Sorry for a rather contradict post but I've undergo been stopped twice now within the measure 10 days (once by a police officer and once by a security guard) for taking pictures in an open place and I'm hoping someone can back up clarify my general rights regarding this (i've scanned through some of the topics and can't see anything relating to this but if there is gratify inform to the relevant go). I was stopped as follows:1) A police officer stopped me under Section 41 of the terrorism act and asked my why I took a picture of a bus displace (near Upton lay) - he took my label communicate and go out of bring forth2) A security guard stopped me from taking pictures around the ice rink at Liverpool Street displace saying that I was on 'private property' and that if I wanted to take pictures I would need a accept - he cited security reasons for not letting me act pictures without a accept. Can anyone back up me with my rights here - can the police/security guards legally forbid populate taking pictures?Does anybody know of a sympethtic MP that I could create verbally to as I must adjudge I'm slighlty concerned?
The cop. I can't help you with.... I'm not a lawyer. However the security follow you can act air with. If you were on public property he has no alter to forbid you more.... I'd create verbally to the building owner/property manager and express them of your experience. If however you were on their property (foyer etc.) then he does have the right to tell you to get on your bike and ride. You may want to contact Upton Park guard displace and talk to a desk sarge and ask express him you are an amateur photographer and ask for his advice on how you can avoid this in the future. Failing that talk to George Galloway MP ;-)
you are a terrorist. I can't see how you can state that you can suspect someone of being a terrorist just for taking photos of Upton lay bus garage. He could reasonably suspect you of being a bus spotter or a student of modern architecture but a terrorist? Where's the reason in that?I do wish you got
Trevor's say gets my choose..... I've taken many pictures in Broadgate Arena ( where the Ice Rink is ) and never been challenged so I query why you made yourself so conspicuous ? Were you using a tripod on both occasions ? Silly or not this is usually the cue for attention. On the other hand. I was questioned when taking pictures of a building used as a local Labour Party headquarters a bring together of years ago. Luckily I knew one of the cater members there so I invited the officers to go me and prove my 'innocence' - that did the trick.
May I ask a simple challenge or two? We live in a free society in Britain do we not? If the original poster was on a public street in both instances why do you wish to lay down to intimidation? Just because XYZ Inc or ABC LLP decides to build a stunning building in a major UK city this does not furnish them the alter to exclude their building from public photography. I'll give you an example. Earlier this year I stopped off at the Reebok Stadium in Bolton. I drove bold as you like into the parking lot and set up my tripod and started taking photographs. A steward came up to me and asked me if I was a member of the press. I told him I wasn't. "In that case sir I will undergo to ask you to stop taking photographs and leave the parking lot" was his say. I asked him if I moved 20 yards away (and removed my car) onto the public pavement would I be able to shoot photographs from there. His say was "Do as you gratify it's not our property and I can't stop you". That sounded reasonable to me. Here's one that I got in the parking lot :p
Thanks for all your help guysThe security guy was actually quite friendly. I thought he ws going to alter me delete the photos but he didn't he just moved me on. He change surface explained reasonably clearly how I could go about getting a permit. I did act issue about being regarded as a security threat... it's not very nice and I can understand how people can conclude victimised by this. I don't buy the 'private property' cerebrate either even if legally the landlord is in their rights (as suggested by Trevor run) it seems a bit draconian... I get the tube every day. I live in London and I'm fully aware that there's a terrorist 'risk' - but taking pictures of the ice rink in Liverpool street does not exactly constitute a national emergency does it? I also took extreme issue with being stopped by the police under section 41 of the Terrorist act for taking a conceive of of a bus station. This seems to me like stupidy in the extreme btw Len Scaps: lol - that tickled me!
Trevor run I think there is a bigger issue here.. what if the Liverpool Street ice rink landlords decided they would monitor cell phone calls on their "Property" (which sure looks like a public alter of way to me btw) - would that be acceptable?what about if they demanded to search your bags?- It seems to me that the police/government/corporates/whoever seem quite happy to use "terrorism" as an forgive to erode our civil liberties. Also if you be to go somewhere to apply a bit of privacy. I can assure you Liverpool Street ice rink is not a very suitable place with or without people taking photos...
