Police intimidation of photographers?

[ekkl]

So what do we think of recent events in Scotland?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-15238676

[Pol]

Originally Posted by ekkl

So what do we think of recent events in Scotland?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-15238676

I read about that yesterday and TBH he was just asking for trouble. There were clear notices saying photography wasn't allowed on the premises and it seems he ignored them.

He was on private property, there were notices stating photography wasn't allowed so it's hardly surprising he was approached by a security official.


Pol

[rogleale]

Not really Pol. The operators of the complex have said that they have no objection to people taking photographs in the centre so surely the security man should have known that and not become officious. It was clearly a man taking pictures of his daughter, do you think that the same thing would have happened to a mother doing the same thing?
What is worrying is that even the police don't know the laws relating to taking photographs. They can ask the photographer to desist, and can ask them politely to leave the premises, but they have no right to ask for the film/card, or the deleting of pictures and can not confiscate the camera without a court order being granted. The main point is that anti-terrorism laws are being invoked by officious busy-bodies when there is no clear reason for doing so apparently just to boost their egos, and the police should know better and be brave enough to instruct the security guards on their limitations.

Rant over,

Roger

[Pol]

Originally Posted by rogleale

Not really Pol. The operators of the complex have said that they have no objection to people taking photographs in the centre so surely the security man should have known that and not become officious. It was clearly a man taking pictures of his daughter, do you think that the same thing would have happened to a mother doing the same thing?
What is worrying is that even the police don't know the laws relating to taking photographs. They can ask the photographer to desist, and can ask them politely to leave the premises, but they have no right to ask for the film/card, or the deleting of pictures and can not confiscate the camera without a court order being granted. The main point is that anti-terrorism laws are being invoked by officious busy-bodies when there is no clear reason for doing so apparently just to boost their egos, and the police should know better and be brave enough to instruct the security guards on their limitations.

Rant over,

Roger

The operators of the centre have now changed the rules to allow family members to take photographs (of their own relatives).

At the time the father took the photo of his daughter it was VERY clear photography was NOT permitted. So the security chap was simply doing his job. No charges were pressed, the police explained things to the father, expalined they couldn't force him to delete the pictures.

The fact of the matter is he was on PRIVATE PROPERTY and there were clear notices stating PHOTOGRAPHY NOT PERMITTED. He was out of order at that time and in that place.

The rules have since changed, possily due to the incident being so widely reported - but that can never alter the fact the father was in the wrong at that time. He could've asked permission to take a picci of his daughter and it would probably have been granted, but he didn't. He simply ignored the notices and it backfired on him.


Pol

[Graham_of_Rainham]

Originally Posted by Pol

<snip>He was on private property<snip>

Unfortunatly more and more "Public Property" is coming under the control of private companies, to the point where some previous high streets are now "controlled" areas.

As this increases, more and more places considered "Public" will be managed and will be the subject of more and more constraints...

Google:"Privatisation of the public space" and up pops 2.7M bits of info, many of which discuss the errosion of our rights...

Hopefully, sooner rather than later, there will be a test case in which free access by the public, to private place will provide the same rights and freedoms as exist in a public place. After all if the Road Traffic Acts apply in the car parks of these private spaces, then equally should not all laws apply.

[rogleale]

file:///C:/Users/Roger/Desktop/Capture.JPG
file:///C:/Users/Roger/Desktop/Capture2.JPG
file:///C:/Users/Roger/Desktop/Capture3.JPG
file:///C:/Users/Roger/Desktop/Capture4.JPG

[rogleale]

Sorry about that last post, don't know what happened!
Good for him! There is too much attempted bullying by uniformed people nowadays. He took a very small risk, which many others of us would have taken, and the reaction was excessive.

The main points in all this are:
1. If the site management allow family snaps to be taken, they should instruct the security personnel of this.
2. They should employ security personnel with IQs of at least double figures, (not counting decimals).
3. The police should not lie to members of the public. If no suspicions of terrorist actions are held they can not delete pictures or confiscate cameras unless a court order is obtained.
4. At no time was he asked if he was the father of the girl, and was allowed to leave wth her, so obviously the security staff based their actions on the anti-terrorism regulations. Odd!
Al Quaida targetting an ice cream stall!

