Well I have spoken to many other Trans-Gendered people and it never ceases to amaze me how much people are concerned at how they “pass”.  Personally I am who I am, I don’t care if people know I am transgendered so long as they are polite and treat me with the same respect and courtesy as they do with everyone else.  The interesting thing about the desire to be “stealth” or “passable”  is, I think, that those people are the people who are not Trans-Sexual but are really Cross Dressers or Transvestites (TransGender was a term introduced to refer to CrossDressers, Transvestites and TransSexuals alike.) The TransSexual people I know never speak about how “passable” they are or whether they are “stealth”. Now I find this particularly interesting because my Ex, many readers will know, purports to be TransSexual but from personal experience and details given by two other of “her” Ex’s the opinion is “she” is really a “he” with a sexual fetish (from my understanding of the terms that would make “him” a transvestite.)

Now why is that important?

Well it isn’t really, but it is an observation that gives additional weight to what I said above.  I know a lot of transgender people of which there are only a few transsexuals in the bunch, and most of the transgender people I know are cross dressers of which some are extremely good at ‘passing’. It is, however, a common theme when talking to them about how they went out last weekend shopping “en femme” and how they “passed”. Similarly how they went on holiday without any male clothes and spent the entire week as ’stealth’.  One has to wonder what the end game is?  To impersonate a member of the opposite sex so well that people cannot tell?  It seems so… but where does that lead…?

Well personally from a personal point of view, I don’t think I “pass” I think people see me as a person born a man, they see I have boobs, and they don’t know much more. I am, however, a woman inside, and I am that same woman every day and every night.  I get on with life being the person I am. I don’t plaster makeup on, I hardly even use eye liner and lipstick any more.  Makeup can be a chore and is a chore when you have to do it just to step outside, in a similar fashion as having to wear a bra every day etc. That said, the need to wear makeup occasionally and a bra every day comes with the territory, I accepted and chose to need to wear a bra for the rest of my life when I decided to start hormones.

Now on to me…. Today I realiased something.. I had an epiphany you might say…

I had to have  a medial exam for life insurance and I sat talking to the female doctor and she was asking all the usual questions then got on to the question, “are you taking medication currently, if so for what and for how long etc..” I replied, and after saying the first drug (a hormone in a high dose) she looked at me and said, “Why?  You are born female, right?” and it occurred to me that even though I have a cold and even though I cannot “pitch” my voice much this doctor had no idea I was transgender.  I told her, and the ensuing conversation she told me that she has a cousin who is like me and is actually a pre-op transgender person on hormones….

This has to be the ultimate compliment to anyone who wants to be ‘passable’ or ’stealth’ but to me it was surprise.  Surprise that she didn’t know that I was transgender, that she didn’t recognise the giveaways, and surprise that she didn’t know even with a member of the family being transgendered but that was it, just surprise.

A little later, on the way back from hospital it occurred to me that before I met my Ex all I wanted to be was the woman I really am.  All I want to be now is that same woman.  Likewise, I wanted and still want to live my life as a woman and I’m not worried and was not worried about what people think or thought of me.  During the 9 months with my ex though I wanted to be ‘passable’ (or ’stealth’) and this was something that I didn’t “want” before or after so I have to conclude the desire to be ‘passable’ must have come from that relationship, it must have been a result of being with or in proximity to that person.

Where does that leave me…  Well mildly confused… Was I so easily led (or manipulated) into thinking I needed to be “passable” or was it just a phase I went through.  Thinking long and deep on the subject I conclude that I never wanted to be ‘passable’ my ex wanted me to be ‘passable’, and that led me to wonder if what had previously been said about “her” really being a “sexual deviant he” (an ex of “him” said this), coupled with the observations about being “passable” that “he” is really a transvestite and not transsexual. This is something I alluded to in the first paragraph of this blog. It would make perfect sense as “he” was always going on about both of us being “passable” or “stealth”, but I’ll let you the reader decide…

I have also come to the conclusion that I don’t need operations. I want bigger boobs, and all small breasted girls I know seem to feel the same way about themselves. I want to have facial surgery to remove some of the male traits in my look, but I don’t need them. “The Operation” I don’t need it, and I can’t decide whether I want it or not… sure I have a penis and this is a male thing, however I can never have what I really want (at least not with current medical technology), I want a womb and ovaries. “The Operation” will only remove my penis and make something that looks like a vagina, it has a high risk of permanent damage to the body (permanent, as in inoperable and ‘not right’), it has a high risk of infection and therefore death, it has a high risk of removing all feeling from around the operated area on a permanent basis. That’s not even considering that the only reason anyone would want a “created” vagina is to have sex with men and I do not desire that…. Of course not having a penis will make me look right when I stand in front of the mirror naked, but really.. There isn’t anyone else in the world (apart from my partner) that sees me standing in front of a mirror naked so do I need to make a high risk decision…?

