View Full Version : Told to stop taking photos !
paul cull-pearce
27-04-2007, 21:01
Just to let you know, that turning up at an event looking like you know what you're doing with a camera could see you being asked to stop taking photos by officials of the meeting ...who have been ask to have a word in your ear by the "OFFICIAL PHOTOGRAPHER" of the day !
Why do I say this , because its happened to me and I was only at the event to take pics for my own enjoyment HONEST !
The OFFICIAL PHOTOGRAPHER even suggested that a must have been a "pro" touting for business because the camera gear looked expensive.
I suggested that he looked on e-bay and saw what "pro" looking camera gear could be bought for less than £1000... muppett ! :cuckoo:
The moral of this story is, dont take all your gear and dont look like a pro or you maybe asked to stop taking photos ! ::eek:
Anyone else ever been asked to "stop" taking photos ???
Paul
Aye scottish rocks game, the wife of the owner shouted at me from her box at courtside :lol: :D
chouglez
27-04-2007, 21:07
We Canonians use Canon gear Paul so we are given red carpet treatment:D
King_Boru
27-04-2007, 21:08
I dont stand for that. Would of kindly told the official to relay a message to the 'pro' asking him to stick his camera where the sun doesnt shine letting me take a photo of it.
Did you not tell him it was for personal use only?
King.
Venomator
27-04-2007, 21:09
Only on London Underground m8 ... :razz: to them all ... :shrug:
:p
paul cull-pearce
27-04-2007, 21:10
We Canonians use Canon gear Paul so we are given red carpet treatment:D
Ha Ha :lol:
King_Boru
27-04-2007, 21:11
We Canonians use Canon gear Paul so we are given red carpet treatment:D
:lol:
:razz:
yeah i would tell them to get lost
paul cull-pearce
27-04-2007, 21:15
Did you not tell him it was for personal use only?
King.
Yes I did !
But I also told him to go away...in a nice way ! ;) :lol:
Paul
You need to remember that you are probably on private property, they may well have the right to ask you to stop and even eject you if you refuse, so refuse politely!
Sheesh. This is happenng more and more these days. If you've a 'serious' looking camera they're down on you like a ton of bricks while people taking shots with little compacts and camera phones are ignored. :cuckoo:
It sounds like a not very confident pro responsible for the aggro on this occasion, but if you can try to keep as low a profile as possible -no tripods and big bags of gear with Canon or Nikon plasterd all over them. It sucks I know but it seems to be the way it is.
If I think I might be challenged, I take the 20D sans batter grip and just the the 50mm 1.4 with maybe the 17-40 in me pocket. Look like one of the crowd. ;)
If I think I might be challenged, I take the 20D sans batter grip and just the the 50mm 1.4 with maybe the 17-40 in me pocket. Look like one of the crowd.
cedric :thumbs: i know its not your best kit but that lot is still some serious kit ...:naughty:
its no point and shoot..
:geek: not happened to me yet but i suppose its only a matter of time..:bang:
charley farley
27-04-2007, 21:58
Know I'm new here, but unless you're on private land, no-one can restrict you TAKING the shots - might be copyright/data protection issues to publish pics with peeps in them - permissions and so-on, consents etc, but I'd be tempted to go toe to toe with someone telling me NOT to shoot. Depends on circs, of course.
Not yet, though I thought it might happen a few weeks ago at an event. There was one official snapper and a few parents with camcorders/P&S's or phones, but as is always the way with events involving children, the form filling, etc that had to be done to be allowed a camera made even those thin on the ground. So, the only ones with 'gear' were the official guy and yours truly [only the d70s and 70-300 zoom for me]. I did get a few 'looks' off him and several times event officials came and stood close by and were making their presence felt, but as I was making it very obvious I was a mum of one child and with one particular club attending the event, nothing was said.
Which brings me to another point for the other women here - do you find that carrying/using loads of gear gets you more noticed than a fella doing the same? If my other half is lugging everything and playing with camera, no one bats an eyelid, but if I have it slung round my neck, I get plenty of stares at my chest regions...even when wrapped in winter layers :lol: I have started carrying it over my shoulder sometimes, just so its less obvious when not actually in front of my face ;)
I took photos at my daughters gym display by request of the club, everyone signed forms to agree to take photos and for thier child to be in photos, but one woman came up to me and demanded to see the pictures on my camera and she was adamant that i had taken photos with her daughter in them, despite there being a ruck of video cameras and mobile phones, point and shoots etc, but because I was on the display floor, she singled me out.
