Nesting Hen by SophiasWonderland


text:
|Story Views
|Last Hour:
|Last 24 Hours:
This article was written by Anonymous and originally published at AnonHQ.
Editor's Comment: The continued assault against independence and self-sustainability is absolutely eradicating freedom. 2017 would do well to see a resurgence of off grid living and a fight back against the regulatory systems that would restrict how people can live on their own land, and without the need to be dependent upon government or corporations for their livelihood.
Unless that silent war is curbed, people will find that all the freedom talk on the Internet won't mean anything to a population that needs its own resources and resilience. Preppers should be particularly wary of areas that have cracked down the hardest.
Oregon Couple Told They Have No Water Rights, Forced to Destroy Their Own Pond
by AnonHQ
Remember the Oregon 'Rain Man' or Gary Harrington — who was sent to 30 days in Jackson County Jail and slapped with a $1,500 fine for collecting rainwater on his 170-acre property? He was ordered to breach his dams and drain his ponds that held more than 13 million gallons of water, enough to fill 20 Olympic-sized swimming pools.
Now, an Oregon couple faces a similar fate as Gary Harrington because the rain belongs to the overbearing government, because corporate greed claims water is not a human right, and because Americans are not entitled to do what they please on their private property.
The Jackson County Watermaster's office has told Jon and Sabrina Carey to destroy their 2-acre pond — built 40 years ago, long before they bought the 10-acre property off Butte Falls Highway two and a half years ago — as they don't have any water rights.
"I basically bought a lemon. That's how they explained it to me."
The county had no issues with the pond until Jon sought to grow legal medical cannabis on his property. He was then required to produce proof that he had a viable source of water for cannabis cultivation.
Although the county records clearly show the pond, the Watermaster's Office claimed the previous owners had not received a permit for the pond so the Careys were now in violation of Oregon regulations — and they would have to shoulder the cost of draining the water. As a result, the Careys stopped using pond water and resorted to trucking in water from Butte Falls for their household and garden needs.
Since the Medford Water Commission has rights to the watershed around Careys' property — where Medford's primary source of water, Big Butte Springs, is located — its staff denied Careys request to adopt the pond and treat it as a municipal water source so that the water could be used for emergency firefighting, wildlife habitat and as an additional source for municipal needs.
In spite of the government claiming ownership of rainwater as part of the public water supply, it still rejected the Careys' plea to treat their pond as part of public property. Mail Tribune reports:
"Water Commission staff found several problems with the Careys' request, including setting a precedent that could prompt similar requests and weaken state statutes while not meeting the definition of 'municipal water source'. The staff found it would be very difficult to access the water stored in the pond for municipal reasons, and further monitoring and following up on compliance issues would be difficult and costly for the commission."
Careys' attorney, Sarah Liljefelt, who filed a request with Jackson County to provide the couple a permit to store water, says:
"The reservoir on Ms. Carey's property, though small, is one of the largest in the area. In the past, the pond has been used for fire suppression and is accessible to fire trucks from Butte Falls Highway. The pond is an important source of water for beavers, otters, elk, deer, bear, mountain lion, bobcat, bald eagle osprey, great blue heron, snowy egret, Canada geese and the western pond turtle."
The utter insanity of it all. This is another example of America, land of the free https://t.co/2nj2Q6dJZP
— Gordon Vick (@flashgordonv) December 26, 2016
The couple have agreed to not use the pond water for their household and garden needs and keep the pond for wildlife, fire suppression and for any purpose specified by the Medford Water Commission. They've also agreed to reduce the size of the pond from about 12 acre feet of water to 9.2 acre feet; execute an easement to the city of Medfore to flood the property, access the reservoir, and cause the reservoir to be drained any time the city deems necessary; and assume all costs associated with permitting, construction, maintenance and liability. However, the Medford Water Commission is unmoved.
"I'm terrified right now… I am trying to work with the various government agencies to resolve this issue so the property doesn't lose one of its most valuable assets. We're just trying to do it by the rules. I'm trying to cooperate."
The couple recently received support from firefighting agencies that need the water for wildfires. A letter from the Oregon Department of Forestry to the Water Commission supported retaining the reservoir to help suppress wildfires and provide enough water for a multiday operation. Neal Laugle, state aviation manager for ODF, wrote:
"I would like to urge the Medford Water Commission to consider keeping the reservoir in place at its current capacity for the purpose of providing a long-term water source for wildland firefighting. Without the water, it could increase the length of a wildfire fight and could lead to more destructive wildfires."
AnonHQ is an independent and investigative news organization run by people of the Anonymous collective. Our goal here is to bring the people of the world important, modern daily news regarding topics from around the globe.
Related Reads
Rainwater Collection Being Criminalized in U.S. To Solidify Total Government Dependence
Court Officials Who Jailed a Veteran for Living Off-Grid Were "Just Doing Their Jobs"
Tiny Homes Banned in U.S. at Increasing Rate as Govt Criminalizes Sustainable Living
Oregon Man Sentenced to 30 Days in Jail — for Collecting Rainwater on His Property
Alabama City Suing Couple to Get Back on the Grid, Threatens Arrest
This article has been contributed by SHTF Plan. Visit www.SHTFplan.com for alternative news, commentary and preparedness info.
America's Tainted Water Supply: Study Warns Two-Thirds of the U.S. are Drinking Cancer Causing Chromium-6
We're Being Attacked: Proof of Invasion on US Soil! America's End Is the New World Order and I Stand Against It
Shocking Evidence that America Doesn't See... (2017-2018)
Why You Probably Don't Want Warmongering John McCain to Die!
Fear-Mongering Business Insider Predicts 100's of Cities Will Be Underwater
X22Report Current Economic Collapse 'News Brief' - Episode 1339
Alex Jones - HD Commercial Free - Sunday (7-23-17)
North Korean Submarine Making US Nervous and US, N.Korea, Iran, Israel Escalating Tensions (Videos)
Govt Think Tanks Admit US Empire Is Collapsing – Their Solution Is More War and Tyranny
Podesta Busted Big Time! Pizzagate Blown Wide Open by BIN Reporter!
Does Anyone Want To Report Apocalypse Signs At Temple Mount Crisis Or You're Just Doing More Cover-up? (Video)
Demons: Occult Rituals Caught on Camera
Jewish Power II (This Video Is Illegal In Several Countries)
A Warning from the Future
10 Rules Of The Spiritual War You Were Born To Fight
Benjamin Fulford Update - July 24, 2017
We're Being Attacked: Proof of Invasion on US Soil! America's End Is the New World Order and I Stand Against It
Real Jihadist Threat No One Is Watching
Ice Cold: Florida Teens Film and Mock Drowning Disabled Man While Never Coming to His Rescue
This Easy-to-Break Law Will Cost You $1 MILLION & 20 Years in Jail!
Wearable Power: Ultrathin Device Harvests Electricity from Human Motion
A Warning from the Future
Muslim killer-cop Mohamed Noor got FAST-TRACK TRAINING for Minneapolis police force
The Holy Bible Was Created By 6 Corporations In The 1600's - Original Handwritten Translations (Video)
Tim Pool Night Crawling in Chicago, the Real "No Go Zone"
Deaths in Smuggler's Truck 'Completely Senseless,' Texas Archbishop Says
Justine Diamond: She Was Not Suffering From Islamophobia, but Perhaps She Should Have Been
Shocking Evidence that America Doesn't See... (2017-2018)
Stanton Friedman on Majestic 12, Project Blue Book, Roswell


text:
Find great deals on eBay for Decorative Cardboard Boin Home Storage JVL Drawer High Quality Grade Cardboard Retro Decorative Storage Box wi..Create somee with our wide range of storage bo. and baskets. We ve got PALLRA mini chest with drawers, dark gray Width " Depth PALLRA..Shop a wide selection of decorative boand baskets at Staples.com and save! wooden drawers or storage cabinets, or more traditional file storage bo .
Related images to decorative cardboard storage boxes with drawers
Recent search terms:
- canada mullicanhardwood flooring
- netting to hook on to porch


text:
Pinterest でおしゃれアイデアをまとめましょう!
devastating that our next president is not Bernie, but conman Trump.
Vote Bernie Sanders for President! #BernieSanders2016 For more information on…
Bernie Sanders Road To The Whitehouse Tour 2016
we the people inauguration posters street art amplifier foundatios Shepard fairey ernesto yerena jessica saboga
I hate Nazis antifa
Bernie Sanders
Bernie Sanders reportedly agreed that Democratic National Committee is giving Hillary Clinton advantage over other candidates by limiting number of debates
Pussygrabber and his Republican ass-kissers have learned this lesson well.