No, I am happy with life, I am happy with my life, I am happy with who I am, I am proud of who I am, and anyone who doesn’t agree, look at yourself and pass judgement on yourself before being so bold, brash and damn right rude about passing judgement on me.

My conclusion to this whole entry and answering the title:

• If you need “The Operation” then consider whether you need help in other ways.
• If you need to be passable (or stealth) you are probably not a transsexual, or you really need help before proceeding.
• If you want to be passable (or stealth) the same applies as if you need to be.  Get help before proceeding.
• Wanting “The Operation”, bigger boobs, or facial surgery is fine, but weigh up the risks and take your time.  If you feel you have to do something immediately to be able to get on with your life, then you’re probably doing it for the wrong reasons or you have other issues that you really need help with.

Now I don’t normally post things like this, but I thought I’d share this with you all. My son was an early learner, we hoped he’d be following in my foot steps and learning computers, programming, IT, etc. That proved to be nothing more than a pipe dream, being diagnosed with ADHD some years back went on the drugs that take away the energy and spark that is needed to become someone truly great. What for? So that he could cope with being bored with everything. I have said for a long time that most ADHD kids are not ADHD, but are in fact bored, life when I was a child was all about getting out of the house getting chased by farmers with with shotguns and getting hit with “salt shot” (that stings like a b*******d I can tell you.) We went out “scrumping” during the summer, and fell out of trees on a weekly basis. It didn’t matter whether you were a boy or a girl, whether you were black or white (well except for when you were hiding in bushes to protect your arse from salt shot! .) We kept things about where we had been to try and elude our mums and dads into a false sense of security that we were where we were supposed to be and not getting in trouble, none of us wanted to be grounded. None of use wanted our arses kicked by our dads (that was always worse then getting hit by salt shot) and for those who think a child should never be hit, just remember this: we knew the consequences of our actions from around the age of 7. We knew that if we did something wrong out of ignorance we would get told what is right. We knew that if we did it again we’d get shouted at and berated. We knew that if we did it again we’d get the cane, the hand, or “the stick”. The hand unless was to bare skin didn’t really hurt, it just sent a shock to the system. The cane stung like nothing else, but was soon forgotten. “The stick” well that was a weapon that could have broken bones, but no matter how angry mum and dad got, no matter how much we deliberately winded them up, it never broke anything, it also never bruised, it just hurt like nothing else with a lasting pain that kept you reminded for a few hours.

Today the world is very different. You even look like you’re about to hit a child and you get arrested, God forbid you chastise (even verbally) another families child. Today mums and dads are divorced by their own children, they are gaoled for child abuse when they carry out any form of discipline on their children.  You get nosey busy bodies whom have plenty of children to look at, looking at mums and dads that take their children to hospital when they fell out of the tree and broke their arm. When I was a kid, the doctor would berate you for climbing trees, now they just call the police for suspected ‘child abuse’.

I know many reading this will agree and I know there will be an equal number that stick up for the system saying its to protect the few that do get abused, well sorry that’s no excuse. It obviously DOESN”T WORK… Look at the world to day…

• Children putting babies on rail tracks after torturing and abusing them.
• Armies of youths terrorising old people.
• Kids stealing cars, and racing through streets at 100mph or more.
• Kids as young as 7 into burglary and drugs.
• 14 and 15 year olds carrying guns and knifes – AND USING THEM!
• etc.

Why is this happening?  Is it all the parents fault?  Is it the world of today?  Is it society?

Everyone makes excuses, but here is my take…

• Parents do not discipline their children any more, this means those that do not learn by “positive reinforcement” will never learn.
• Society is bigger, instead of villages of 600-1000 people (and mine was one of the largest) people live in cities of millions.  This is not a bad thing, but the problem is the bigger the city, the less there is in the way of farm land, fruit trees etc.  There is however more concrete, more cars to steal, more windows to break, and more kids to get a ‘bad one’ that will lead the group.
• Children are bored.  Playstation 3 has a wealth of games and is one of the most advanced games consoles around, but you know what, kids sit on it all day, shooting the hell out of each other.  Shooting the hell out of people on the other side of the world that they have never met, that they will never even meet.  They get in gangs (teams) and are encouraged to engage people violently, to what end?  To ease the boredom of everyday life.
• Young girls from poverty stricken areas are encouraged (buy their peers and the governments) to have children… not make a family, but to have children so they can get a new TV with the ‘baby bonus’.  These people, mostly just children themselves, have no idea that the baby bonus is just a small payment as to what is need to bring up a child.
• The world is of this peculiar and plain wrong view that ‘growth is good’..  Now I have no idea how many people there are in the world now, but I do know that we are at a point where people think that genetically modifying food to get maximum yield is the only way we are going to have enough food for all.  We are living longer, we are having more babies, and we are as a race growing exponentially.   This is bad, we are going to wipe ourselves and everything else out within a few hundred years, we need to stop growing. ** See foot note.