I asked her to show me all of her mobile phone pictures because my daughter was also in the display and she may have photographed her by mistake.....needless to say, she wasn't prepared to do it, just like I wasn't.
I think that anyone with a biggun is in trouble..camera that is...lol
shiato storm
27-04-2007, 22:10
i pulled out my camera at a wedding the other week, they [the pros] noticed...a 1d does that I guess, but had a pleasant chat with them and stayed out of their way, all was good. if a 'pro' came and told me to stop shooting I'd question them very hard to why the hell I should listen to them? people that approach me with hostility get the same back from me. only a very unprofessional person would feel threatened in that way...
Marianne
27-04-2007, 22:13
you should have heard me shouting at the radio when Jeremy vine was discussing this a while back! I texted in too! It appears that there is no law to stop you taking photos in public places...just the public panic, why I dunno...I don't get it, I just don't get it. what is all the bl**dy fuss about? !
chuckles
27-04-2007, 22:19
Yeah - you should've heard her! :lol:
If I think I might be challenged, I take the 20D sans batter grip and just the the 50mm 1.4 with maybe the 17-40 in me pocket. Look like one of the crowd.
cedric :thumbs: i know its not your best kit but that lot is still some serious kit ...:naughty:
its no point and shoot..
Well yes I agree, but to the monkeys who usually jump on you at these places it looks quite a small camera so you can't really be 'serious' IYSWIM. :D
chuckles
27-04-2007, 22:27
It's a bit like taking a tripod onto a National Trust site .... don't start me ..... Grrr! :razz: :bat: :rules:
So just to clear things up, so I know when to tell people to swivel if they ever dare to challenge my photo taking...
If you're on public property you can shoot whatever or whomever you like
You're not allowed to shoot into peoples houses
If you're on private property you need the consent of the property owner
Is this correct? :shrug:
Marianne
27-04-2007, 22:29
you know what?...I think I'd really rather not take any photos at public events for fear of being approached...I would ge to too upset and too angry and my day would be ruined...I'd avoid it. How sad is that?
I still don't get this mass public hysteria over photgraphy in public places! GGrrrrrr
Does that mean I can't take photos at the seaside? Oh for goodness sake.....I'll get on with my knitting now, it's safer or is it? :naughty:
chuckles
27-04-2007, 22:32
So just to clear things up, so I know when to tell people to swivel if they ever dare to challenge my photo taking...
If you're on public property you can shoot whatever or whomever you like
You're not allowed to shoot into peoples houses
If you're on private property you need the consent of the property owner
Is this correct? :shrug:
A really useful document is This one - UK photographer's Rights (http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf)... well worth keeping a copy in your bag
Marianne
27-04-2007, 22:33
So just to clear things up, so I know when to tell people to swivel if they ever dare to challenge my photo taking...
If you're on public property you can shoot whatever or whomever you like
You're not allowed to shoot into peoples houses
If you're on private property you need the consent of the property owner
Is this correct? :shrug:
who knows? :shrug:
I just know that on the Jeremy Vine show they said that there was no law to stop people taking photos in public places....
Those last two options are common sense aren't they? Mind you taking photos of pretty cottages could be seen as shooting into peoples houses...
A really useful document is This one - UK photographer's Rights (http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf)... well worth keeping a copy in your bag
Cheers Chuckles :beer:
chuckles
27-04-2007, 22:43
Cheers Chuckles :beer:
I shall have to print us a couple of copies. Been meaning to for a while now :(
(I've been told to write this after I was asked a very deep, probing and pertinent question)
Hmm, altho enlightening to a large extent, that document doesn't really deal with situations where another photographer has been contracted to work for a client. Does that photographer have any right to insist you don't take photo's if you're on public property, (or private property with consent of owner), and not a predefined "protected" area?
LOL. Street/public photography has got a really bad image now. It's largely down to people watching the paparazzi perform, with no regard whatsoever for the feelings or privacy of their victims. Then there's the whole pedo suspicion thing and we cop the backlash of all of it. :shrug:
Personally if i'm challenged by someone who's pic I've taken, I explain why I'm doing what I'm doing which usually satisfies them. Offering to send them a print usually helps a lot. ;)
If people really don't like it then I have no hesitation in deleting the pic for them - we aint the paparzzi after all.
Hmm, altho enlightening to a large extent, that document doesn't really deal with situations where another photographer has been contracted to work for a client. Does that photographer have any right to insist you don't take photo's if you're on public property, (or private property with consent of owner), and not a predefined "protected" area?