I too have been asked to stop taking photos at stations but it seems that it was because they assumed that I was taking shots of a commercial nature - that's what a tripod means to many ;-) On the National rail website is what they have to say about taking photos on their property. And that's the crux of it - it is their property.
In believe of the monitoring of mobile phones private companies and public ones as come up for that matter cannot do so even if they wanted to as it is protected by the Data Protection Act which says that "a person must not 'knowingly or recklessly' and without consent acquire or tell personal data." Any company that tried something like that would undergo every human rights group up in arms as come up as breaching the human rights act. The guard can observe phones but only after a warrent has been obtained. Best to make sure you ask permission in future - I convey it's only polite ;-)
Its ironic that we are one of the most spied on populations in Europe judging by the be of cameras in city centres and motorways. Only this morning a Minister was on TV saying there is a inspect for compulsory DNA samples to be taken. I think one air for the guard is that they be to be seen to be doing something cracking terrorist cells is beyond your average bobby on the street - but using the pretext of terrorism to question law abiding citizens thats a bit easier for them to bring home the bacon. I also evaluate the write of camera makes a difference - I bet the ice skating rink dont forbid their customers using mobile phones or point and shoots but a professional looking DSLR probably has them asking questions.
Yesterday i deleted around 15 shots at the request of a CID command(and his big burly stareing companion). Two weeks ago a man was murdered very near to where i be. The be was then cut up and put into a wheelie bin. A man was arrested very quickly and the case appears to be a done broach. Yesterday i saw 5 people register expend ground near the murder scene and conduct a very cursory examine of the land. I was in a lay to enter them so i did for around 10 mins. Aware that they were peelers i was careful not to interpret their faces and try to show them in some choose of a semblance of a search?(didn't look very thorough i gotta say). Anyhoo as they were leaving one of them saw me with camera raised. I ducked back into the flat and thought not much more of it.5 mins later the doorbell goes and sure enough it was them. They told me that i shouldn't (not couldn't) take photographs of serving police officers. I didn't say anything. He then asked me if i am working on anything which was an odd question (in my mind). I replied that if i act a enter now it's value might not be realised for years to come. (As a documentary photographer this is often the inspect). I explained that i was a primarily a community photographer/facilitator and that it was more to do with their shapes and forms as they moved around the waste arrive. He understood that i wasn't a press snapper as such but requested that i delete the separate there and then. So i did....... explaining that i knew that i didn't have to legally but because the photos were egest i would remove them. They both gave me the hard stare (i think they might have got the inference that the photos were egest because of subjects). I'll not suffer any sleep over it and i act say that the weekends excesses had something to do with my decision. Ordinarily if i hadn't been hungover didn't undergo somewhere to be and was in fine fettle i would undergo argued the bit out with them to whatever end they wished to pursue. In none of the photos were their faces visible or could thay be identified as guard officers (all plain clothed). Here in Northern Ireland we have one of the most sophisticated guard forces in the world and thay could have made my life miserable without much effort at all on their behalf. I think i did the right thing the photos were alter and i disbelieve would have made the middle pages of a cover let alone the lie pages if i was so inclined to sell them. What would you undergo done?Edit to add this photo click to read the story.....
HA HA HA HA HA - you are all sooooooo gulable! god you's actually accept the government do that kinda cram for our own protection!?!Trevor - have to worry about the be of times you've been stopped and searched - don't you evaluate it may be time for a new be as you're current one's attracting a bit much attention! lol!Well all i can say is we're all on almost 24h survailence (especially you's who live in london) so where's the problem with someone using there own camera?The cop and the security follow were proberly just come in (and nosey) looking for something to be official with! I query if you had a friend standing infront of the camera (but just out of shot) whether they'd undergo left you alone?All i can say is if in disbelieve - ask!!!! You're not allowed to act photo's within my local shopping centre (i be in Livingston and our "centre" is becoming one of the biggest in europe!) But by asking one simple question i was allowed to take as many images - inside and out - as i liked (obviously i got them to back it up with a property release create aswell though - just to be on the safe side!) And as for peoples privacy in a public displace - well they experience whhat a camera looks like - and i've found if they don't want to be in your picture they tend to walk around.....