There are many other things I can talk/rant about, and maybe I’ll blog on them later, but this post is going way off the original topic.

The reason for this blog is about children of today.  Many of you will know I have a son, he’s coming up to his 16th birthday and over the last few days he’s been emailing me about buying him a motor bike.  I know he has had it difficult and I know that I could easily buy him a bike if I wanted, but I won’t.  I won’t because I don’t think he’s mature enough, I think he’ll kill himself or someone else, and I think it would be the wrong message to send him if I did.  The conversation didn’t end well, and my last mail to him really echoes the feelings in this post.

I have therefore re-produced the entire conversation here to let you the reader decide whether I am right or wrong.  I will approve post all comments made unedited providing the meet the simple rules: no foul language, they are on topic with the thread or a reply to someone, they contain no personal attacks on anyone.  I encourage you to comment on this, if you wish to comment privately, please let me know in the comment and your wish will be respected.

Aaron * March 4 at 9:40pm
can u help me out with buying a road bike please because i dont have alot of money
atm please dad it would mean alot + i got sum good news iv got a place in college
doing construction   and might have a job as a builder in the summer  

Ps. Dont just ignor this messege please reply

Michelle Sullivan March 4 at 10:14pm
You're not 16 yet so definitely not, we can talk about it when you are 16.

Congrats on the college place and the job.

Shells
xx

Aaron * March 6 at 12:15am
do u no when im 16?

Michelle Sullivan March 6 at 8:20am
Of course I do, do you know the difference between 'know' and 'no' ....?

Aaron * March 6 at 11:05pm
Its 3 months away i cant leave things to the last min and yes of i do "know" the
difference but i int a brain box at english like sum people

Michelle Sullivan March 7 at 10:37am
I'm not either, but you talk like a 7 year old at the moment.

You given up smoking? (lie to me and I'll kick your arse next time I'm over)

You know I didn't get my first motorbike until I was 16 and a half, and I had to
buy it myself. If you have a job and if you're not smoking and if you save money
instead of wasting it, you'll be able to get a bike when you're sixteen and a half
(or more of within a couple of months of your birthday.)

Here's a little tip, after Christmas if you think I'm just going to buy you everything you
want you have another thing coming. You're nearly 16 and you're still acting like a 7
year old. Grow up and I might start treating you like an adult.

I love you, but you need to get yourself straight because you're getting to the point
in life when no-one will be there to help and if you f**k up you'll land on the streets
or go to jail.

xx

Aaron * March 8 at 1:01am
i wasnt asking u to buy me a bike i was aking for u to either help me out or loan it
to me because if i got no transport and stuff how am i going to work?

im acting like a 7 year old? just because im not good at english no i havnt quit smoking

im not an evreyday kid im have things wrong with me and uv just made me feel
like a peice of shit of your shoe fanks dad fanks very much

Michelle Sullivan March 8 at 8:41am
Ok well just consider things for a moment.. and I mean consider these things:

First:

Every time I hear from you you ask for money, this time you want a motorbike. If
I buy you a bike and can see it will end up in many pieces on your mums front lawn,
wrecked. Riding a motor bike is not a game, its not fun, its a piece of machinery that
if you disrespect it, it will kill you.

Second, look at your email:

im not an evreyday kid im have things wrong with me and uv just made me feel like
a peice of shit of your shoe fanks dad fanks  very much

If you had written it like this I would have a little more respect for you:

I'm not an every day kid, I have things wrong with me and you've just made me feel bad.

Now when you look at that you can see the difference in replies:

1/ I'm not 'im' even 'Im' would have been ok (more than once.)
2/ ervryday - simple typing mistake, easy to do, and nothing to be ashamed of, but
it shows you didn't even read what you wrote before you sent it.
3/ peice - basic spelling rules that I learned when I was 6. 'I' before 'E' except after 'C'.
4/ fanks - Stupid slang talk, what are you some sort of scav? (twice)
5/ No punctuation. In fact the only punctuation you have used in all your messages
(in this thread) is the question mark.