I'm putting this here because there is literally a Trump/Pence and a McNutsack sign on EVERY lawn I pass by in my town. It's PAST time to go. In Boone, there were Bernie stickers left and right. :(
Bernie Sanders Is Magical - GIF on Imgur


text:
I wrote a book
So I wrote a book it's called Faded Letters by CM Stewart and it would mean the world to me if y'all read it and bought it. It took forever for me to get published and it was a labor of love. I won't lie: it is a heavy book. It deals with a lot of triggering stuff, but my book states that outright so don't feel bad if you can't read it!
After a troubling childhood, Lieutenant James Walker has finally found a place he wants to be in life—a family with his SEAL brothers, a loving dog and an incredible pen pal named Kaylee, but when they start to reveal more of their lives to each other, James finds himself falling for the mysterious woman behind the letters and finding himself in difficult situations overseas.
James Walker never had the perfect life, shifting from foster parent to foster parent. When he finally escaped the system, he dedicated his life to the United States Navy and became a SEAL. Kaylee Tatum is a simple photojournalist trying to figure out what she truly wants in life: whether that be working at the small newspaper or moving in with her seemingly perfect boyfriend. For months, James and Kaylee have been writing letters to each, keeping up-to-date on what is happening in their lives. When Kaylee's boyfriend does the unthinkable and James goes through a horrific event, their letters are the only thing keeping them together. And their letters do more than build on a friendship.


text:
unf*ck your closet flow chart. 34 Ingenious Ways To De-Clutter Your Entire Life
Funny pictures about Thug Kitchen. Oh, and cool pics about Thug Kitchen. Also, Thug Kitchen.
These really do make me laugh, because my favorite jokes are cheesy jokes.
This Pesto Chicken Soup is super easy to make, and full of the most amazing flavors of fresh pesto! It calls for "pulled cooked chicken," which means a rotisserie chicken from kroger would be perfect.
Funny Quote Dictionary Quote Print Upcycled Dictionary Page Ecofriendly Vintage Dictionary HHP Original Road Less Traveled. the best way to travel.
I love camping, but this made me laugh. Camping: Paying a bunch of money to pretend we're homeless.
Punny Puns- animal pun fun/ cheesy but made me laugh
The adventures of business cat. XD haha i love business cat XD
Hard dalek, cold dalek, little can of hate Evil dalek, angry dalek, ex-ter-mi-nate.
Biology jokes - biology puns are the best!


text:
Toyota donates lift truck to Midwest Food Bank
Locally manufactured forklift to assist food bank serving the state of Indiana.
in the NewsBehind the Korber AG and DMLogic Acquisition J.B. Hunt announces plans to acquire Special Logistics Dedicated LLC, expand e-commerce offerings Kardex Remstar purchases Alternative Handling Technologies Services Group Flexport to open up new warehouse in Southern California Global prime logistics rents continue to rise, says CBRE More News
Toyota Material Handling, U.S.A., Inc. (TMHU), has donated an internal combustion lift truck to The Midwest Food Bank of Indianapolis, Ind.
The Midwest Food Bank is committed to serving those throughout the state of Indiana. The donated Toyota forklift, which was manufactured approximately 40 minutes away at Toyota Industrial Equipment Mfg., Inc. (TIEM) in Columbus, Ind., will handle the loading and unloading of food and supplies used to help feed an estimated 60,000 individuals through 230 agencies.
"This gift will allow us to continue delivering food to those in need both here in Indiana and to other states recovering from natural disasters," said John Whitaker, director of operations for the food bank.
"Often times much needed material handling equipment is a luxury for resource-constrained, not-for-profit groups," said Jeff Rufener, president of TMHU. "Toyota is honored that our locally made forklift will assist this worthy organization in serving those in need throughout the state."
Subscribe to Modern Materials Handling Magazine!Subscribe today. It's FREE!
Find out what the world's most innovative companies are doing to improve productivity in their plants and distribution centers.
Start your FREE subscription today!
Article TopicsForklifts · Lift Trucks · Toyota Material Handling · ·
Southern Glazer's Wine & Spirits: Designed to Last Automation: What's at the heart of your system? View More From this Issue


text:
Southern NH Primary Care - $30K Sign On
- Employer
- The Medicus Firm
- Location
- Posted
- Sep 13, 2016
- Specialty
- Primary Care
- Position Type
- Permanent
New England
Outpatient Family Practice Opportunity
Outpatient Family Practice Opportunity
- Immediate Need - $30K Sign-on bonus
- Outpatient clinic; no weekends, no hospital!
- Loan reimbursement, relocation and excellent benefits package!
- Low to no call; 16 patients per day.
True Quality of Life and Financial Security
Live on a sparkling lake surrounded by majestic mountains with reasonable access to a major metropolitan city.
- Outdoor adventure with hiking, snow skiing, golf, and water sports.
- Fine arts and culture include theater, a live music venue, and numerous restaurants.
- Ranked first in the country in safety, standard of living, and favorable tax climate as well as child and family well-being.
Please reference FP 5763


text:
Lutesville Motor Co
206 Railroad St, Marble Hill, MO 63764 888-321-0656
2009 Ford F-150 Lariat Crew Cab 4WD
- Exterior:
- White Sand Clearcoat Tri-Coat (White)
- Interior:
- Tan/Camel (Tan)
- Status:
- In Stock
- Mileage:
- 197729
- Engine:
- Gas/Ethanol V8 5.4L/330
- Transmission:
- Automatic
Vehicle Description
2009 Ford F-150 Lariat **LOCAL TRADE IN**, **CLEAN VEHICLE HISTORY**, 4WD, 1 Touch Open/Close Power Moonroof, 20 Chrome Clad Aluminum Wheels, Floor Shifter, Heated front seats, Lariat Chrome Package, Leather-Trimmed Captain's Chairs, Limited Slip w/3.55 Axle Ratio, Navigation System, Rear-View Camera, Tailgate Step.Awards:* NACTOY North American Truck of the Year * 2009 KBB.com Brand Image AwardsOur Name Means a Great Deal!
Vehicle Details
Vehicle Features
- Engine Description: Gas/Ethanol V8 5.4L/330
- Drivetrain: 4WD
- EPA-Est City*: 14
- EPA-Est Highway*: 18
- Wheelbase Code: 0
Payment Calculator
683per month*Apply For Credit *Payment for Estimation purposes only.
Map & Location
Get More Info
Simply fill out this form to get more information on this vehicle.
You are about to view the vehicle history report you requested through our Dealer website. You will be directed to AutoCheck™ to access this content. AutoCheck™ is neither owned or controlled by FordDirect or the Dealer.
AutoCheck™ Vehicle History reports are offered by Experian, an independent partner of FordDirect and FordDirect dealers.
While we believe these resources are reliable, we are not responsible for and do not guarantee the accuracy of reliability of the information or content provided by AutoCheck™. Please consult AutoCheck's™ privacy and terms of use policies for further information.


text:
TELESTAR CHASSIS 99TA15G Service Manual
Product Reviews
There are currently no product reviews.
Reviews of our other manuals
Andre Maltese - 2008-11-24
The TEAC VRDS-10 manual is excellent! Sharp and complete. I got the link in 9 hours. Grade A+!
Rakotoharisoa Philippe - 2008-12-08
Excellent transaction - clean document received - Thanks a lot
Thomas Vrecar - 2008-12-08
very good quality, thanks! Thomas, DL8EBD (Germany)
Somchai Israpatnasakul - 2009-02-16
It's OK for service manual Kenwood TH-K2. very useful for me.
Carlos Frias - 2009-04-30
Thank you very much! Excellent Tech Information Now I?ll can repare my boombox
Customers who bought this product also purchased...
We provide manuals to wide range of devices, including:
Dpl Projector, Input Card, Combi Vcr, Tweeter, Dvd Theater System, Control Panels For Hobs, Electric, Transmitter, Washing Machine, Filter, Wasching Machine, Freestanding Fridge-freezers Bottom Freezers, Nofrost, Timer Counter, Color Television, Vacuum Claner, Dvd-r/rw Cd-r/rw Writer, Household Washing Machines,washing Machines, Top-loaded (household), Multifunction System, Woofer, Voltmeter, Mirror Tv, Built-in Refrigerators > 90 Cm Height, Microphones (corded), Crt Projection Tv, Fm/am Digital Synthesizer Tuner, Household Drying Equipment - Tumbler Driers - Condense Driers, Micro Hifi, Caffe Maker, Headphones Gaming, Provideo, Speaker
In our catalog We have following types of manuals:
About The Demo Mode, Technical Data, Service Info, Midi Data Format, Reference Quality, Vba Programmer, Installation Rds, Instruction Manual, Supplemental Notes(version 1.2), Parts Catalog Change, Acrobat Reader/file Utility/yamaha Usb Midi Driver Installation Guide, Screem Guide, Index Of Covered Areas, Auto Doppler Owner's Manual, Twp, Nadc Pdc Guide, Dx Simulator Owner's Manual, Remote Control Devides, Musician's Reference, Set Up Guide, Room Er Owner's Manual, Conver. Attention Card, W-cdma Guide, Using Dual Layer, Musician's Guide, Information, Power Supply Caution, Implementation, Iec65-6 Caution, Networkamp Manager Owner's Manual


text:
Federal Court confirms (again): Police can be photographed in public
Following in the footsteps of the US's First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals, judges for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals have unanimously ruled that individuals have a First Amendment right to photograph and video record police officers in public. The decision follows multiple cases involving law enforcement retaliation against individuals who were recording police activity in public.