What it really comes own to is if it's private property then the management/ owners can set any ground rules they like, and the legally correct answer is you really need to ask anyway in the first place. :shrug:
What it really comes own to is if it's private property then the management/ owners can set any ground rules they like, and the legally correct answer is you really need to ask anyway in the first place. :shrug:
So assuming you have the permission of the landowner/ event organiser you're bullet proof? And balls to everyone else :D
That would sound reasonable to me. :D
Marianne
27-04-2007, 23:06
don't start me on the pedo suspicion thing...the public have been hyped up to such an extent that they don't really know what it is they are affeared of...now if it was naked football I could see a problem.... hmmm
That would sound reasonable to me. :D
Excellent. I shall quote the Honourable Judge CT if ever I have any troublemakers :rules: :lol:
chuckles
27-04-2007, 23:10
So assuming you have the permission of the landowner/ event organiser you're bullet proof? And balls to everyone else :D
Until...... you want to publish some photos of any people there (a big[gish] crowd is ok apparently) .... in which case you need a 'model release' form..... you should have some of those in yer bag also....
I know.... I was gonna print some of those as well later ;)
Hmmmm naked ladies football. I never could stand the game., but... :naughty:
chuckles
27-04-2007, 23:11
Excellent. I shall quote the Honourable Judge CT if ever I have any troublemakers :rules: :lol:
Did anybody tell you he was "the hanging Judge"? :lol:
Excellent. I shall quote the Honourable Judge CT if ever I have any troublemakers :rules: :lol:
Just remember though it's not always that straightforward. Take your average school sports day as an example which is a private event. Before the head will give you permission you need to to have the written consent of the parents of any child who might appear in your photos. In practice that means all of 'em.
Did anybody tell you he was "the hanging Judge"? :lol:
Now there's a job I could really warm to. :naughty:
Marianne
27-04-2007, 23:16
Just remember though it's not always that straightforward. Take your average school sports day as an example which is a private event. Before the head will give you permission you need to to have the written consent of the parents of any child who might appear in your photos. In practice that means all of 'em.
oh for goodness sake!
what ARE they scared of?
I really must go to bed...bet i can't sleep and will have to come back and see what's happening on this thread...nunight for now :bonk:
Just remember though it's not always that straightforward. Take your average school sports day as an example which is a private event. Before the head will give you permission you need to to have the written consent of the parents of any child who might appear in your photos. In practice that means all of 'em.
Who dreams up these stupid rules. Honestly.
Supposing the child(ren) in question were on a beach and happened to be in shot. The parents have no legal right to get stroppy then?
This is precisely why children should be outlawed. They're a damn nuisance :lol:
Marianne
27-04-2007, 23:23
ok...I'm too nosey to go...lol
What is it that the parents are objecting to? Why has the UK gone so crazy about photographers taking photos. Cameras have been around for years with no trouble so why now? What is it that they are so scared of? No one can answer that question properly, I have never got a decent answer. Do these paedophiles get off on fully clothed children? I just dont get it....
Who dreams up these stupid rules. Honestly.
Supposing the child(ren) in question were on a beach and happened to be in shot. The parents have no legal right to get stroppy then?
This is precisely why children should be outlawed. They're a damn nuisance :lol:
LOL. Tend to agree with the last point... until they're old enough to buy you a pint anyway.
Yep on the beach or in the street, there's nothing to stop you photographing kids. But realistically if a parent really had misgivings to that extent and you couldn't allay them, surely you'd respect their wishes and hit the delete button.
Marianne
27-04-2007, 23:24
if it was a film camera you couldn't delete it...
chuckles
27-04-2007, 23:25
Just remember though it's not always that straightforward. Take your average school sports day as an example which is a private event. Before the head will give you permission you need to to have the written consent of the parents of any child who might appear in your photos. In practice that means all of 'em.
Unless ..... it's held on a public sports field :shrug: - it's an absolute farce!
Wouldn't it be far easier and convey a whole lot more common sense if photography was permitted, taken as acceptable. If little Johny's parents didn't want photographs taken of said sweet angel then he should not be participating in the event! There is always only a VERY small minority (usually of 1) who objects and ruins it for everybody else!
It never used to be a problem so what's happened?
If Bert Hardy were alive now, what would be doing? Probably getting locked up. What's to become our grandchilds' historical record? What about that shot of the female police officer (park official?) circa 1930 who chased those two naked urchins out of a London park with a big whippy stick? It's a classic shot - but you couldn't take it now!