I'm not going to go into the grammatical stuff any deeper, because what I have
pointed out is basic 7 year old stuff. You want me to treat you like an adult, yet you
act and behave like a 7 year old. You want me to respect you, respect me, and talk
to me like an adult. I don't care if you want to use slang and text talk to your mates,
but when talking to me, you should at least try.

You want to get to work, walk, bus, catch a lift (and not off your mum except in
emergency.) Prove to me you're a man, not a seven year old boy, and stop making
excuses. There isn't anything wrong with you, you're just lazy. If you want to give me
excuses about being ADHD, take your drugs and get better, don't make excuses
about wanting to go into the army. You are not going to go into the army when you're
like you are -BECAUSE THEY WON'T HAVE YOU - if you have ADHD they won't take you,
if you don't have ADHD you don't need the drugs... You choose.

Start getting up at 7am every day, not midday when you can be bothered. Get to school
and finish school like an adult instead of getting suspended.

Help yourself if you want to impress me. If I see you as a looser with no hope why am I
going to help you, and this is something to really thing about, because you know what...
Neither your mum and I will be around in some years to come. It might be a few years,
it might be 30 years, and it might be tomorrow. Ever considered what will happen to
you if we were dead by the end of the year? How would you look after your family, with
no one to fall back on, it would be up to you to look after Kyle and Shakira, and from
what I see you can't even look after yourself.

You're supposed to be helping your mum, we talked about this before Christmas.
You're supposed to be giving up smoking, we talked about that over Christmas as well
(in fact I said to you if you gave up smoking for 6 complete months I'd consider buying
you a bike - not loan the money to you, but buy you one outright. You're still smoking,
and now you hate me because I say 'no'...?!?)

Actions and consequences Aaron. Every action you do, has a consequence. Good
things mostly bring good consequences. Bad things *always* bring bad consequences,
and those things that are not either, well they are part of everyday life and can swing
either way.

I was impressed with the glimmer of maturity at Christmas when you said about
sharing the PS3 with your brother, that was a very mature attitude, then you wrecked
that with the way you acted. I remember, but I don't hold it against you, I expect you
to get on with life and show more maturity. Currently you have just shown me you
are still just a child.

Now whether you got this far or not I don't know, but it is a pity if you haven't or if
you skip to here. Maturity will see you re-read this message before any reply and
you will do something about it. If you are still a child, you'll just go into one, putting
'f**k' and/or 'c**t' in your status and tell the rest of the world that you are a child.

Despite what you might think, I love you,

Michelle

PS: You can start by writing to me using proper English and spelling.

Am I right or wrong?  Am I too harsh?  Aaron is a 15 year old kid, who is smoking, getting suspended from school every second week, refusing to take his medications (on the grounds that he wants to go into the Army.)  Not once has he phone to chat, to say I love you, with out also having his hand out for money, a PS3, a car, a bike etc..  He’s the eldest of 4 children, and has suffered abuse at the hands of one of his mothers’ boyfriends.  She does her best, but the youngest child has learning difficulties (is registered disabled because of it) and needs a lot more attention than other children.  When I stayed with him just before Christmas he was suspended from school and it was lucky if you saw him before midday.  That said he could be found playing on his PS2, or the Xbox 360 drinking beer until 3 and 4am with his “mates”.  I guess I’m lucky he could have been out stealing cars instead.

Footnote:

** This is probably one of the best things I have ever seen on YouTube, it can be found by searching for “the most important video you’ll ever see” and it is Dr Bartlett talking about population growth, and energy. It may seem sensationalistic, but the facts are all there, and this was a lecture to students… so there was no reason for it to be sensational, it’s the truth about the world today. The following links are parts 1 through 8, watch them all or watch none. It’s 2 hours worth of video:

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4
• Part 5
• Part 6
• Part 7
• Part 8

Well most of you should know I know a little bit about spam, and I have to keep researching it to keep up with the times.

Seems something that I have been saying for sometime and been unable to prove, I have finally found proof.

Recently I registered some new domains in new TLDs (Top Level Domains, eg: co.uk, com.au etc) and found that the bots delivering spam to my servers cared nothing about the server they were delivering to, but everything about which domain they were delivering to. I have for some time been the owner of 50 odd domains, and have access to around 3 million more, and as such I monitor the data coming into these domains and submit it to automated and semi-automated spamtraps depending on the domain, the connection, and the content.

On would expect to see a nice steady stream of hosts connecting delivering spam, and disappearing, and this is exactly what is observed. However, these domains are mainly .com, .net, and .org not to mention a healthy smattering of .us and a few other TLDs. The new domains are not available to persons outside of their respective countries, and to my surprised they collect spam, not from the 30k per day collected from the 3 million domains, but a whole host of new IPs. What’s more surprising, cross-referencing the domains against each other has indicated that the botnets behind the spam delivery are not used across the domains, they are local to those specific domains.