The ruling, which was filed on July 7, 2017, details two cases in which Philadelphia police officers interfered with individuals who were recording public law enforcement activity.
The first case involved Amanda Geraci, who was filming the arrest of an anti-fracking protester when an officer 'pinned' her against a pillar, blocking her ability to record the arrest. The second case involved Richard Fields, who was arrested after refusing to stop recording public police activity.
On behalf of the court, and per the document filed last week, Judge Thomas Ambro wrote, "Simply put, the First Amendment protects the act of photographing, filming, or otherwise recording police officers conducting their official duties in public."
There may be exceptions to this right, the judge notes, such as times when a "recording interferes with police activity." However, in the absence of that concern, the Court finds that "under the First Amendment's right of access to information, the public has the commensurate right to record—photograph, film, or audio record—police officers conducting official police activity in public areas."
Jul 14, 2017
Jul 19, 2017
Jul 19, 2017
Jul 26, 2017
Its a shame photographers have to carry a binder of court decisions with them.
Good. Anyone given the level of power that police officers have needs to be held accountable and in too many jurisdictions they aren't and citizens are abused as a result. I'm all for increasing training, pay, and accountability for police officers. In my experience most officers are responsible public servants but I know a lot of people who were mediocre bullies who spent a lot of time in trouble who ended up becoming cops or deputies because a field that gives someone so much power over other people with what is often limited accountability is incredibly attractive to people with that type of personality. The more ways we have to weed out the bad apples the better.
Most of the time you see video that is used against police. Why not help law enforcement with pictures that aid them in crime fighting. Witnesses will not come forward but do the opposite to help criminals. This makes zero sense. Why do many people complain against surveillance cameras around the cities? Citizen's can also be recorded on videos just as police.
If police commit a crime as they do from time to time then they should be brought to justice. You cannot "use against the police" if the police does not commit a crime. So in that respect when a video is used against police successfully it means that police committed an offence for which it needs to be prosecuted and thus this helps overall law enforcement.
If police does not commit a crime then they will be acquitted by video evidence - nothing to be afraid of then. They are only afraid when they know they are in the wrong.
I take your point but its not always true. We have seen riots erupt over edited video of police, we have seen police falsely accused because the video did not include all the information or did not see an angle the police could.
Aren't there ever citizens falsely accused or convicted based on faulty police testimony? Police generally don't testify against peers. If citizen camera evidence is flawed, it is generally due to incomplete or low quality capture, rather than due to deletion. Meanwhile, police might be rather selective about when they turn on their own cameras.
There will never be the case that one side is always right. Video/photo evidence is still there to back up testimony in court of law. Court of law can kick off any necessary validations that evidence has not been falsified. If evidence is falsified the ones found guilty are due for prosecution - this is quite serious. I do not think you can do it any better way.
As when it comes to riots and emotions... Political exploitation of emotions is not something you can handle by tackling video/photo shooting and does not change the usefulness of photo/video. That is a completely separate domain. There is or there is no photo/video political exploitation of emotions will always find a way.
If people would put the cameras down and help the police out just a little maybe there wouldn't be a need to be videoing the police in the first place.
It depends on the situation. If there's a grieving family member, it might be helpful for a good samaritan to comfort that person, so the officer can attempt to apprehend a criminal. Maybe you could help direct pedestrian traffic around the scene.
Should you assist in the arrest itself? Rarely.
brn, it is still one end of the same argument that works both ways: or may be you and police can stop doing what you are doing and help the photographer. Both suggestions are equally ridiculous. Everybody should do their own job and not someone else's.
You can easily get things worse by intruding into someone else's job and/or make their job more difficult. If the situation is dangerous the real police would always prefer members of the public not to intrude and would make effort to fence off the scene if they have enough resources. Either way staying put and clear of intrusion is the way to go. You can be a witness later if you wish and have reasons to help. Photo/video then would be very helpful along your testimony.
So a few of you idiots would rather video the cops shooting one of your loved ones rather than help them. Hmmm.
Stop being utmostly ridiculous with jumping to idiotic conclusions. Out of all the cases of photo-video shooting the police how often did you come across when someone was shooting your loved ones?
I filmed police uncountable number of times in my life and never yet came across such a situation. You are just being ridiculous making highly unlikely scenario the centerpiece of your argument.
Even if it comes to your loved ones intruding directly may not be the right choice unless you have special forces skills mixed with criminal psychology knowledge. You may be putting them into greater danger unless you are a profi in handling such cases. Do you love your loved ones? Let the professionals do the job or you may have yourself to blame for the rest of your life for provoking events to their death or serious injury. If you are a special forces profi then the story may be different. But we are talking about photo and video professionals here - at DPReview. Do not be confused.
@miksto – I agree that the average person photographing a police event rarely results in any redeeming social value and, other than pro news reporting, it's somewhat self-indulgent. On the other hand, a citizen putting away the cell phone to offer assistance to the police is to be applauded. Yes, there are situations where only law enforcement is qualified to act, but there are times where a citizen may be of assistance. I have seen occasions when officers appreciate someone to direct traffic until backup arrives. Recently, here in AZ, a civilian saw an officer down and bloody with an assailant beating his head into the pavement. What should that civilian have done, it wasn't his job. And, what do you think the cop's wife and kids would have preferred? It's called civic duty, as citizens of this country we have responsibilities to each other; one is to help maintain law and order. Sadly, it seems this is an "utmostly" forgotten concept.
Next time you see criminals shooting at the police, why don't you walk over and shield them with your body?
>> a citizen putting away the cell phone to offer assistance to the police is to be applauded
It is definitely not to be applauded but is to be thrown upon! Most of the time it will only distract the police who being busy with serious situation will now have one more moving part in a changing situation - the good samaritan who gets in a way and who police cannot assume is actually a good samaritan. This only complicates things and diverts some police resources and faculties. It is in fact always better for police to have fewer moving parts on any crime scene.
Want to help police? do not intrude into crime scene and either stay where you are or remove yourself from the crime scene and from danger.
@MPS Photographic - That was an idiotic comment. The civilian in my prior post when he saw the criminal trying to kill the Arizona DPS officer forgot the camera and used his Glock. Would you have just stood there and taken video, ran home, or called 911 and hope someone responds in time?
@miksto - You seem to have a somewhat narrow view of what the police do. It's not always crime. And, most people can tell the difference and not interfere when they may be a hindrance. A number of my family members are police officers and have, at times, appreciated civilian assistance when it was offered.
As if this changes the basic fact. Does not matter what they do. Everyone has to do their job and not someone else's. Photo/video - for photographers/videographers. Police work - for policemen.
As for me talking about crime scenes specifically I suggest you first read what exactly I was responding to, to whom and you will see that I was not of narrow view but was responding to specific silly points above like "So a few of you idiots would rather video the cops shooting one of your loved ones rather than help them" or then your stories about policeman being beaten up, etc. Hardly surprising you then expected I should respond differently.
It is worth to read things that are response to something else in their context rather than take out of context and presume you have something to hold me by. It does not work that way unless you want to fall into demagoguery.
@miksto - In my first post I qualified my response by saying, "Yes, there are situations where only law enforcement is qualified to act." And, frankly, I found the "So a few of you idiots" comment to be rather disconjugated. But the philosophy of you are what you are and can never step in to assist in another roll is … well, unusual. In an emergency airliner evacuation there is a passenger designation known as an "Able Bodied Man." This is a passenger that the cabin crew will ask to assist in the evacuation process. Usually, it's something like assisting an unaccompanied child, an elderly person, or directing passengers on the ground to safety. If you are ever in an emergency evacuation and asked to perform such duties, are you really going to inform the flight attendant that you are a photographer and that's his/her job? I suspect you'll grab that kid whether you're asked to or not.
Miksto, thanks for an interesting conversation. Yours is the last word.