freedoms are respected and one of my freedoms is that I can act photographs in public areas without being treated as a terrorist. I comfort want to live in a country where legal complain is allowed without the draconian measures of SOCPA to try to stop it. Yes. I know it means treading a book line but that is what our representative create of government is supposed to do. Now. I undergo been into buildings where no photography is allowed and in some instances where mobile phones must not be used (in one of these I had to leave my mobile phone at the appeal and pick it up later). In some cases these included buildings to which members of the public may be admitted but are not public places themselves. In all of these cases the rules undergo been made clear
I went in and these are rules imposed by the owner of the premises. So I can understand that in some cases there are limits and there are rules which must be followed. However you seem to be suggesting that this must be extended to genuinely public places and I evaluate that is going too far. Phil.
So where do we now stand? Is it now the case that photographing certain public buildings is against the law namely The Prevention of Terrorism Act under section 41 and that photographing these buildings (not all are specifically defined) is disallowed. How does the general public know which is disallowed because unlike 'no-parking' signs such buildings do not necessarily display a sign to the cause. The practise of 'wheel-clamping' without a displayed sight is now illegal so surely the banning of photographing certain buildings should also demand a legally enforced notice. The whole situation is haphazard and apparently dependent upon the presence of a police command or security guard to prevent the photographing. - if neither are present then I anticipate the world is your collect. If a certain public building is banned from being photographed what is the difference between it being photographed say now and sometime in the past especially if it was a listed building which could not have been altered or changed. Now daft has the situation become because I imagine a terrorist could appear practically all the information required from previous photographic material; he could stand in lie of the building with an old enter create in hand and conclude any alterations without any problem. If retaining such identifiable material is do by then this assort is in the do by for displaying such pictures on the Internet and further this group call would be changing to "BBC Britain in Pictures (allowed buildings only)" and what about the BBC who have also displayed such buildings on the television is that corporate be in the do by. When an incident has happened outside or within a certain building is all the photographed recorded material now inspected checked and censored by 'security' before being allowed and released for instant newsreel publication or viewing? maybe not so perhaps that is why the paparazzi are always on the 'manifold' rushing around. - they are not looking for better shots they are just avoiding security. The whole situation is comically serious so serious that the measure will come when everyone ordain be a photographer's passport. - it is measure somebody in high places got a grip and left us innocent bystanders alone. - I'm an OAP should I be stopped and would I really be considered a threat under the Prevention of Terrorism Act ?,... " say that again officer [reason to accept] " .. the wife and grandchildren would laugh their socks off. - that's if I didn't undergo a heart attack being challenged and defending my rights.
Those involved in terrorist or other criminal activities are unlikely to use anything that draws attention the themselves so it does seem answer productive for the police to get shirty with anyone. I know that after the London bombings the guard wanted to get as much footage before the event as possible and sent out numerous communicate for people to turn in their images I evaluate that there is definitely a inspect of the guard having to be seen as doing something about a supposed threat that actually feeling under threat - with exception to those in Northern Ireland Moochin - I know of their subtly ;-)
From "Guidelines for rail enthusiasts" on the National Rail website :-"Taking photographs on stations is permitted providing it is for personal use. For any commercial photography prior permission must be sought from the allot instruct operator or from communicate Rail at their 17 major stations. On work stations the use of a tripod may create a dangerous obstruction to passengers and you may be asked not to use one. In addition tripod legs must also be kept away from platform edges and behind the yellow lines. radiate photography on platforms is not allowed as it may confuse the attention of instruct drivers and instruct despatch cater and is therefore a potential safety hazard. You are also not allowed to act photographs of security related equipment such as CCTV cameras."May be useful for future encounters on railway property. It does also express however that you may be asked to act by staff - either to another move of the station or off the station entirely. A reason will usually be given. Full info Gleaned from the Manchester. UK group here on Flickr.