One can theorize how the bots are local to the domains, are they are split logically (eg by first letter or a hash such as ‘bots 1-10 mail @a, bots 11-20 mail @b etc’), or are they split by geo-location or owner? Personally I think they might be split by geo-location, though that requires more research into the individual botnets.

Bootnote: Unlike other organisations neither I nor SORBS performs illegal activities such as hacking compromised hosts, or locating the ‘command and control’ bot/server to analyse it or the networks. We perform the analysis by looking carefully at the networks the spam comes from and what is advertised, the process is called “Data mining” and with an expert (something I am not, but I do have a few friends who are) you can use data such as that I have been collecting since 2005 to find most things out about the botnets, their locations and sizes.

So how many people out there have suffered from discrimination? I’d take at guess at most of the population in one way or another… Personally, as a TransSexual, I have been the target of discrimination, ridicule and damn right rudeness for some time so I get more and more immune to it.

Today however, I write about a form of discrimination that all of us can be caught by. I’m off to a Rammstein concert on the 4th February 2010, at Wembley Arena. Now, I’m not all that much of a fan of Rammstein, don’t get me wrong though… I like the music, but my partner is the big fan and I’m taking her to see them as a treat for a devout follower of a band she has never had the chance to see live (not to mention the fact that I love her .)

Now the discrimination… Wembley Arena publish a “terms and conditions” list, which amongst other sensible things states (under “General Point 2″):

The Event Promoter may ask the Venue to prohibit the use of all, or certain types of cameras. In general, fixed lenses are acceptable, but please check with the Venue if in any doubt. Video/audio recordings are prohibited. Prohibited items may be confiscated.

Now knowing this, and and seeing on the Wembley Stadium site that they have a prohibited items list which includes:

• Professional cameras & recording devices (This applies to cameras that have interchangeable lenses)

…and that it is often quite difficult to distinguish professional cameras (mine regularly gets confused with a professional camera as I have a handle and battery pack which makes it look huge), and “Fixed lens cameras” would mean cameras without a zoom (ie all compact cameras). I emailed Wembley Stadium and Arena about clarification on what constitutes a “Professional Camera”. The reply I received was not very clear being:

Our standard policy is no professional cameras (ie anything with a 35mm+ lens), audio or video recording equipment. Small cameras are OK.

On some shows, the artiste requests a total ban on all cameras – this is not the case to date on this show but if things change, it will be listed on our website – www.wembleyarena.co.uk

Now that to me, means the person sending it doesn’t know what she’s talking about because I could therefore take a Nikon D3s with a lens of up to but not including 35mm into Wembley. Of course a Nikon D3s is their newest Professional use camera, and by the same vein it might ban my 11 year old niece’s Christmas present a Fuji FinePix s1500 (might ban because they did say detachable lens, where the Fuji Finepix s1500 has a built-in non-changable lens, however it sports a 300mm zoom lens and ISO6400.)

I replied with:

Caroline, thank you for your response to my partner, I only have my
Digital SLR camera, I don’t have another camera (not even a phone
camera.) My Camera quite a number of years old and has never been
considered professional as it is a ‘DX’ format sensor (FX was, and still
is considered the professional standard). In fact as I just recently
came into money I’m considering replacing it for a newer model that is
pretty indistinguishable from the professional cameras.

Back to your reply.. Are you suggesting that I can bring that if I use a
20mm lens on it… I consider that extremely restrictive as my 11 year
old niece has a Compact camera with a low light capabilities (so say
F2.8 equivalent according to Fuji) 300mm zoom lens which to get such a
lens for my ailing DSLR would cost me in excess of 2000 pounds. Further
my nieces camera, being brand new, has the ability to take 45 minutes of
high definition video (assuming enough storage space.) Needless to say
I haven’t got such a lens or video capability and considering the size
and weight of such a lens I’d not even consider bringing it to a concert.

I am disappointed and feeling some what discriminated against as others
are allowed to bring cameras which are better than mine just because 3
years ago I decided buy the best camera I could afford to replace the
one I had stolen. Maybe that was a bad choice on my part, but why
should it be? I am not a professional photographer, I bought it because
it is versatile and yet I am being discriminated against by being barred
from taking photos at concerts where others with better cameras are
permitted.

For information we will be in the upper tier seated area so it’s not
even as if I can use my 20mm lens to get wide angle low light shots that
any professional might get.

