Now that the bogus story about photographers needing permits has (although inadvertantly) hit the mainstream in a "serious" publication, you can almost see the process working itself out.

Some people will think that it's a good idea. Others will think it was already illegal - either for anti-terrorist reasons or misplaced "think of the children" notions. The politicians will sit on the fence - and when there's no public outcry, will realise that here's a liberty no-one cares about - or will miss. They'll be able to score a minor and temporary "tough on crime(?)" victory with little or no criticism.

Meanwhile anyone with a camera will become a pariah. Photography will become something that can only be practiced discretely, then with explicit permission, then in the privacy of your own home, then not at all. In the meantime, the do-gooders and politicans all pat themselves on the back for making us all a little safer.

Much more of this safety, and no-one will be allowed to do anything.

I just avoid reading anything topical on 1st April, it's just gets so boring: yes, well done, ha ha, very funny, I see what you're trying to do there...

The order of the "true" and "april fool" about halfway through the quiz.

... a jear ago I was trying to take photographs around the London Eye and the 'security' managing the queue to get on got very threatening for no obvious reason at all.

The strange thing was that they refused to give any reason for trying to prevent me from taking any photographs - and I wasn't even pointing the camera at the damn thing...

This April Fools article appears just after 'Holographic storage coming to the Wii?'

I claim my free reg merchandise!

I am reminded of the Zenit "PhotoSniper", an SLR from the 1970s that had a gun-like stock, plus a handgrip and a trigger. It was designed so that wildlife photographers could take tracking shots of birds etc, by bringing the camera to their shoulders exactly like a rifle; it looked exactly like a grenade launcher.

Back in the late 1990s, when Russian cameras started to get written about on the internet, it was a kind of "ho ho! that'll get you in trouble with the police!" jokey thing. Nowadays it probably literally actually really would get you shot. Or at least shot at.

The quote may be wrong - but that is irrelevant if the police believe it? - or something very close? By coincidence I'm going to a preview of Hanif's Fringe Play tomorrow night. It is about 50 yards from where I was stopped by police of taking a photograph of a public highway where an accident had occurred but all parties to it had been removed.

Why? well they didn't want me too. OK, what law gave them the power? We have the power to sieze your camera as it can contain evidence of a crime scene. Ahem, the police had already photographed it. It was so silly, but arguing with police (particulary the silly variety) can have its downside. So I made my excuses and left.

I'm white, middle class and 60. If I have problems what hope for Hanif?

That wasn't the first one, either - back in the late 1800's and early 1900's there were a number of cameras made to look like pistols, and much sought after by collectors. What would happen today if you tried to use one of those in public?

Not to mention the WW1 Lewis gun conversion, used for training air gunners!

Every day is "Outright Lies Day" when Good Old Nobend Brown is PM - Hurrah, what ho !! ho ho.

The security muppets at the London Eye are known for their officiousness and stupidity, especially as most of the surrounding area is public access. To make it even more ludicrous, for a couple of quid you can jump on the boat that runs upriver to the Tate Gallery & take all the pics you want as you go right past the Eye & there's damn all they can do about it.

Whats scary is that our un-elected Lord and Master has probably read that and thought "Oooo, a tax we hadn't thought of, until now..."

...It can go in Wikipedia, can't it?

Those grafters at The Guardian truly are magnificent. Marvel at their prowess over the time-space continuum!

"The following apology was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and clarifications column, Saturday August 2 2008"

*checks clock* 20:35

*checks calender* 01 August 2008.

Wow, I'm impressed!

Hang on, my dad was a naval photographer for 30 years...

How do I tell mother?

April 1st was created for real news people to take a holiday all for themselves. No responsible reporting at all.

True.

There are more of them in the public's hands (more opportunity) and swung on their straps by an amateur photographer, they could possibly do more damage than a gun which is locked up at a gun club.

All true, but irrelevant, like er...

I think it's a stupid, pointless tradition and I agree with Hugo. It's basically just a weak excuse for lying. Maybe occasionally something'll come up that makes me smile or think "that was quite clever", but most April Fool's stunts are feeble and irrelevant. I'm sure I fall for as many as I see through, but in either case I'm always left wondering just what the purpose of the exercise was.

Ah, cf "A good day to bury bad news".

The Government can put out any draconian announcements it wants to and people will just say "Ho ho, it's an April Fool gag..."

April 1st is the day on which new Acts of Parliament and other legislation come into effect - I've long regarded the choice of date as quite apt, given some of the stupid laws that have come into farce, sorry, FORCE on that date.

You know it's not just an April Fool's Day joke, however, because the wastes of oxygen in the Capital advertise the forthcoming stupidity in advance.

I used to read it occasionally online but I stopped after one of the stories about Bombay(now Mumbai) reported that a major religious festival was in fact a show of solidarity of homosexuals. I am not much religious but these sort of ridiculous reporting is bound to irk anyone. I mailed both the editor and the author, but to no effect. Hence I am not surprised at this example of reporting by the Guardian....

Sounds like an excuse for one of those trials-by-duel to me. You and your camera vs me and my gun.

I'm assuming that both are allowed to be loaded.

For the record, I neither own nor wish to own a gun, but that kind of ridiculous, asinine statement is symptomatic of everything that's wrong with society these days. Did nobody seriously raise their hand and point out that, in fact, guns are generally more dangerous that cameras? This is why, for example, you don't get offered the latest Nokia handset with an integrated 9mm pistol whenever you upgrade your mobile contract...