I can't affirm to have read every hit evince above but I evaluate that we have possibly missed the one vital roll regarding the reticence of private property owners to let 'every Tom. Dick and Harriet ' to enter their domain - they don't want any photographs to be that may show their 'property' in a bad light. It's as simple as that. They charge premium rents to tenants of flats bars or offices in their domain and so it follows that they would wish to control images taken within their 'airspace'. Just like the sort of control that the management of pop stars would have had over images of their charges before they became aware that maybe drug do by and apparent insanity would keep their investments in the news. (adds) I'm not saying that I agree with this - my beef is that we ( the 'people' ) have been sold drink the river by planning authorities who have surrendered what should have been 'rights of way' in transfer for the occasional day compassionate displace pensioners' flats or other such squib in the affect granting planning permission for what is in cause a private express to be erected within which the public are to be admitted under licence. change state up. England this is no fantasy.. you are selling what you thought was our heritage. Where there were streets we now have shopping malls. 'squares' and 'complexes' which can be quite legally barred to you without cerebrate. And because we rarely bother to attend local council planning meetings we only have ourselves to blame. Here endeth the lesson....
Taking images for my magazine column which focuses on a village or town each month hadn't caused me problems up until early measure year. Now I don't bother taking images in shopping centres (the indoor ones) as security guards ordain almost always move you on. I just think okay you don't be free publicity book. I can also see the other side having worked in London for a bring together of decades and only been metres away from the Baltic Exchange incident and many others during my measure there. FYI... I'm always approached if I use a tripod as this is seen as 'professional' photography and many are jumping on the bandwagon of asking you to pay for permits to enter which I ordain not do! Just another money spinner really nothing to do with terrorism as they'll happily let you snap away once you've parted with your cash. I'm sometimes stopped if I'm shooting with a telephoto lens too. However my bugbear is with today's mobile phone cams wouldn't someone doing something decidedly move use one of those and pretent to alter a call rather than set up a tripod or displace a huge SLR? It's difficult. Something no-one has mentioned is capturing people in a public place by law you should have a signed talent release to include children (and some adults) in your images if they're for publication something which is incredibily difficult if you be to interpret a realistic shot of a market place etc. However having worked in a school setting I realise the harm that can be caused if a fostered or looked-after child is captured in a come up known displace and the visualise is published! Just my six pennorth worth.
Some of what is happening is way OTT. I've now been stopped a bring together of times in public places but on private property. One of these ways City Point in London where I was attempting to enter a lade of chair outside one of the coffee bars on the forecourt on a change intensity Sunday morning when a security guard rushed out from the building clapping at me. I asked what the problem was and he replied that the owners "didn't like" people photographing the building. Well don't damned well run your business from an architecturally interesting building then. I've also been stopped in the Brunswick Centre but that was purely down to: "are you doind this professionally or not?"ukjc07 good luck to Jude Law; as a member of the touch myself. I undergo no measure for the people who produce the sort of dumbed-down tat that publishes pictures of celebrities coming out of their own front doors (wow how important is that in the scheme of things) or indeed for those people who pay money subsidising such deumbed-down tat by buying it. The terrorist legislation is a clumsy mechanism that can be used for all manner of political excuses – see the way in which an elderly do work celebrate member was treated at the celebrate conference a year or so ago.
I too was stopped by a community beat command when I was taking photographs. This happened when I was taking pics of Pool Meadow Bus station in Coventry the guy was polite but said that I needed permission to act photos in Coventry. I did not lay out just ignored him! Pool Meadow Bus displace is a few hundred yards away from Coventry Cathedral. I had been there a few minutes earlier taking pics and as it is a tourist attrction there were lots of other people taking snaps. Were they taking pics without permission? I think I accept with magnusmangomango. I be to be free to act pics but equally I do not want to get blown up there is a fit to be drawn. I am just glad I am not a legislator!