Do not put words in my mouth: where exactly did I say "never"? There is a huge difference between "never" and "everyone should do their job and not someone else's".
Further to that even for situation of danger I already indicated one possible exception when involvement may sometimes be conditionally helpful - "If you are a special forces profi then the story may be different".
Please do not invent what did not happen. Do not assign to me what I did not say and what can easily be shown to contradict what I said.
I see little value in focusing discussion on rare exceptions rather than looking at more common case and indicated this as well above - "making highly unlikely scenario the centerpiece of your argument". And none of what you are saying in any way changes common case that everyone should do their job.
>> If you are ever in an emergency evacuation and asked to perform such duties, are you really going to inform the flight attendant that you are a photographer and that's his/her job?
This again is an example of making a highly unlikely scenario into centerpiece of argument and thus blowing it out of proportions. And I see little value in hiding common case behind unlikely scenarios by blowing the unlikely out of proportion. I never was in a situation when I needed to help police despite filming them myriad of times. I never was in "flight attendant" scenario of yours and that scenario is again highly unlikely. I filmed numerous fires and only once was in a situation when I was directing children out of a school that was already full of smoke. Exceptional cases in my experience are not even one in a thousand. So why are you so insistent on narrow focus on unlikely scenarios that even go to such length as put words in my mouth I did not say and that contradict what I said?
@WGVanDyck Well, truth be told, I don't walk around with a Glock on my person, hoping for a 1 in 100,000 chance that I come across a police officer in need of backup against an armed assailant.
This is good news. As most bad behavior is not the police (duhh). This helps the police.
If only we had video of the Michael Brown, CNN wouldn't have covered and pushed "hands up don't shoot" as it was proven that was a lie, his hands were not up, according to several witnesses in the area. Fake news.
Interesting and pretty useless discussion in my eyes. I really do not understand why this is such a big deal in the US. I mean after all it's the land of the free--so people should be free to take pictures of everything they want unless privacy issues are restricting them to do so. OMHO
Part of the counter argument is that police being overly concerned about doing things 100% by the book due to being filmed, could inhibit them from doing their job properly, which could cost lives or get innocents hurt. It makes some sense to me, but in the end, certainly doesn't warrant making it illegal to film or photograph them.
Officers face many threats. I don't think you will see them with their family walking on the streets even on their days off. I know 2 friends whose fathers are police. One friend still recalled gangsters painted their doors will red paint when he was still young. They almost never hanged out with family in public places.
Now you let people photograph for like they are celebrities, I worry about their life being affected even more.
Their jobs are highly dangerous. Remember in old days it was soldiers keeping cities safe. That's why being filmed sometimes changed their behavior.
It has not been the land of the free for many years. We don't even rank in the top 20 of freest nations anymore. Its an issue because police have abused photographers, not only at crime scenes but just taking photos of public buildings, or photographing life in general where police happen to be in the picture. Police have sometimes been too aggressive. Just because its the law a the article mentions police continue to harass people with cameras in public places. Its happened to me more than once and I'm a very police and cooperative person.
My pet peeve is with security agents, hired help, invested with obscure powers that guard our federal buildings and subway stations.
Are ALL federal buildings, including postal offices, off limits to family or casual photography? Because the local passport office in Montreal occupies a complete building FROM THE SECOND FLOOR UP, but there's a little boutiques promenade on the main floor, and I've seen new proud citizens being scared away by this goon in uniform when they try to take a family shot showing their fresh issued passports.
Well, airports are also federal buildings, uh? And people take pictures there also.
New subway stations were inaugurated here some years ago, and for once the transit authority showed some taste with interior decoration. Same story, when tourists and locals were trying to proudly pose in the PUBLIC area.
I no longer travel to far, nice locations with my camera. I rent the video.
Montreal in Canada?
What makes the police nervous in the US is the amount of guns that everybody has.
Guns killed over 13,000 people in 2015. (US)
There are 300 million guns in the US.
As for the UK...there was 8 deaths from hand guns in one year.
No wonder the US police are nervous.
FBI training is when you need to fire a gun, you need to pull the trigger twice to ensure the threat is eliminated because if you don't the next round will be someone pulling the trigger against you. If I am a police officer, I will never know when someone will pull a trigger on me, that is the nature of allowing people to have guns with little restrictions, this is the USA, people have to live with it.
What BS. They have nothing to do with each other.
@tabloid - What makes police nervous is people who are ready to do harm to them. But that's not what causes them to be jerks and power drunk a-holes who shoot people at routine traffic stops. their inability to diffuse a situation is the problem. Many now come from the military where the solution is shoot to kill at the slightest threat. But in non-war police work, that's the wrong approach.
>> The vast majority of firearm deaths in the U.S. are suicide. The UK has similar suicide rates just differ in the means to the end.
I wouldn't say "vast" - its just over half.
And the USA's suicide rate is about TWICE the UK's...
And that doesn't really seem relevant to the US gun homicide epidemic anyway...
Firearms were used to kill 13,286 people in the U.S. in 2015, excluding suicide.
Although I have been a gun owner throughout my life, the argument that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is the most ridiculous, most ignorant, and most stupid argument one would ever hear about this subject. This is what the NRA washes the brains of some people with.
Without guns, those 13,286 people would have been alive. Maybe some broken nose, or a few scratches over their bodies.
Gun laws need to be overhauled so they are not freely given to criminals.
@umptious: "I wouldn't say "vast" - its just over half."
From the CDC
Gun-related deaths 2014: 33,594
Suicide: 21,386
Homicide: 11,008
Accident: 1,200
Like I said, the vast majority are suicide, nothing else comes close. Nearly twice as many suicides as homicides.
"And the USA's suicide rate is about TWICE the UK's..."
I see you failed at math. Let me help you.
2014 Suicide Rates (CDC and ONS)
USA: 13.4 per 100,000
UK: 10.8 per 100,000
"And that doesn't really seem relevant to the US gun homicide epidemic anyway..."
Epidemic? Are motor vehicle deaths and poisoning "epidemics" too?
All Injury Deaths CDC 2014
Total: 62.6 deaths per 100,000
Poisoning deaths: 16.3 deaths per 100,000
Motor vehicle deaths: 10.6 deaths per 100,000
All firearm deaths: 10.5 deaths per 100,000
Firearm homicide: 3.5 deaths per 100,000
Better check your facts next time.
@sh10453 - that's completely stupid and you shouldn't be allowed to post on public sites. without the guns, most of those people would be dead by knife, bat, lead pipe, arson or hit-and-run. and yes, guns in the hands of criminals is a big problem, but how many people with prior records contributed to that 13k of gun deaths, and how many of the deaths were gang on gang or criminal enterprise oriented where innocent civilians were not harmed?
@sh10453: "Without guns, those 13,286 people would have been alive. Maybe some broken nose, or a few scratches over their bodies."
Riiiight, instead of "scratching" someone they pulled out a gun and killed them. People have been killing other people for centuries before guns were invented. We have no way of knowing if those 13k people would still be alive. If someone wanted them dead they would have found any number of ways to do it. You could say guns "make it easier" but so do bats, knives, poison and anything with an engine.
"Gun laws need to be overhauled so they are not freely given to criminals."
18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq. prohibit anyone convicted of a felony and anyone subject to a domestic violence protective order from possessing a firearm. This has been in effect for 50 years. But laws won't stop people from killing people.
USA TODAY Published 5:55 p.m. ET June 16, 2016
The gun homicide rate in England and Whales is about one for every 1 million people, according to the Geneva Declaration of Armed Violence and Development, a multinational organization based in Switzerland.
In a population of 56 million, that adds up to about 50 to 60 gun killings annually. In the USA, by contrast, there are about 160 times as many gun homicides in a country that is roughly six times larger in population. There were 8,124 gun homicides in 2014, according to the latest FBI figures.
Or we could use ACTUAL data from the ONS instead of a left-wing, agenda driven organization in Switzerland. The ACTUAL number of homicides in the UK in 2015 was 0.9 per 100,000 vs 5 per 100,000 in the U.S. The U.S. is simply a far more diverse place, larger population, greater income disparity, the UK couldn't begin to grasp the complexities of a country this large and diverse.
@KISAP, the CDC maintains mountains of data on morbidity and mortality.
Firearm related injuries are between 65-70k each year for the last 5 years. To put that in perspective that doesn't even crack the top 20 for injuries requiring medical attention in the U.S. You're 3X more likely to get hit by a car as a pedestrian than shot with a firearm.
"...when an officer 'pinned' her against a pillar, blocking her ability to record the arrest. "
I see a gray zone here. You have the right to record the police but they do not have the obligation to facilitate it. They can move you somewhere "for you safety", effectively making it impossible for you to get the shot or the video; or they can block your view by pretending that they are not really doing that, etc.