Grrr - this has got me going now.... we'll never get to bed..... :(
Marianne
27-04-2007, 23:26
oooh I love when you're angry.....
ok...I'm too nosey to go...lol
What is it that the parents are objecting to? Why has the UK gone so crazy about photographers taking photos. Cameras have been around for years with no trouble so why now? What is it that they are so scared of? No one can answer that question properly, I have never got a decent answer. Do these paedophiles get off on fully clothed children? I just dont get it....
Marianne I can't for the life of me see what's remotely sexually provocative or attractive about little kids, but an alarming number of ****ed up individuals do.
There's no answer to your question though, it's all part of the PC lunacy which has taken over the world. I read somewhere the other day that someone is trying to bring in legislation to stop you referring to your other half as your husband or your wife because it discriminates against people who aren't married.
Seems we should all be saying " Our partner" :thinking:
if it was a film camera you couldn't delete it...
LOL Good point. You'd have to promise faithfully.. :D
Marianne
27-04-2007, 23:32
I know...I know....but it's total lunacy and over hyped panic!!
I really must go to bed and drag 'my partner' with me......no inuendos ok..goodnight!
LOL me too I think. Niters. :wave:
chuckles
27-04-2007, 23:35
Marianne I can't for the life of me see what's remotely sexually provocative or attractive about little kids, but an alarming number of ****ed up individuals do.
But fully clothed? I'm with Marianne on this..... how do you stop that? Is photography the point of failure? Absolutely not! Maybe the parents in being overly protective, perhaps. Most certainly the perverts! It's them that are the problem and the PC brigade!
I can understand some of the rationale but, and it's a rather large BUT.... I've never seen it reported as being a problem in any other European country :shrug:
When we were at a Festival in Como a couple of years ago it took us a while to realise that nobody minded us taking photographs of their children.... can't really say much more.... just wish I knew how to turn it all on it's (ugly) head. :(
But realistically if a parent really had misgivings to that extent and you couldn't allay them, surely you'd respect their wishes and hit the delete button.
I take on board your point, but I'm a big fan of knowing what is your legal right to do, so that when some little hilter starts throwing their weight around you can put them firmly in their place, before deleting the photo and explaining that their offspring being an "ugly little bas...tion" has ruined the shot anyway :D
Moi? Bitter and twisted? nah :coat: :)
Marianne
27-04-2007, 23:39
heheh....just what I was saying to Barry....similar anyway!
night :wave:
sometimes though, little johnnies parents are actually his carers, who may be fearful that any images appearing in publications, sports centres, websites etc could alert parents who have been abusive etc to the whereabouts of thier child who has been taken from them by the authorities...this I have had explained to me by the staff at 2 sports centres where I have taken pictures for my daughters gymnastics club, so its not just about peadophiles, kids can be in danger fully clothed.
markgray
28-04-2007, 07:24
My 2p worth. I spent a year arguing with my sons football club about taking pictures, to the point where i told them that i would remove him from the club and place him somewhere else.
I have now managed to convince them that photography is a great publicity for the club. What they do now is inform every parent in the club that photography will be taking place, and to come forward if you don't want your son/daughter pictured. This is the way it should always be.
The reason it isn't is people cannot be bothered to organise it, don't want the hassle. I went around gathering info such as the Photographers Rights which was posted earlier in the thread and went and saw the club and reached the final agreement.
Now i am the official photographer for the club, as well as the welfare officer.
We just had Chelsea Old Boys down for a charity match last weekend and managed to get 4 photos printed in the paper.
King_Boru
28-04-2007, 07:43
Sensitive subject. I fully agree with you though. But the thing that winds me up is that the P&S'ers snap away without a problem. It is only when you pull out your DSLR and 70-200 f/2.8 you get stereotyped as a possible perve.
When I was younger my parents couldnt afford a camera so there are a lmited number of photographs of me floating around for their memories. When my nipper was born I decided that I wanted to record my nippers growing up so when I am stuck in a wheelchair dribbling I can refer to those happy times. BUT, I am finding this diffcult even owning a camera! Living in Felixstowe, next to the sea I am looking forward to taking photographs of her paddling in the sea a playing in the sand, but as per last years experince of parents complaining and even the local authorities questioning me I am wondering if it is worth all the hassle.
Gets up an walks away before head explodes.