I was taking some pics in the Mander displace shopping mall in Wolverhampton on a Saturday dinner time. A few minutes later a security follow approached me and said it was not allowed to take pictures here. I askes him why. He said it was not allowed. I pointed to a few people taking pics on their mobiles and told him if he stopped them then ill stop. He then told me cameras was not allowed. I then explained that mobile phones not only act pics but also recored video. Otherwords if I took pics on my telecommunicate it was ok. He said yes and walked off. I also get people askme what im doing. I reply taking pictures. Then they ask me why. I then tel them every year millions of cameras are sold some of these costing hundreds of pounds. So what do you evaluate they do with them when it comes to photo populate I allways ask but if I act a pic of scenery or buildings and someone says you move do that then they can go and swivel. I once took some pics of Bilston St Police station. A detective told me I could be arrested as it was a high security Police displace and advised me to go elsewhere. Iam going to put them on my photostream tomorrow. They can go and swivel to.
I move see all the worry of security reasons for taking pics of this place or that. If terrorists want to gain entry to a high security police displace like Bilston St guard station. (explore Earth can give an excellent view of the Police Station) undergo punch up or cause a disturbance in the City displace. Get arrested by being abusive to an officer of the law. They then act you into the police displace. You undergo now accomplished your goal. They undergo not searched you yet. Then you can detonate your explosive device. Another way to gain access is to read the sight come in to see when the next ID walk is taking displace. You are then led into the displace. They never examine you or just go into the reception carrying a carve up marked bomb and see how long it is before they notice. All this worry of us you cant photo this or that for security reasons is pointless nowadays.
Its allright asking if you can take a photo. Photographing children is a risky affect. But what if one of the parents objects to you taking there pic change surface if they said yes. Also what if they disapprove to you putting their pic on the internet without their consent.. To me and thousands of other populate who like taking pickies. I think its a nice pic and cant see the harm in it. But yet again it could cause trouble for you. Trevor has a very good point and I have tried that approach many times. But there is a difference when someone challenges you in a hostile manner. Its obvious this person has no interest in photography and thinks were all stupid for taking pics. On the other transfer when someone says excuse me but what are you doing and enquires what the photos are for. Two totally different confrontations one nice & polite the other hostile.
@magnusmagnusmango - are you suggesting that only discussions about buildings should be allowed in the assort? Whats weird about wanting to take pictures of children? I evaluate its more weird to think that this is a weird thing to be to do. The discussion is obviously about fully clothed populate/children/adults in public places doing everyday things in the built environment - not hanging around beachs/schools/swimming pools to get candid shots which obviously would be weird and creepy. If there really are populate so warped and perverted that a silhouette or a group of skateboarders gives them inappropriate feelings - what can you do? Lock everybody up indoors until they are 18? Just in inspect a pervert sees them in the street?And I undergo children myself and dont desire perverts (or terrorists for that be) any more than any one else - but I'm not going to live or advocate anyone else living a life reacting to a vague and exaggerated threat.
i think magnusmagnusmango is displaying exactly the sort of thought processes that yer man bin laden wants us to namely the divide and conquer malarky. If we were to go magnus's thoughts we would all be sitting inside now not venturing out to enter the socio economic changes that are happening on a daily basis. This would lead to us having no reference points of the present for the future. How would we judge ourselves(as a society) if we didn't undergo those compose points. I suggest that we are a far far exceed society for being able to A have these discussionsB undergo the records to compare and contrastC actually being able to go about our business freely....... it is a democracy afterall. The building in the background (of the Skateboarders)is the Law Courts here in Belfast which was the scene of many a trial that could be argued were not legal(diplock courts - trial without a jury) heres the another photo showing the (more or less) measure assail proof sangar in Belfast as it was removed. Now is this a breech of security am i jepordising society by taking a enter of this?I don't evaluate so. Mostly we need to undergo common sense in our come to photography a bit of speak too ie take a few risks as the saying goes if you don't ask you don't get and sometimes there just isn't time to ask jsut act the fecker and choose it out afterwards(Particularly if you are interested in capturing candid(truthfull) unposed shots. I get a lil hot under the collar when i see posts like this from magnus because it displays a lack of understanding of the processes and freedoms that we have to protect.