Roger

[Fast Eddie]

Originally Posted by Pol

I read about that yesterday and TBH he was just asking for trouble. There were clear notices saying photography wasn't allowed on the premises and it seems he ignored them.

He was on private property, there were notices stating photography wasn't allowed so it's hardly surprising he was approached by a security official.


Pol

I've never seen them, unlike Cumbernauld shopping centre where they are on the doors, they must be hidden at Braehead.

[Graham_of_Rainham]

I believe that there has been a general relaxing of the "Rules" at these places over the last few months.

Bluewater near Dartford Kent used be be quite restrictive but now have the following statement in their "Guests Conduct"

"We encourage guests to enjoy their experience at Bluewater, including the taking of photographs during their visit. We reserve the right, however, to ask guests not to take film or pictures at Bluewater in the interests of the safety and enjoyment of other guests. "

Lakeside in Thurrock Essex, still has some notices up at the entrances to the car parks, however they have only just updated their "Code of Conduct" and there is no mention of Photography not being permitted

http://www.lakeside.uk.com/upload/ma...%20Conduct.pdf

The reality of the modern multi-media communication devices makes it virtually imposible to control and the flack that they get when they get it wrong, as seems to have happend on most of these encounters, is simply counterproductive.

I've done several shoots at shopping centers and other private spaces and have always had permission, it makes it so much easier and only takes a short while to sort out.

[Barr1e]

Originally Posted by Graham_of_Rainham

I believe that there has been a general relaxing of the "Rules" at these places over the last few months.

Bluewater near Dartford Kent used be be quite restrictive but now have the following statement in their "Guests Conduct"

"We encourage guests to enjoy their experience at Bluewater, including the taking of photographs during their visit. We reserve the right, however, to ask guests not to take film or pictures at Bluewater in the interests of the safety and enjoyment of other guests. "

Lakeside in Thurrock Essex, still has some notices up at the entrances to the car parks, however they have only just updated their "Code of Conduct" and there is no mention of Photography not being permitted

http://www.lakeside.uk.com/upload/ma...%20Conduct.pdf

The reality of the modern multi-media communication devices makes it virtually imposible to control and the flack that they get when they get it wrong, as seems to have happend on most of these encounters, is simply counterproductive.

I've done several shoots at shopping centers and other private spaces and have always had permission, it makes it so much easier and only takes a short while to sort out.

Thanks Graham for the info.

Regards. Barr1e

[chuffchuffbuff]

The following is an extract from a counter terrorism document released by the Metropolitan Police prior to the Olympics:-

Security Guards
What action can and cannot be taken by security guards:
• They CAN approach a person that has been seen acting in
a suspicious manner and ask them to account for their
actions;
• They CANNOT stop or detain that person or prevent them
from leaving if they decline to answer;
• If part of the 'suspicious' behaviour involves the taking of
photographs, they do NOT have power to:
Stop a person from taking a photograph of anything or any
person in a public place;
Ask for any images taken be deleted;
Ask to view images taken;
Seize any camera or phone used to take any image;
• Powers to search and seize are ONLY available to a police
officer under S43 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
• If security personnel witness or are made aware of
suspicious activity they should dial 999, if the person is still
on scene;

[factotum]

i was taking photo's in tokyo,two weeks ago outside a police station with the police looking on,they didn't seem to mind a bit. perhaps different countries have different ideas about taking photo's in public places,ron.

[Graham_of_Rainham]

Worth a read (but only as it's something new) for "them" to take no notice of

http://www.bsia.co.uk/web_images/Sec..._guide_002.pdf

[Pol]

Originally Posted by Graham_of_Rainham

Worth a read (but only as it's something new) for "them" to take no notice of

http://www.bsia.co.uk/web_images/Sec..._guide_002.pdf

Well that's very clear ... assuming "they" can read and understand what they're reading.


Pol

[Pops]

That's very useful to know Graham .... thanks