King.
chuckles
28-04-2007, 08:11
sometimes though, little johnnies parents are actually his carers, who may be fearful that any images appearing in publications, sports centres, websites etc could alert parents who have been abusive etc to the whereabouts of thier child who has been taken from them by the authorities...this I have had explained to me by the staff at 2 sports centres where I have taken pictures for my daughters gymnastics club, so its not just about peadophiles, kids can be in danger fully clothed.
That is a good point! ..... but.... where do you draw the line?
In this instance might not the responsibility rest with the carers and not depend upon the operators of such facilities to enforce their draconian, restrictive measures. It seems to me, people these days are far happier for someone else to take the responsibility for things and not they themselves. All part of a more sinister "blame, I never did anything, culture"....
Do we censure Raleigh and their like to stop the manufacture of bicycles because x kids are killed each year? Do we stop Tesco's from selling bleach because parents (carers) have not put the bottles away correctly? Do we stop the NHS from issuing harmful drugs because they're not being put out of the reach of children?
The list is endless and no amount of caring, thoughtful legislation, be it local or centralised, will protect the determined against every eventuality.
Whilst I can accept the fact children can be at risk through publication etc, - surely the abusive parents should be placed under more scrutiny and observation. Have their freedom and habits restricted, their lives pressured and threatened NOT the childrens' freedom taken away from them. Every body suffers (again) because of the insane minority, never the idiots who should never have been allowed to procreate in the first place!
It's such a shame for us photographers to have all these ridiculous restrictions placed upon us, most of which are borne out of ignorance and hype!
I imagine all of us would behave in a reasonable, responsible manner and generally would respect others' opinions. It just needs a little more thought rather than blanket censure.....
It's a wonder I slept last night :lol:
Jonnyreb
28-04-2007, 08:13
So far I've not been challenged, but i am waiting for the day. I go 'armed' with the togs rights sheet in case over-zealous officials get antsy.
I try to be as inconspicuous as possible. Mind, i do look angry most of the time so p'raps i'm not worth the bother.
Actually, thinking about it, Rob and I caught a few tubes on Saturday last week - with 3 cameras and 2 tripods between us - when i got myself jammed in the automatic barrier a very nice member of LU staff actually helped me through and said i could always use the open barrier when carrying kit........ maybe i was smiling that day......... :D
Just to let you know, that turning up at an event looking like you know what you're doing with a camera could see you being asked to stop taking photos by officials of the meeting ...who have been ask to have a word in your ear by the "OFFICIAL PHOTOGRAPHER" of the day !
.
.
facinating subject even if I do tend to kick the cat between each post grrrrrrrrr.
Back to the original post. I would have introduced the 'official git' to new uses for my monopood. :bat:
Jonnyreb
28-04-2007, 08:28
facinating subject even if I do tend to kick the cat between each post grrrrrrrrr.
Back to the original post. I would have introduced the 'official git' to new uses for my monopood. :bat:
Thus creating a tripod? :lol:
cwinhall
28-04-2007, 08:42
I've not been challenged yet, it might be becuase of my age that people wouldn't take me as seriously as other elder photographers with "the right kit" but I am printing out that document now to carry with me all the time just in case...
I MAG images
28-04-2007, 08:44
Last year my wife was taking part in a half Ironman triathlon down in Devon and I took my gear with me took take shots of her on the course and some of her club members for their website and club magazine. 3 times I was approached by the organizers and told that I could not take photos unless I was sanctioned by the organizer of the event. The first time I was polite and explained what the shots were for and they went away. The next person came up to me and was a bit more pushey and tried to find out if I was selling the images, after a restrained explaination from me she went away. The next person who came up not only had a reflective jacket but a radio as well. he demanded to see ID, told me to stop taking shot immediately and threatened to call the police. After I read him the riot act and asked him who the **** he was and why he was breaching my rights and then telling him to **** off, I heard no more. Another incident happened when I was the 'Official Photographer' for an event to mark the 250th anniversary of The Kings Royal Rifles at Winchester. The Queen was the guest of honour and even though I had the right badge on and was vetted I was physically restrained by 2 Royal protection officers when HM was planting a tree and got no shots of it at all. I was later allowed to take shots at close range but could feel the breath of the police on the back of my neck......Ian
That is a good point! ..... but.... where do you draw the line?
In this instance might not the responsibility rest with the carers and not depend upon the operators of such facilities to enforce their draconian, restrictive measures. It seems to me, people these days are far happier for someone else to take the responsibility for things and not they themselves. All part of a more sinister "blame, I never did anything, culture"....