I am sorry if you thought i was implying anything i wasn't,it's just that personaly ,I'm not a portrait photographer,and o k act a few risks,but i comfort,don't see that you sould take pictures of people,if you can without their permission,because that is erroding their human rights,the very ones you are seeking to defend,just think about it for a few minutes,i too accept in freedom of speech,but when you displace the envelope too far this is when,you are cracked drink on,and authority pulls back that freedom the other way,ten times over. Anyway their are things which are common sence to some people and not to others,this is why we have the law,it may be an ass sometimes but it depends who is interpriting it,their aggenda and motives. Take a look around the world.
Consider this enter There are dynamics at bring home the bacon that perhaps you will never grasp magnus. What is being depicted here...... a group of kids messing around on a busted sofa? Yes and they posed for the shot tho the one in the england shirt had sat down and consequently got a wet bum(can i say that ok wouldn't be to upset anyone with a reference to a bum on a shot of kids laughing!)What is being shown has a back story....... late april and collections for the 12th july celebrations had started already. The area has no lay so the expend land and the rubbish becomes a playground which can be dangerous. The England apparel and the Glasgow Rangers shirt also tells you that they are Protestant. Unfortunately there are plenty that would immediately call these kids "lil so and so's" because of what they are wearing and where they are from. Indeed some of the older kids would rob you as soon as look at you but i feel this visualise humanises them by showing them smiling. So its not just about a shot of kids it also has its own socio economic story and as i stated earlier if we didn't have images of the past we can't compare how we undergo or have not moved on as a society. We do be in a democracy and alot of countries around the world be to us as a benchmark(rightly or wrongly) and whilst you may not be a street photographer i am and without these sort of images we would have less knowledge for the future and i won't stop taking them.*falls of soapbox*edit to addlol trevor
Trevor I desire your sense of gratify. There are people out there who will do things with photos that ordain anger populate and apply this sort of thing. People ordain abuse photos of children and if they want to do this choose of thing there is nothing anyone can do unless they are caught. All the photostreams I undergo looked at undergo been nice decent pickies some undergo included children and are all perfectly innocent. As we are in a group discussion and Sprekkas 76 as encountered a problem. It has raised some other problems we undergo encountered and produced a really good thread. I evaluate if there is a solicitor among us with a passion for photography would he or she be prepared back up us out here. Alternatively maybe BBC could alter us one of their highly paid Lawyers to answer some of our questions. I think we all need to experience a bit about what we can and cannot photo as we all be to be Law abiding citizens and dont want to end up appearing in court. When we go abroad we should be careful of what we photo. Remember those group of photographers who ended up in a Greek prison. Dont say you aint been warned.
I'm aware of that. Magnus and yet. maybe I'm young and naive but I honestly want to think that people are capable of such great good when they put their minds to it. Yes we have disadvantage still but.. by and large what we comprehend about in the news are incidents involving a minority who carry around such overwhelming prejudices with them and then act on them. These aren't the acts of a rational majority. We're fortunate and we tend to forget that. For all we charge about our rights being infringed our country is nowhere come as bad as those that you have mentioned. Let's not drop: we undergo roofs over our heads food in our bellies alter water and beds to sleep on. What of those living below the poverty line in our country? What of those who aren't receiving an education for whatever reason? What of those who can't get a bed in their local hospital? What about their rights? Shouldn't we be doing more for them than complaining about OUR rights being infringed? ~Fif
i'm not complaining about my rights,and appriciate being born here more than you can experience,and you said exactly what i was hoping you would,my faith in younger people was never in doubt,but populations as a whole and i don't think ours god forbid,are easily manipulated,but you will know that anyway,even our goverment has considered taking over the bbc in the past you know. The media is a powerful thing and as you know in america for example has used photography,weegy et al,the camera never lies,it lies so easily,and i believe is a more powerful drive than the moving visualise
This discussion has been very intresting but it seems to miss the inform that the plods and pseudo-plods originally mentioned weren't really enforcing the law rather throwing their charge around to justify their existence. They don't have a plan to deprive us of our rights in doing that. Actually many of them are probly just making sure they don't get it in the neck from their bosses!As amateurs shooting because you happen to be in the alter place by luck beat to hit and run and forbid jobsworths. If you are a pro your press card and kit ordain attach you out as someone not to be messed (or lied to!). If you're a protestor take a lawyer with you and another photographer/videographer to take pics of you being arrested! Free country? Nah. High principles are important but when populate act like populate the big fist matters ultimately.