Best regards,

Michelle

Which I thought was fair, and on checking the specifications of my Niece’s camera for this article have realised an error. The FinePix s1500 lens is F2.8 in wideangle and F5.6 at 300mm. I received a short and curt response from “Caroline” as follows:

By all means bring the camera but if when inspecting it, it is considered to be a ‘professional’ camera, it will be confiscated.

Caroline

Somewhat incensed I wrote back with:

Confiscated? I’d like to see you (the company) or any private police
force you may hire try, that would be theft (a criminal act of which I
would ensure you (the company) would be prosecuted for and I would
ensure every newspaper in England was told of the case.)

Confiscate:

–verb (used with object)
1. to seize as forfeited to the public domain; appropriate, by way of
penalty, for public use.
2. to seize by or as if by authority; appropriate summarily: The border
guards confiscated our movie cameras.
–adjective
3. seized.

Define what classes as “professional” here in email so I can bring the
definition with me to ensure that whom ever inspects my camera is aware
of what is “professional” as per Wembley stadium/Live Nation (Music) UK Ltd.

If it is a camera with a detachable lens, then you are discriminating
against SLR users, as many SLRs (both digital and non-digital) are not
professional cameras by any stretch or twisting of the imagination.

Please note: a DX format digital SLR is not the Digital version of the
35mm camera, only a FX format digital SLR is.

Then on reflection, I wrote a more detailed, and level reply as follows:

Caroline,

Further to my last, something for you to review/consider (I’ll stick to
Nikon as I own Nikon myself):

A professional camera:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/nikon/d2x-slr/nikon-d2x-slr-review.html

Note the picture and wording reinforces “professional”:

Unlike most digital camera upgrades, the new D2X was four years in the
making – its sibling, the D1X SLR was released back in 2001. Unlike
other professional digital SLRs, the D2X has a split personality

Clearly citing the camera as a professional camera. The D3, D3s and D3x
are replacements for this camera as it went out of production in 2007.

The D700 a semi-pro camera that I would love to buy:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/nikon/d700-slr/nikon-d700-slr-review.html

MELVILLE, N.Y. (July 1, 2008) ? Nikon, Inc. today introduced the new
D700 digital SLR camera featuring a 12.1-effective megapixel Nikon
FX-format sensor that measures 23.9 x 36mm, which is nearly identical to
the size of 35mm film. Benefiting from Nikon?s legacy of imaging
technology innovation, the D700 offers both advanced and professional
photographers stunning image quality, accurate color reproduction and
revolutionary low light performance.

“Offers both advanced and professional photographers” … would suggest
it would fall into the pro category.

The D300 (the replacement model for mine):

http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/nikon/d300-slr/nikon-d300-slr-review.html

Note unlike the D2X no mention of “professional” in the pictures.

Nikon has introduced their most advanced DX-format digital SLR camera to
date, the D300. Engineered with pro- level features and performance, the
12.3 effective megapixel D300 combines brand new technologies with
advanced features inherited from Nikon’s newly announced D3 professional
digital SLR to offer serious photographers remarkable performance
combined with agility. The D300 also employs a new self-cleaning sensor
unit. Four different resonance frequencies vibrate the optical low pass
filter in front of the image sensor to shake particles free and reduce
the appearance of dust.

Note the wording… serious photographers, not professional nor
advanced, nor ’semi-pro’ etc.. It also refers to the “newly announced D3
professional camera”….

Now onto my camera:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/nikon/d200-slr/nikon-d200-slr-review.html

Again the photos do not refer to it as a pro camera, and the first part
of the text:

The Nikon D200 is a high performance digital SLR camera designed to
satisfy the requirements of demanding photographers. It combines brand
new technologies with advanced features inherited from the D2X
professional digital SLR camera. The D200 employs a newly developed
10.2-megapixel DX Format CCD image sensor, a sophisticated 1005-pixel 3D
Color Matrix Metering II system and an advanced Nikon image processing
engine to render images with superb clarity and smooth color gradations.
With an all new 11-area Autofocus system, robust control of Nikon’s
i-TTL Creative Lighting System and advanced Wi-Fi image transmission
options it’s a natural choice for wedding, event and action photographers.

Mentions it as a “high performance digital SLR” for “demanding
photographers” … no mention at all of it being professional or even
semi professional. In fact this camera went out of production in August
2007 … I know this because the discontinuation was announced the day
after I bought mine.

Now, just to add to the affray, I contacted the promoters of the
Australian Elton John tour, about the same issue, and they said, “No
problem, just no large flashes and no tripods, if you can hold it you
can bring it.” This I found a fair and just policy. I went to the Bon
Jovi concert in Melbourne a couple of years ago and was allowed in with
the camera providing, no tripods, no big flashes and that it was not on
their pro-camera list (which included the Nikon D1, D2, D2x, D2s Cannon
1D (all models) and Cannon 5D plus some other non mainstream and film
cameras.)