Do we censure Raleigh and their like to stop the manufacture of bicycles because x kids are killed each year? Do we stop Tesco's from selling bleach because parents (carers) have not put the bottles away correctly? Do we stop the NHS from issuing harmful drugs because they're not being put out of the reach of children?
The list is endless and no amount of caring, thoughtful legislation, be it local or centralised, will protect the determined against every eventuality.
Whilst I can accept the fact children can be at risk through publication etc, - surely the abusive parents should be placed under more scrutiny and observation. Have their freedom and habits restricted, their lives pressured and threatened NOT the childrens' freedom taken away from them. Every body suffers (again) because of the insane minority, never the idiots who should never have been allowed to procreate in the first place!
It's such a shame for us photographers to have all these ridiculous restrictions placed upon us, most of which are borne out of ignorance and hype!
I imagine all of us would behave in a reasonable, responsible manner and generally would respect others' opinions. It just needs a little more thought rather than blanket censure.....
It's a wonder I slept last night :lol:
I couldn't agree more and infact when I photographed one gym display for my daughters club, there where 2 kids who couldn't have thier photos taken because they were in care or something similar, however, because they changed thier outfits so often during the display I was getting confused and took photos of them and had this pointed out to me by the instructor...so in the end, the instructor was pointing them out to me whenever they took part in any routine or activity, and ultimately this was drawing more attention to the kids because all of the parents and spectators were all wondering what was going on every time when the instructor would shout "NOT THESE TWO!!"..you would have thought that they were Brooklyn beckham and prince Micheal Jackson, it caused that much interest.
Unfortunately, the club is run by the local authourity and is duty bound to take such kids at the drop of a hat, or if they move into the area and they often turn up adhock..so it is difficult sometimes espescially when the club has trained for weeks and weeks to put on a display for their family etc and some kids roll up and dont have any idea of what is going on but are somehow fitted in, even if they are doing a forward roll, but along with them comes all the restrictions of political correction and often enforced by some overbearing carer.
I understand...but I dont understand at the same time.
I think we should organise some sort of revolt.
How about a mass photography flash mob type protest? We could turn up en mass to a specific place at a specific time and everyone, fill yer memory cards.
chuckles
28-04-2007, 09:38
Yeah, great - good idea ..... we'll all photograph each other.... photographers only! :lol: Probably end up being responsible for bringing down an aircraft or summat..... :shrug:
paul cull-pearce
28-04-2007, 10:22
A really useful document is This one - UK photographer's Rights (http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf)... well worth keeping a copy in your bag
Thankyou for that ! :thumbs:
Very useful...;)
Paul
paul cull-pearce
28-04-2007, 10:35
I know a teacher, when he has gone into school to take photos for the school newspaper. Some of the kids have came up and called him a Paedafile, because they may have been inshot ! He explained that most people who take photographs of things / people / objects are usually called photographers not paedofiles.
But the other incredible double standard is that the kids have no problems in filming bitch fights, and semi unclothed shots of themselves with their girlfriends/boyfriends. They have their mobile phones crammed with triple x rated porn clips..they don`t class their own photo taking as perverse at all ?
What the hell is going on ?
Paul
whitewash
28-04-2007, 10:39
you know what?...I think I'd really rather not take any photos at public events for fear of being approached...I would ge to too upset and too angry and my day would be ruined...I'd avoid it. How sad is that?
I still don't get this mass public hysteria over photgraphy in public places! GGrrrrrr
Does that mean I can't take photos at the seaside? Oh for goodness sake.....I'll get on with my knitting now, it's safer or is it? :naughty:
i agree, its just too much agro, i very rarely shoot in public if its a display or anything, then again i only seem to point my camera at cars and the scenery anyway!
I think we should organise some sort of revolt.
the wife says I am revolting, does this count? :thinking:
namllihs
28-04-2007, 11:00
I used to be an athlete (middle & long distance runner) and still have a keen interest in athletics. Last winter I photographed at most of the cross country events in the midlands, some venues ask photographers to sign in others don't.
I was never stopped, although I deliberately did not photograph any of the under 16 events.
We have an high profile track & field competition coming up in a few weeks, I contacted the organisers to ask if it was O/K for me to photograph as a paynig member of the public, they replied saying they would give me press accreditation for the event.:thumbs:
So I've probably been lucky up to the moment, but find that being polite and asking gets you there 95% of the time.