You may be right in theory. In practice however, the Police don't have the "extra" manpower or the setup of anti-recording teams to move, shift, interfere with the public who could potentially film "normal" police officers conducting their duties. It would probably the first responding police officers that got filmed and they in general, would be too busy devoting all their attention to situation at hand and would not have the time or capacity to deal with bystanders.
Nice try, bud. Nah, this is directly disallowing them the right to record. Obviously they could disguise it as something else (trying to move them to a "safer" area etc) and tell whatever story they wanted.
This is why god invented zoom lenses and m43
Maybe the Police Academies need to teach this to new police officers...unless there watching Police Academy the movie for training tips...
Well, the First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth and Eleventh Circuit had ruled this legal and now the Third has as well. Do we need the other six circuit courts to rule for this finally be the law of the land?
Good news for creative Cops out there...
They can be captured on video and images without shame from their colleagues.
Most people don't like being photographed while doing their jobs. The police are no different, but they've come to accept it. At first, they were resistant to dash cams and body cams (imagine a camera in your cubicle). As time goes by, they learn the cameras get them out of trouble more often then it gets them into trouble. It allows them to accurately recount events, which helps them in court. It allows them to easily clear their name when someone makes a bogus accusation.
Most cops like cameras.
They're getting used to others filming them as well. Just do so in a manner that doesn't interfere.
The way i see it, its for the protection of the public to be able to record police officers. They only seem to have a problem with it when they are doing something that could incriminate them.
Unfortunate to say, but if I were a black man living in America, I'd be tempted to have a dash cam or action cam strapped to my chest everywhere I went.
If I were an Arab I'd have another one strapped to my back.
I was in New York on vacation, and I filmed NINE officers arresting a black man in full suit attire walking to work because they 'thought' his subway ticket was a roll of marajuana!!
The poor guy looked confused and insulted as they pinned the back of his neck to a wall. They let him go after much excessive force and brutality, and offensive language.
Definitely a good ruling to be able to film poilice on duty.
I never understood the fascination with photographing pigs.
I think those are called "pigophiles".
@tabloid: I saw a sign in NY once and it went like this. "You don't have a choice. Pigs serve there masters. Even on a plate."
Political activists could learn a lot from SOCOM. One especially useful tactic is a chain of coverage. This requires multiple film crews. The primary crew records the police action. The secondary crew records police interfering with the primary crew. A tertiary crew, or crews, may be used in the case of large events, such as protests.
From what I was told by a lawyer and a police officer (both friends of mine) is that as long as it is in public spot (like someone being pulled over on the side of the road) you can photograph them. However, you may be asked for your SD card if what you photographed, for example, was an accident that occured, or you otherwise had photographs or videos that would be helpful (in general) to law enforcement, but you wouldn't be arrested or ticketed for doing such photography. I think where it crosses the line is if you use, say, an super telephoto lens to capture a pic through a window of someone being arrested inside a building or house. That I believe goes into invasion of privacy (and thus either would be illegal and/or just wrong), but on public streets, sidewalks, etc, you can photograph police, etc. What I think some people forget you CANNOT photograph, are certain government buildings, power stations (such as power plants or distribution sites), and a handful of other places.
It is an Urban Legend that photography is somehow covered in the Patriot Act. Unfortunately, even some law enforcement officials believe this.
For example, some think the government has the authority to bar photographs of "CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE", which include power plants and the like. I assume this is what the @sirhawkeye64 is referring to. But what does the Patriot Act say about critical infrastructure? Just this:
"The Director of the United States Secret Service shall take appropriate actions to develop a national net- work of electronic crime task forces, based on the New York Electronic Crimes Task Force model, throughout the United States, for the purpose of preventing, detecting, and investigating various forms of electronic crimes, including potential terrorist attacks against critical infra- structure and financial payment systems"
Nothing even remotely related to photography. i can go on with other citations such as "suspicious" activity or "surveillance."
Your friends were wrong, if they were talking about the US
Police can ask for anything, ncluding your sd card, and your pants, and the time of day. You do not need to voluntarily give them anything until it is subject to subpoena. In general, you can photograph anything you can see from a public space. And while there are building that you cannot legally photograph, there are only a few and you will probably never see any of them in your lifetime.
@LincolnB "You CAN photograph gov't building, power stations, etc. as long as it's being done from a public location."
The military is the sole exception to that. Take photos of a military base from a nearby public location and you could have your camera and card confiscated and you could be arrested.
Yes the police would need a subpoena to get the SD card. I wasn't necessarily implying immediately on-site, but if the situation's bad enough, it doesn't take long to get one. That's why I honestly just don't bother photographing police or incidents relating to police (never really needed to either and luckily I do this as a haobby and stick to things like portraits and landscapes).
As for military installations, I think that's really one area that's a little grey, but I'm going to lean more towrads the NOT allowed list. And it makes sense, because the government doesn't know what you're going to do with that photograph. You may hang it on your wall, or turn it over to some foreign government agency. I think there probably local laws too that can further limit what can and cannot be photographed. Laws are vague on purpose, so that in the event an issue arises, the law can be interpreted by the courts, and is not specific to a T, thus possibly ruling out variations.
You can certainly take pictures of military bases from public areas. And usually you can take pictures from on them as well, if you're allowed to be there. Seriously, the number of things you legally can't take pictures of in the US is so much smaller than everybody thinks...
They key phrase is "if you're allowed to be there" which in most cases is usually either a person of the military, or someone hired by the government (ie. a hired photographer, or maintenance person, etc) that has legal access to the military installation. As far as shooting from a public location, I'm still thinking that that may not be entirely legal, but it would probably require a little research to find out for sure. I've always gone with the idea that military bases and equipment were off limits for photographing by the public (even from a public location/vantage point) unless you were hired by the US government to do so, and have the proper documentation to prove so.
I've done the research. And I've also been to air shows on or near military bases. I've toured MacDill AFB in Florida. I've been on Fort Benning.I've been on active parts of the Pearl Harbor. I've taken pictures of military equipment all over the east coast of the US. I think it's interesting. They don't care. There are "No Photography' signs posted in some areas and you're better off to honor those, but most people don't.
Google Streetview is loaded with pictures of military buildings and gear
Seriously, all this concern is borne out of a lack of information. There are a handful (seriously, a handful) of installations where it is illegal to take pictures of locations and equipment. Most people will never even step foot near those.
Sources? And are you a former military person? Just wondering because I'm thinking that former military personnel may have additional privileges through association that the normal US citizen does not, Again, I wasn't implying that EVERY military installation is off limits, but I think it's generally agreed upon (whether illegal or not) that military installations are generally not good subject matter to photograph, unless it's something like an air show that the public has access to.
Lincoln B that is a civilian police force that was judged to be in the wrong.
Tdwesbo just because you have gotten away with taking pictures doesn't mean what I said is not true. I'm retired military; believe me, it is true. I can't cite the law offhand, but if I have some time later I will post it. The military can in one instance, or many instances, choose not to exert its authority and then all of a sudden it can choose to do so. National security is ultimately a no go area for those that think they have a right to know. It doesn't work that way. Even those in the military with the right security clearance don't have a right to know anything. It's based on a need to know. Be very careful with your future photography around military installations, especially outside of airshows.
As for civilian police culture in America leading to abuses and arrests of photographers, it's not surprising to me. Police culture in America is corrupt to the core. That comes from decades of putting such people on pedestals through pop culture such as TV shows and movies. Most cops have huge heads because of it. That needs to finally stop. In fact, I believe the police should face far more severe penalties for breaking the law than a civilian would due to the easily abusable power they have over the public
JohnBaker thanks for your service to our country. You're right, of course, but the distinction between knowing classified information and taking pictures of visible buildings, facilities, and equipment is important. You can go to the gate at MacDill and take pictures of the guard shack. That's legal. You can stand on a ladder on public property and take pictures over the wall. That's legal.
Military facilities are photographed constantly by non-government entities. Take a look at Google maps and google streetview.
Take 280 southeast out of Columbus, GA. You're on Ft Benning. You can video, photograph all you want. The cutter USCGC Dilligence is stationed in Wilmington, NC and is usually tied up there. You can tour it and take pictures of it and active duty military coming and going. It's legal.
There is an issue where what people think should be law isn't the law.
With respect tdwesbo, but you are wrong. Because people are often allowed to photograph on public property near a military base is simply because they are being allowed to. It is simply discretion that is allowing that. Please, do yourself a favor, don't assume that you can get away with erecting a ladder on public property to take photos over a military base's wall.
By the way, here is the relevant federal law. As for civilian cops, please keep photographing them. They have abused their authority for far too long.