So again I am asking for confirmation as to whether my camera is allowed
or not. My camera is the Nikon D200 high performance non-professional
out dated (by 3 years) Digitial SLR camera. I will be attach a cheap
zoom lens that came with the camera and expect to hold it throughout the
concert. I will not be bringing any high powered flashes because from
my seating position I’d need to use a 15A mains outlet or portable
generator to create enough of a flash to light a performer. I will not
be bringing a tripod to get long exposure pictures either…

Thank you,

Michelle

This morning, after resending requesting an answer I received the following response:

Sorry for the delay in responding but I had forwarded your comments to
venue management and below is their reply:-

If deemed to be ‘professional’, i.e. with a detachable lens, you will be
asked to leave the camera behind reception for the duration of the
performance and collect it at the end of the performance. If you do not
wish to leave the camera at reception but insist on bringing it to the
performance then we as a venue do reserve the right of admission and we
may not allow you into the venue.

The decision to restrict the use of detachable lenses is two-fold.
Firstly it allows for a definitive line to be drawn between those
cameras that are acceptable and those that are not. Secondly there is
the potential risk to public health should the lens become detached and
used as a missile. I apologise if you see this as discrimination but we
have to draw the line somewhere and this classification has proved to be
the most acceptable to both promoters, whose intellectual property could
be at risk of infringement, and to the majority of our customers.
Without such a guideline we would potentially be forced to prevent any
cameras from coming into the venue at all which we would prefer not to
have to resort to.

Caroline

So it appears that a camera with a detachable lens is deemed ‘professional’ and their decision to restrict detachable lens cameras is based on the potential risk I might detach a lens that is worth several hundred pounds and use it as a missile….! How ludicrous! How absolutely laughable! If I wanted to throw something, I’d be taking a couple of pockets full of batteries and throwing them. Further if they were limiting the number of batteries anyone could take, I’d be buying cheap digital cameras (you can get a cheap one for around 29 pounds) and throw that.

The line is imaginary, it is to discriminate against those who don’t have the luxury of multiple cameras, against those who in pursuit of their hobby spent the money on the best they could afford some years previous, and have not got the money to waste on buying a compact camera.

Perhaps as I have a bit of money, instead of upgrading my camera as planned tomorrow, I’ll buy the new Fuji Finepix HS10/HS11 as it has a x30 zoom (that’s a 720mm zome lens!), it can also record in full HD (1,920 x 1,080 pixels) at 30 frames per second and it’ll shoot RAW mode.. BUT … it has a non-detachable lens so it doesn’t cross the line of “professional camera”… Olympus also do a similar camera (to be released in March 2010) with the Olympus SP-800UZ and the Olympus SP-600UZ which retail for less than the cost of a cheap lens for any SLR owner at £369.99 and £259.99 respectively.

Of course both of these look like detachable lens cameras so my betting is they’ll ban those stating they look professional so I’ll probably opt for the much more handy Fuji FinePix F80EXR which is equipped with a F5.6, 270mm lens and has a sensitivity at 12 megapixels of ISO12800 (meaning it can virtually shoot in the dark)… It can also shoot 82 minutes of HD movie (720p) with two 8M SDHC cards (yes it takes 2 cards so you don’t need to change them.) What’s more, apart from the fact it will out perform a lot of ‘professional cameras’ it looks like an ordinary compact camera and retails for $299.00!

What more can I say except… NICE!

Wembley Arena management, feel free to contact me on +356 79 543115 if you have a problem with this idea, this blog, or want to change policy, especially as I’d much rather take my old Nikon D200 (or the upgrade to the D300s/D700) rather than waste money and the Earth’s resources on a compact camera. However, please do expect my experience and this blog to hit every news agency I can find a link to in the next couple of days, one hopes that one or two will republish this blog or expose Wembley Stadium’s clearly discriminatory policy.

A camera is a camera and there is very little difference between professional and non-professional these days, either allow them or do not allow them, and make your policy clear on the tickets as our tickets show no reference to prohibiting any type of camera. I’m sure many readers will have already picked up the last sentence, “Without such a guideline we would potentially be forced to prevent any cameras from coming into the venue at all which we would prefer not to have to resort to.” Which can be translated to, “Without such a guideline we would be forced to prevent all cameras and our multi-million pound profits would be impacted forcing smaller bonuses for our senior executives.”