Sheesh. This is happenng more and more these days. If you've a 'serious' looking camera they're down on you like a ton of bricks while people taking shots with little compacts and camera phones are ignored. :cuckoo:
Yeah I had a funny time at a gig. My 10D was broke so I had a film EOS 50 with Ilford 3200 in it. The security guard had to check I was allowed to take photos. Of course everyone else with their camera phones and digital compacts were fine. Muppets. I haven't checked the images and give that I was using film I bet nothing worked :D
unclerichy
28-04-2007, 13:30
Only being a DSLR owner for a few months I've not had the pleasure of being approached by anyone though I've been stared at on and off (dunno why - I wasn't using a large lense). Though the first time I drove to the local park to give the new camera a try-out I had the feeling that the parents in the nearby (well, 20 metres or so) kiddie area were keeping an eye on me, even though I was taking photos of unused fairground rides and trees!
What really p****s me off is, as others have said, the double standards. Chav and Chavella can run riot in the street without the parents giving a monkey's, but if you should do anything to upset Mr and Mrs Chav then woe betide you.
That notwithstanding I usually avoid shots with people in them like the plague just because I don't want some ugly mug spoiling the shot :)
Anyway, the next time it happens to anyone on here, tell them you're the next stage in the government's CCTV plans :D
Johnny1982
28-04-2007, 13:56
He couldnt of been much of a pro if he "thought" your gear looked expensive.
Man I can tell a model of a Canon/Nikon camera/lens a mile away.
He couldnt of been much of a pro if he "thought" your gear looked expensive.
Man I can tell a model of a Canon/Nikon camera/lens a mile away.
Yeah I would agree with that. I also think that if a 'pro' photographer is worried about somebody carrying sub £1000 kit taking photos at an event then they must be very insecure about their quality of photos and doing the job in general.
As for the whole photographic rights about what to photograph, its all a bit mess at the moment. Why should the photographers be vastly restricted and looked down upon for the very small minority.
I also am very much against the "professional looking" equipment being disallowed compared to amature equipment. You can bet the people trying to enforce this would let somebody with a lecia m8 go freely taking photos yet somebody with a 400d gets lots of hassle.
:thumbs: Totally agree with most things that have been said. I DO believe [and this is as a parent myself] that when it comes to events, people should choose to opt out if they are so precious about pictures of little Jonnie/jessica, rather than every other parent that is less paranoid having to suffer and not have those memories recorded for later in life.
Why has it got this bad? Too bloody obvious really, when we hear more news stories about paedophiles that have been found out for having hard drives full of images of children than we do of actual abuse against children. Of course,such paedophilia is considerably easier in these days of the internet, and so is probably more prevalent than actual physical abusers, but they are still a very very tiny minority yet wa all have to feel pressured because of them.
As for actual rights, 2 little tales since I posted last night. An email from my friend in Germany first - she went upto the castle in the town near by last night, armed with tripod and her D50. She got there early as its a popular spot for some good night time photography, set her camera up and then waited for the light to fade. With her was her hubby [sorry, partner :naughty: ] who is a seargent in the British Army, so no wall flower of a chap. He had walked off a little way to look at something when she was approached by a guy with a big load of kit. With no introductions he told her she must move as she had the best spot, and he was there on 'official' business. She asked what his business was - "taking pictures for the local paper" - to which her response was "good, then I am sure as a local you know how popular it is here and should have been here earlier" :clap: He started to rant in german, until the hubby walked back over to see what the fuss was about, at which point he seemed to decide there were other good spots and stomped off! :lol:
This morning I was up with the very noisy birds and went into London to get some shots before the place filled with people. After a few hours I was just lining up for a particular shot when a couple of young boys walked into the frame, so I pulled camera down and waited till they had moved again. Their mum apologised, explaining that they love cameras and having their pics taken. The only answer I could think of was "well, you have come to the right bit of London for them then" - she laughed as we were right by the river and commented that god knows how many pictures there were of them from days out, they are forever jumping in on other peoples pictures. It was quite a refreshing change from the usual frowns etc.... :thumbs:
Someone should go in with a Leica M8 to these events with someone else using a 300D. Then go up to the security and ask if its ok to take photos with the 300D, if he says no get the M8 guy to ask with if he can for personal use. If the M8 guy gets away with it take out a copy of a Jessops catalog and then show him the pricing. While he's scratching his head about which is actually "professional" take a photo, kick him in the nuts and walk off. You could also add a Canon G7 into the mix as they're more expensive than a used 300D.
chuckles
28-04-2007, 17:38
Someone should go in with a Leica M8 to these events with someone else using a 300D. Then go up to the security and ask if its ok to take photos with the 300D, if he says no get the M8 guy to ask with if he can for personal use. If the M8 guy gets away with it take out a copy of a Jessops catalog and then show him the pricing. While he's scratching his head about which is actually "professional" take a photo, kick him in the nuts and walk off. You could also add a Canon G7 into the mix as they're more expensive than a used 300D.