JohnBaker, thank you for the link to 18 U.S. Code § 795. Google search on it is very interesting and informative.
Read paragraph (a) very carefully. it is very clearly listed as an exception. It is very unlikely that any of us live near or visit installations that have been so designated. The relevant part reads:
"Whenever, in the interests of national defense, the President defines certain vital military and naval installations or equipment as requiring protection against the general dissemination of information relative thereto"
If/when I come across a facility so designated I will certainly avoid breaking the law.
18 U.S. Code § 795 is notably silent on the issue of public spaces. This is no small detail. The statute is pointedly vague on that point. Without posting this code in relevant public space it would be quite difficult to obtain a conviction. By the same token, posting this code in a public space would require the military taking a measure of control over that public space which makes that space not so public anymore.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but just about everyone who has been anywhere near a military base has a photograph somewhere they've taken that could conceivably fit under a broad interpretation of § 795. That broad interpretation suggests that the police could arrest anyone with a camera and seize any camera anywhere near a military base, at any time The courts take a dim view of such broad interpretations that ensnares nearly everyone in the United States. If you've been anywhere under the flight path of a Blue Angels air show, if you've ever been to a military museum, if ever took a photo that had any portion of a military base or harbor in the background (say, for example, anywhere in San Diego County), if you ever attended a boot camp graduation, if you've ever been on the highway when a military convoy drove by, etc. etc.
I have hundreds of such pictures and I'm confidant I've broken no law.
The president already has. Executive Order 10104, issued in 1950, defines the military installations requiring protection.
Wow. I am flummoxed. It would appear that it is actually illegal to take a picture of anything even remotely related to the US Military. In fact, it would appear as if just about every military photograph of US forces, equipment, or installations that any of us has even seen was taken illegally. I stand humbly corrected, although that executive order would be good fodder for a legal discussion (and this isn't the place for that...)
No, read Executive Order 10104 carefully.
The place or thing needs to be "classified, designated, or marked" ... as "top secret, secret, confidential, or restricted". That does NOT cover everything remotely related to the U.S. military.
If it's not marked or if it's not secret, then Executive Order 10104 doesn't apply.
"Restricted" just means access is restricted to the public. Most military bases are restricted to the public and usually only authorized personnel may enter them.
And keep reading...
All military, naval, or air-force aircraft, weapons, ammunition, vehicles, ships, vessels, instruments, engines, manufacturing machinery, tools, devices, or any other equipment whatsoever, in the possession of the Army, Navy, or Air Force or in the course of experimentation, development, manufacture, or delivery for the Army, Navy, or Air Force
"Top secret" etc refers to military installations. Most military bases are restricted.
Military equipment is in the second section. It specificies all the equipment I mentioned.
What is unclear?
The military equipment must be designated, classified, or marked as "top secret" etc.
Humvees and pencils don't qualify. They're not marked "top secret" or "restricted". (Restricted usually refers to areas anyway, not equipment, as in "This area is marked RESTRICTED.") Not all military areas are marked restricted. Not all equipment is designated "secret". Not all paperwork is classified as "confidential".
There is no problem in taking pictures of police officers on duty as long as its on a public place, ok, then police officers will have no problem in identifying those that take pictures of them. "Just in case". People shouldn't have problems with that either.
I am not sure what what the heck you are talking about. Or rather, I do but I am using your same passive aggressive tactics.
Just in case of what? Stupid. Do you need a little touchup in photoshop?
Have you ever been identified by a cop for taking pictures of them? Well they have the right to know who does it. It's not that something bad is going to happen, but they do not know the use that is going to be done with those images.
That's the excuse at least I've been told.
JohnBaker where does it say that specifically on the constitution? A Cop has the right to know what is going on around them, especially on some situations and moments nobody should be taking pictures of them. I don't think there is any problem in telling a cop who you are and what your doing if they ask you. No one is going to jail for that. I'm not saying you can't take pictures of them.
@TonyPM. The relevant text is below.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
What you are arguing in favor of is harassment. Probable cause is a thing here in America. It is fundamental law. A cop in America has no right to know anything without probable cause. Once again, our courts have affirmed what is clearly in our constitution.
You show yourself as being in another country. I suggest you argue in favor of such things for your country and mind your business about law in America.
JohnBaker, why do you look at it as harassment? I'm not talking about any specific police officer that has some type of problem. I'm talking about common sense. Not going against the law. The law has it's limit ofcourse, but I'm talking about specific situations where a police officer has the need to know who took or is taking pictures. This is not an everyday situation. It's not the first time I see pictures on internet and people asking to identify and even where a police officer lives.
Who is being harassed in that case?
I fought the law and the...
Good to see at least one corner of the internet where sovereign citizens don't but in with their nonsensical interpretations of laws.
The exception clause at the bottom is exactly what police use to arrest people, as shown in numerous youtube videos. The cop turns to the filmer and says "you are hindering my investigation", and the situation escalates, with the cops intent on performing an arrest.
I've seen where sovereign citizens are provoking and harassing cops, no issue there, as those peoples are public dangers and nuissances, but then I see even reporters getting harassed.
And what is a sovereign citizen. Are we all sovereign citizens or only some of us?
Sovereign citizens are criminals, plain and simple. People used to share their videos showing them at traffic stops exercising civil disobedience, or walking out of courts and disputing the jurisdictions before knowing that they are criminals and the videos are usually cut short, like later there are convictions. The best ones are where they don't want to produce their licenses and identifications while driving, then get surprised at the ensuing extraction and arrest. Or when they act like fake lawyers. In central Europe, they are called "Reichsbuerger" because they claim Hitler never capitulated and there was no war-end treaty. They are already responsible for dead cops and other shooting incidents. There are already raids taking place throughout central Europe targeting them and their weapons.
The tie-in here is that many sovereign citizens provoke cops with cameras. Cop Watch is a big offender and they are sovereign citizens, not overseers.
Dear me. That doesn't sound good but now I think I understand why I saw a husband and wife standing in aisle of my local grocery store on a Sunday afternoon with giant pistols on their belts. It was fairly odd.
its easy and a cheap victory to dismiss or demean the sovereign citizen movenent
in the usa
but if anyone reading my post considered the push toward fascism
from the govt by politicians \corporations and the media to be a less desirable direction for the evolving American political experience woulf be wise not to knee-jerk dismiss the grievances they claim
we are coerced into thinking a certain way ... thru psychology citizen peer pressure of easily coopted minds and a media shaped discription of what patriotism is
every worthy political cause from the American Revolution to the Magna Carta had at its core people of conscience
dismissing them thoughtlessly at the beck and call of a questionable media or its thought victims is ..... well.....questionable
one thing the sovereign citizen movement recognises is the concerted effort to chaNGE THE RIGHTS OF AMERICANS TO BEAR ARMS waged by the CIA the media and the government ..... Operation Gladio in Europe especially Italy taught me something about the true causes of terrorism and mass murder of citizens
someday the American public will learn the truth about terrorism just as the Italians have,... following the candid confessions of the Italian govt in recent rears about terrorist acts in Italy in the 1970s and 1980s blamed on the left but committed by the right ... truth is the most powerful thing we possess ...
treasure it
Sir, how do you reconcile that with a bunch of people trying to cite maritime law and third and fourth person narratives as a defense to what seemingly, is a simple aversion to registering a car or having a drivers license? This is not a movement, this is an attempt to get out of civic responsibility. The defense has never worked in a court of law.
You have your right to keep your guns. In 1981 there were 20 states that did not allow open carry of a firearm. Today there are only 3. Nobody is coming to take your guns.
LEON i dont belong to to any political groups , but as an American I'm acutely aware of the slide to the pit of fascism occurring
my perspective is that these that "sovereign " claiming citizens see something too and struggle to come to grips with a proper response to a very real american political change,
personally i believe the government is involved in all sorts of skullduggery and psyops aimed at the disarmament of Americans .
. im not a fan of gun owners or guns personally ... but less a fan of the slide toward fascism in America and its accompanying changes in citizens rights
also, those are state rights and change from 20 to three is a consequence of federal meddling and a widening understanding of the direction of change politically pushed by washingtom ... the change is a response, state by state .to that meddling.
You are speaking in the abstract, I am speaking about actual, documented incidents. Their main cause seems to be traffic fines and squatting on private property and their defense is always an attempt at semantic gymnastics.
The hysteria over "feds coming for guns" is just that.
the us govt did come and disarm a zone around new Orleans house to house depriving citizens of lawful property and home protection ...many were troubled by this as it seemed an overreach by the govt
In theory it's legal but depending on the specific actions of the photographers it can be considered illegal if the activity is harassing or obstructing. Also note how this is only in federal court. States, counties, and cities, have recently passed laws making the mere act of photographing the police illegal. I'm no saying I agree with those laws but people shouldn't think that this ruling means they won't get in trouble.