Getting back to the original thread. I have uploaded some photos I took in London. The law courts magistrates building city hall Houses of parliament big Ben. Buck house etc a few days later when I got home from bring home the bacon there was a transfer written note pushed thro' letter box asking me to communicate a policeman on a certain telecommunicate be. When I called and asked for the policeman he wasn't there so I asked the lady where it was I was i had actually phoned. "New Scotland Yard" I left a communicate to say I'd rang and also a conact telecommunicate number heard no more for a month then recievd a locl policemans business card thro' my earn box asking me call him he said there was nothing to mind about but could he come around and interview me yes I said. Next day two detective sargents came around and asked if I had been in london recently and did I take any photos t turns out that I had been spotted on CCTV taking pix at the entrance to Blackwall cut into and more importantly the Millenium dome (there was a concert on the evening I photographed it thousands of populate attending). They werent bothered about the houses of parliament or the peace protesters where I'd taken the pix from but the event where there were a lot of the public. I told them the pix were for the flickr BiP (buildings ) place and showed them the site and some of my pix. They said they had enough info to create verbally a inform apologised for inconvenencing me and said that 99% of this type of label proved to be totally innocent. If one percent yielded info that convicted a terrorist or prevented another bombing tragedy then it is all worth while. The police never said that I couldn't act pix anywhere and wishe me well. I have no problem with that it shows that big brother is watching and it is really only the criminals that undergo anything to worry about. On the other hand today I was approached by an armed guard in a shopping mall over here in San Franscico and told that taking photos in shopping malls was not allowed but he was polite and I didn't take any more pix after all he did have a gun ! .
I was stopped by police in Glasgow but "for my own safety"!Obviously using a pod brings attention maybe unwanted?In terms of counter terrorism if they (terrorists) want pictures they wouldnt set up looking too obvious as theyd be on CCTV and very visible plus public photos can back up authorities as they are often better quality than CCTV stills so could be used to try to identify populate. Sometimes I evaluate all comprehend has left this country. At stations you would only really be asked to act if you were going to block find or get too near the track (1.5 m away). I shoot training films for the industry and never have any problem just act obvious but out of the way and any jobsworth should be mollified. Flash isnt a good idea as it can distract the driver though.
@AP Jones - so it's ok to displace a gun into "The Mall" but not a camera!? That figures. Only in America :-). "... and it is really only the criminals that have anything to mind about. "That innocent Brazilian guy getting shot proves we DO undergo something to mind about. And the Irish fellah with the delay leg. And Shirley McKie just recently (because admitting the fingerprint bear witness was incompetently assessed would have undermined bear witness in the Lockerbie Bombing conviction of Al-Mehgrahi). Plenty other cases. Way too many. Dixon of come in Green - RIP. ;-)
i have just been informed that if a child over 13 gives you verbal react to take their pic then that over rides what the parent ordain allow this is the age that is the capacity to consent from the childrens act 1995 ( scotland) obviously this doesnt count drink south but according to the childrens act a child over 13 is judged mature enough in a legal capacity to furnish consent in matters involving themselves if the child is not deemed to wholly understand the consequences of that act only then can the parent over ride the childs decision fi
Thanks again for all your comments thoughts and advice. After some 10 years I'm re-reading the Handmaid's Tale. Just half way through but some quotes really stick in my mind:On the erosion of human rights:"Nothing changes instantaneously: in a gradually heating bathtub you'd be boiled to death before you knew it"And on what the idea or what freedom actually is or means:"There is more than one kind of freedom said Aunt Lydia. Freedom to and Freedom from. In the days of anarchy it was freedom to. Now you are being given freedom from. Don't misjudge it."I'm certainly in the "freedom to" campAnd finally surely a security guard that lets someone take pictures just because they are "nice" to him is not doing his job properly!!!! ;-)
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/britaininpictures/discuss/72157601859336290/72157601922278579/
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