Best regards,

Michelle

Bootnote: It took me 2 years of hard work and saving to get my Nikon D200 camera and it’s underwater housing, and another 3 years to get a couple of lenses and attachments that make it useful, and as my compact camera got stolen on my birthday last year, I have little desire to purchase a camera that would only get used for such things as concerts.

Update: Someone (not Wembley Stadium/Arena staff) messaged me and reminded me that they also ban recording devices (my understanding is ‘professional recording devices’). However, if this is the case, I’d like to point out that every compact camera on the current market has the ability to record video and most sound as well.. meaning that all cameras and mobile phones have to be banned under that policy…. they’ve already stated they allow them, so really they should get their house in order and provide clarity about whether they discriminate or not.

Recently there was an article covered by many news agencies about the introduction of full body scanners in the UK airports. The Register covered the story in this article. I added my thoughts to the comments which were about the statement that the anyone selected for scanning would be scanned by someone of the same sex, wondering where they would find intersexed and transsexual people from to scan some of the people I know and myself….?

Reading through the rest of the comments today I remembered something from my past which reinforced Bruce Schneier’s view and mine that our governments are actually promoting terrorism and causing more terror than the actual terrorists.

Way back in my youth there was an organisation called the IRA (Irish Republican Army) who spent an inordinate amount of time trying to blow people up. They succeeded on occasion and I remember as a child hearing about people dead and getting worried about getting blown up myself. I remember hearing that Lord Mountbatten had been blown up and killed by the same army. I remember many news reports in London of people being killed, but as I grew older I realised that these people were operating 100+ miles from my sleepy village of Ormesby St Margaret.

Around the age of 17 I moved out of home and started living on my own, and eventually around 1998 I ended up moving into London, by this time the IRA was pretty much defunct and various ceasefires had been called etc… I was not afraid of London or being part of some terrorist attack.

One morning I awoke in my flat at Norwood Green to the sound of a police radio. I poked my head out the window to see that the road was very quiet and there was “police line” tape all around and a copper standing directly below me. I shouted down to him, “Oi, what’s going on?” to which he replied, get in, an stay away from the windows. I asked why and was told there was a suspicious package in the middle of the green that could be a bomb.

Now, what did I do at this point? Did I run around screaming, and panicing? Did I follow police instruction? Did I go to the loo…? No I didn’t do any of these things….

The first thing I did was go to the lounge door and take a peek into the green, and there was a big can in the middle of the grass with a couple of wires on show etc.. I thought, “Cool, doesn’t look like a bomb, but you never know…”

Second thing I did was pick up my phone, and call my boss…

“John”, I said, “I’m sorry I will be a bit late in work this morning…”
John asked why, and I continued with, “well there seems to be a bomb outside of my house.”
He asked if I was joking, I said, “No” and he said, “Ok, well get in when you can.”

The conversation was quite comical on reflection, John was a little startled at first, but when hearing that I wasn’t joking or bothered, neither was he, and it was more like me calling in sick than being involved in a bomb scare.

THIS IS WHAT LONDON IS LIKE WHEN YOU HAVE LIVED THERE!!! You get on with it, you don’t panic, you don’t run around screaming etc..

When the not so recent bombs went off in the Tube stations and buses, the Metropolitan Police closed the transport system in London. From all the reports I heard from friends that were visiting or living in London, the biggest issue was not the bombs going off, not the likelihood that someone next to them could be carrying a bomb, but the fact they couldn’t move. Some had to walk 30+ miles across London to get home, some couldn’t get to work..

London was paralysed…

This is EXACTLY what the terrorists wanted, it hit the world wide news. It was front page for days, it was world wide, “London terrorised!” People couldn’t go to work, people couldn’t even drive their cars because if they lived in London you were grounded. Terrorism caused mass panic and inconvenience, governments called emergency sessions, new laws were dreamed up, and we have restrictions on our civil liberties that prevents our free movement.

What did the people of London think at the time, well all those I spoke to were shocked and sad, but they were more upset that the powers that be in London decided to stop London from operating. They wanted to get back to work, to get on with daily life. People cope with terror and disaster by going back to their daily routine, and what did the wonderful people in power do? They shut everything down and said, “Sit at home and brood about terrorist attacks because it could be YOU next time!”

The war on terrorism is not a war on terrorism, its promoting terrorism for no good reason. It’s headline news, it’s new laws and reduction in civil liberties.

Rant over, please think, you the public, post this blog where ever you can, get the word out that the governments must stop this scare mongering, lets get back to a world of living in peace. In the years since the second world war the number of people killed because of terrorism (in total) is less than the number of people killed in car accidents in 2009! Why are people killed in car accidents not front page news?