Those decisions apply to all jurisdictions, city, state, etc. Cities that choose to continue such practices will be setting themselves up for some major lawsuits. Note that this last case was filed as a result of actions in the city of Philadelphia. Of course, there will be a few bad apples that will continue to ignore the law.
As a Philadelphian, and a political sciences guy, everything Tony said is correct. The police who choose to ignore federal law are generally acting under a typical misguided notion that state and local ordinance somehow manage to supersede federal law. That is not true. Ever.
What people mistake for 'state/local law' overriding federal law is actually just a lack of enforcement at the federal level. Philadelphia decriminalized marijuana, for example, even though it's banned at the federal level. Federal agencies *could* make this a problem, if they chose to do so, but they're not being asked to.
The "gotcha" is really defining what is considered "interfering with police conduct" in a case against the city. *That* can be debated and possibly defined at the state or local level. (It could also go to the federal level to be interpreted based on the Constitution, but that's a hard road to travel.)
Agree with the other responders. There are many instances where cities and states can pass tougher laws than exist at the federal level. (Environmental regulations as an example.) But when it comes to constitutional issues the constitution trumps everything. Any laws at lower levels that contradict a decision made on constitutional grounds in a federal court are invalidaded by the court's decision. The only way local laws could be legally enforced is if the Supreme Court overturns one of these appellate decisions. That's not a likely scenario.
when the federal authorities in America legislate the criminalization of photographing police we can be assured the process of the fascistization is complete ...
read your history boys and girls to avoid looking like a complete idi.....
In these cases, the federal circuit courts interpret the US Constitution, which overrides all state and local laws, not just federal laws. Of course, the ruling each federal circuit court only applies to its territory (the 3rd circuit here only covers PA, NJ & DE), but their decisions set a precedence that all other courts respect.
I am not an American and certainly not very well acquainted with your legal system, so I have this question:
If it has already been considered and ruled upon at Federal Court level why do cases keep being sent there?
Is it a case of repeatedly "throwing it against the wall to see if it sticks" in what concerns a possible reverse ruling?
To answer your question, yes. The average person will not be able to fight the legal battles needed to get the laws upheld.
The Federal court system is divided into 12 regions across the US and they operate more or less autonomously—in other words you can have different results depending on where your case is heard. The different courts have different personalities—the circuit court that includes California is tilted a bit more toward protecting the rights of individuals while court districts in the southern part of the US tilt more toward giving businesses preferential treatment.
I'm not sure why we do it this way, but it's been working pretty well so far.
If the district courts can't agree with each other or if one of the people in the suit doesn't like the decision, the people involved can ask for it to be reviewed in what in the US is called the Supreme Court.
Decisions by the Supreme Court are final and can't be overruled.
I fear I might have not made myself clear... Sorry for that.
My question is: If a higher court has already ruled on a specific matter (...many times, it seems, in this particular case...), why isn't that ruling bidding to the lower circuit court, once a "same case" is is brought before them?...Why going up the ladder just to get the same ruling, one that is not prone to change since it impacts on constitutional matters?
EDIT:...sorry...between the time of writing this and posting it, I see my question has already been addressed. Thank you.
Our Constitution is vague, purposefully so, one might even suggest. The Federal Courts and Supreme Court exist to interpret our vague Constitution. The problem they typically face is setting precedent, where a vague outline for citizens' rights is made more clear (e.g., it was only 10 years ago that our 2nd Amendment -- the right to bear and keep arms -- was defined to at least allow the possession of handguns for home protection). However, once precedent is set, courts are typically unwilling to go back on it, much like any other public good is difficult to rescind once granted.
These cases go to the courts because the circumstances might be different than a previous case. Most of the time, precedent is upheld, but there are times when another definition is introduced. Occasionally, cases attempt to exploit those new intricacies, which occasionally lead to a new interpretation of the Constitution.
See? Clear as mud.
Finally putting that political sciences degree to work ;)
To ignore legal precedent, the lower court judge just has to say the current case is sufficiently different from a previous rulings that it doesn't apply. So if a lower court judge is incompetent or biased towards law enforcement, it is easy for them to ignore legal precedent. They need to find *something* (valid or not) that makes this case special.
In this case, the lower court judge said that the photography wasn't covered because it wasn't "expressive enough" to be covered by the first amendment. That's b.s., but that was the reasoning. Thankfully the photographer had the resources to appeal to the Federal level, who corrected this error.
To add to what Brightside said, the appellate courts only have juristiction over the states in their region. Which is why you can see the same issue going through several different court systems. An appellate court can use a decision from another court to bolster their decision, but they don't have to, and they still have to decide it for themselves. If there's a conflict between appellate courts, some decide one way and one or more a different way, that is when an issue usually has a chance to advance to the Supreme Court, which makes a final decision that is binding on all states.
Once again very US specific news. Not everyone lives in the US. It is a pity to see that DPreview has become pretty much US exclusive (although a natural development)
DP Review is an American website, located within the US therefore it is logical that they would post photo-related stories about the US. It raises an interesting question that perhaps could be responded to by readers: "what are the laws concerning the public's right to photograph police and/or paramilitary activity in other countries?"
Though it was ripped from the UK and flung across the pond to Seattle, this site remains very British both in attitude and content choice. So when they report US news you can be sure that it's important.
Everything that gets bought by Amazon is American?
No idea. But this site will always be British to the bone. These guys aren't Brexiting anything even though they've been exiled to the colonies.
Actually, Phil started DPReview in London. Most of his sample galleries were shot near the Tower Bridge on the banks of Thames.
Phil cashed out by selling it to Amazon, which moved it to Seattle later.
it retains a little of the uk flavour when its gone ill have to look elsewhere
And we all look forward to that moment..
are you lonely Noah? need to talk ?? let it out ......
this is the third time you have specifically addressed me in a week.... im trying to adjust to the new attention, but please don't get weird... and for god sake please never PM me
just a suggestion....... is to put your energies into talking about the topics at hand instead of making snarky comments to me like the creepy guy in the schoolyard ... thanks
I'm just worried about your mental health.
I would never PM you. I don't even know what a PM is. Prime Minister? How could I ever Prime Minister you? Doesn't make sense. I guess it makes more sense than your inane comments though..
The Britishness is in their class-based weltanschauung, the conviction that what they say is law just because they said it. In their caste system, they are camera aristocracy, we are peasants who are not entitled to question them.
It's also evident in their fear of using outside sources to test their beliefs. For instance, in articles and reviews they never cite sources or seek out comments from actual engineers or scientists, presumably because they are afraid that real experts will refute their conclusions . A more charitable interpretation is that they suffer from illusory superiority which is a failing we all suffer from.
Are you sure you are not MrDarkSide because I sense much fear in you....
Totally. Except the only thing I'm afraid of is myself.
If they're just doing their job, and doing it correctly, what are they trying to hide?
It depends on the circumstances. Because good cops are just doing their job they shouldn't be surrounded by idiots sticking cell phones in their faces and calling them "racists."
If I saw a cop breaking the law I would film them secretly from a distance, not shove the camera directly in their face.
First, they may not be doing thier job right. Second, who is deciding what is correct and what is not? Third, there is the legitimate concern of the possibility of interference, both with teh officers doing thier job as well as photographers positioning themselves into harm's way, where the officers then need to provide resources to protect them, and possibly adding to potention litigation. Fourth, there is instance after instance after instance that proves that photos and video can lie.
With that said, I do agree with the courts in this case.
DLB41 + M Chambers , those are BS arguments which were used in this case, the courts decided they were 100% bogus and sided with the rights of the public to film / photograph cops.
This was great news. By and large, the vast majority of law enforcement personnel are doing their best at a difficult job. But, the nature of the job also draws some bad apples. Glad to see yet another circuit court uphold our right to record (as long as we are not interfering).
Images have appeared which claim to show Nikon's forthcoming D850 DSLR, the development of which was announced this week. If genuine, the pictures indicate that the D850 will offer illuminated controls and a tilting LCD screen, but no built-in flash.
To celebrate the Daguerreotype Achromat 2.9/64 lens' successful Kickstarter campaign, Lomography has announced a chrome-plated version of the lens in Nikon and Canon DSLR mounts.
Nikon just released four new firmware updates, adding features and fixing bugs in the D600, D610, D750 and the KeyMission 80.
It probably hasn't made your landscape photography bucket list just yet, but there's a good reason to visit Idaho. Here are 9 must-visit locations in this beautiful state.
Oops... Adobe accidentally leaked their unfinished Lightroom-powered cloud-based photo editor 'Project Nimbus' to some Creative Cloud users yesterday.
Storm chaser and award-winning photographer Mike Oblinski just released his latest time-lapse, and it is absolutely stunning.
Looking to level up your video capture capabilities without buying a whole new camera? Blackmagic's Video Assist 4K is well worth considering, despite a few flaws and its lack of 4K/60p support.
We're big fans of Fujifilm's fast-growing GFX system, and the GF 110mm F2 lens is no exception. Positioned as the system's classic portrait lens, its optics are just as impressive with non-human subjects as well.
Nikon turns 100 years old today, and the company is celebrating with a wacky music video, some tributes to its history, and a new vision presented by president Kazuo Ushida.
Phottix just released the Premio Parabolic Umbrellas series, replacing their Para-Pro line with a stronger, deeper and better made set of parabolic umbrellas.
The Moto Z2 is Motorola's first dual-camera smartphone and, compared to its predecessor, comes with a number of improvements and new camera features.
Researchers at Stanford have revealed a new '4D camera system' built for robots. The system is based on the same light field tech that allowed Lytro cameras to refocus images after they were taken.
If you want 'beautiful rendition' from your lenses, follow this simple rule: only buy classic low-element prime lenses with lead glass elements—everything else is junk.
In an interview with CNBC, Leica Chairman Andreas Kaufmann said he dreams of a 'true Leica phone,' and hinted at what's next for the Leica and Huawei partnership.
Wildlife and nature photographer Peter Mather tells the story behind this exceptional shot of a mama grizzly and her cub searching for salmon in Yukon, Canada.
Popular YouTube channel TastyTuts has put together this 33-video Beginner's Guide to Adobe Photoshop—a godsend for anybody who wants to learn Photoshop from scratch.
The long anticipated replacement for the popular Rode VideoMic Pro is almost ready for shipping. The price of the upgraded VideoMic Pro+ will be £290/$300 when it goes on sale in mid-August.
A new iOS app called Explorest wants to help you find new locations to shoot. It's limited to Singapore for now, but the app is packed full of useful location scouting features.
Nikon's D850 development announcement is extremely light on details, so we assembled a wish list of upgrades and features we'd love to see.
Nikon has announced the development of the long-awaited replacement to its full-frame D810: the D850. Nikon says that the D850 will build on the strengths of its predecessor and offer 'new technologies, features and performance enhancements.'
Lens manufacturer Voigtlander has introduced a 65mm F2 macro lens for Sony E-mount that it says "rates as one of the finest in the history of Voigtländer."
The UK released a preview of their upcoming drone safety regulations, and it looks like drone pilots will have to both register their device and pass safety awareness tests.
National Geographic photographer Bob Holmes talks about light, and why you need to learn how to 'see' and not just 'look' at your subject.
Photographer Alessandro Barteletti shares the story behind his National Geographic Italia cover, shot with a 10-year-old DSLR and an iPhone flashlight.
Fashion catalog photographers in China have some next-level models to work with. In this video, you see one model hitting 30 poses in 15 seconds as the photographer snaps away.
Photographer Paul Adshead breaks down 11 photography-related smartphone apps he couldn't live without—from a pocket light meter to a lighting diagram app.
Fast-growing Chinese flash brand Godox is teasing a brand new flash trigger... for smartphones. The Godox A1 is a 'phone flash system' that can act as both flash and 2.4GHz trigger.
On July 12, Canon opened its newest Technology and Support Center, designed to serve the motion picture industry, in Burbank, CA. DPReview got a sneak peak and takes you behind the scenes.
The Sigma 14mm F1.8 Art is truly one-of-a-kind. It offers the fastest aperture of any lens that shares its focal length, produces beautiful sunstars and is incredibly sharp to boot. If you're in the market for a fast ultrawide prime, this looks to be the one to get.
In this article, expert macro photographer Thomas Shahan shares advice for successful closeup photography of bugs, insects and small animals.


text:
We're looking for your favorite restaurants in Provence. Specifically, we'll be in Avignon for two nights, Aix for two nights, and Cassis for two nights. We plan on doing some driving around the coast so good places to stop for seafood would also be greatly appreciated. We don't want anything too fancy, just quintessential Provencal cuisine. Thanks!
Recent ActivityView all Europe activity »
- 1 Crannog Centre or Atholl Country Life Museum
- 2 seat reservations
- 3 14 days from Frankfurt to Paris by train
- 4 Paris experts- hotel near train ?
- 5 European Sampler, 4 weeks, 6 countries?
- 6 Italy in a week
- 7 HELP: 3rd trip to France - where should I go?
- 8 Varenna to hotel near Milan airport
- 9 4 Greek islands- best way to hop?
- 10 Driving in Saint Emilion
- 11 Tips for tour company tour guides
- 12 Lisbon to San Sebastián to Madrid itinerary help!
- 13 Valencia Spain
- 14 Germany-Car or Train
- 15 Night Bus?
- 16 TER ticket bought online -- good all day?
- 17 Italian Opera-Edinburgh Tattoo-"Great" Houses-Cornwall: Ongoing and FINAL
- 18 Andalucia Spain
- 19 Advice for Time in Cumbria and/or Yorkshire Dales
- 20 Gtg's in Paris this summer ?
- 21 Provence Hotel and Flights
- 22 Short time in Vienna
- 23 Switzerland part of 3-week trip
- 24 Jewish Vienna
- 25 My special places in Europe
Your Favorite Restaurants in Provence
Report Abuse
What price range?
Report Abuse
Entrees less than 20 euros.
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Surely someone has some suggestions???
Report Abuse
I think it's your "less than 20 Euros" that has us stumped!
Report Abuse
I wish my favorite were less than 20
Report Abuse
>>I think it's your "less than 20 Euros" that has us stumped!<<
Stu Dudley
Report Abuse
Can't come up with any suggestions for that budget. Our favourite in Avignon is La Fourchette.
Report Abuse
I can't remember the cost but the Café Des Artistes was not expencive
Report Abuse
I would second La Fourchette in Avignon. We ate there twice.
They have a fixed price which was reasonable.
Report Abuse
Okay, maybe this will make it easier? We don't want to spend more than 40 euros on prix fixe meal, 20 euros on entrees on a la carte menus. That being said, we would like to know about your favorite restaurants so that we can pick and choose and make decisions about spending a little extra one night and budgeting the next. Thanks!
Report Abuse
Hi Kateny
We really like this L'Epice and Love in Avignon. She does a lot of braised food, very charming place, like the owner.
Report Abuse
As far as Cassis, you will not have any problem finding a restaurant. I am in the process of moving so I can't find my notes, I remember eating a lot of seafood and everything was pretty good.
Have a great time!
If you decide to take a boat tour, be ready to see a lot of naked people.
Report Abuse
Here are some restaurants we liked during our trip last year (each dinner including wine cost 40 - 55 euros):
Avignon: Fou de Fa Fa: apps--chicken liver pate, goat cheese croustillant; mains--chicken "muffin", duck breast
Uzes (sounds like you do not have extra nights to play with, but if you do, stay one or two nights in the wonderful little town; we stayed at L'Albiousse, marvellous, 17 rue du docteur Blanchard): Le Bec a Vin: one of the finest meals we had during our trip: apps--"cappucino" of cold mint pea soup with creamy white cheese froth, tartine of sun-dried tomato puree; mains--leg of lamb for each of us with side of gratin of zucchini and cheese; bottle of Gigondas. We ascended into the upper empyrean....
Aix: Le Zinc d'Hugo, run by Slavica and her husband Slavica's family escaped from the old Yugoslavia, settled in Normandy; this place specializes in roasted meats; we both had "pata negra," pork from Spanish pigs fed on chestnuts; bottle of their awesome house wine. A full-flavored meal full of gusto!
Hope this helps.
Report Abuse
Great - thanks for all the suggestions so far!
Report Abuse
Look near Auchan and Casino supermarkets; there are often good cafeterias and/or small restaurants attached that have good food at good prices. Ditto for the large Carrefour markets.
Report Abuse
If you decide you want to splurge, we loved our dinner at Christian Etienne in Avignon. They also have prix fixe menus, and are open for lunch.
Report Abuse
In Avignon the best value for money is LE TOUT PETIT. Fresh food, limited menu but great prices (2 courses for 20€)
In St Remy a must is Ô Caprices de Mathias, great view and location (you can see the tip of the Van Gogh Hospital church). 3 courses lunch with a glass of wine at 20€ 3 courses dinner at 29€
In Cassis I would recommend LA PETITE CUISINE above the michelin star rest of LA VILLA MADIE. The view is spectacular and food good.
Hope that helps.
Sign in to comment.