Pete, find someone to buy the M8 for me and I'll give it go! I will, of course, report back to these boards the event. Can't get fairer than that can I? :lol:
I actually got an email from an angry parent two weeks ago that I hadn't managed to get a shot of "wee Johnny" at the motocross. :(
Pete, find someone to buy the M8 for me and I'll give it go! I will, of course, report back to these boards the event. Can't get fairer than that can I? :lol:
:lol: :lol: This could become a habit!
Find me someone WITH an M8 and I will go along with them... :nuts:
No answer to that Ladylens!
For me, this is always a bit of a topic.......as I normally either wear a turban or a bandana, you can imagine the looks I get anywhere I go in this country with the DSLR to take pics. :suspect: Still waiting for the secret services to jump out at me having taking some pics near Cranfield airport recently (small local airport).
I've given up going to the States (having been 11 times) as I get treated like a criminal as soon as I walk off the plane, but thankfully there are plenty of places on the planet that treat you like a human being.
I actually got an email from an angry parent two weeks ago that I hadn't managed to get a shot of "wee Johnny" at the motocross. :(
Ditto on the horse front at a recent event when I was there to photograph my wife and two other girls from our stable yard.
However, when I first started taking the camera to events to photograph my wife I was asked to put my camera away by one of the marshalls. I declined and the next thing the organiser turned up.... managed to explain myself to her as politely as possible and 7 months later she emailed me asking if I could cover an event! Result.
Wyvern971
01-05-2007, 11:23
I think this kiddie thing has gone way OTT, but there you go....
Also for some reason you aren't allowed to use tripods around the Eiffel tower (I didn't know until I was informed by 2 armed police officers, needless to say i apologised in English (for not speaking French) and packed it away pronto)
Tripods is a Health and Safety thing in a lot of public places now. Plonking a tripod down in a street or public thoroughfare can also be construed as obstruction. Obstructing the pavement is a specific offence.
woadrage
01-05-2007, 11:40
if it was a film camera you couldn't delete it...
The other approach is to say "Oh, I'm not allowed to delete it. This is evidence ....."
And then walk away.
But not until you've seen the panic set in :D
shiato storm
01-05-2007, 11:41
While he's scratching his head about which is actually "professional" take a photo, kick him in the nuts and walk off.
surely you should kick him in the nuts then take a photo...print it out huge and paste it round the town...nothing like public humiliation eh ;)
Funny thing is having come back from Brands this weekend I noticed that these days every Tom, **** and Harry has a DSLR and many of them have decent lenses, certainly most of the Canon users i saw has L glass, but none were 'Pros'. So its just a norm these days, people have to start realising that and deal with it.
Why should i go and spend £200-£300 on a compact camera when i can get a D50 and get better pics. Doesn't instantly make me a kiddie fiddler.
I just want to buy the best kit i can afford to do the job.
No different to buying a big telly to watch films or a decent stereo for music.
chuckles
01-05-2007, 12:01
Tripods is a Health and Safety thing in a lot of public places now. Plonking a tripod down in a street or public thoroughfare can also be construed as obstruction. Obstructing the pavement is a specific offence.
Where does a bi-ped with a walking stick taking photographs fit into this? ;)
Where does a bi-ped with a walking stick taking photographs fit into this? ;)
He sounds like a definite pedo so he'd come under different legislation. ;)
Years ago you used to be able to spend all day in Lichfield Cathedral for a nominal photo fee of 50p. The only stipulation was no flash, which I could never understand, although available light is by far the best in there and there was no objection to tripods.
Last time I went tripods were a nono. I finally prevailed upon the verger by opening the tripod with a very small footprint (very upright) to show just how little room was taken up by it. He finally relented but he really wasn't happy and furtively followed me around the place checking me out. The daft thing was there were only about three other people in the whole place. :shrug:
Where tripods are banned, use a monopod, you get much the same benefit (unless the light is really poor) without the footprint and with more portability.
While I'm here I'll just add (I'm sure you all know it anyway) that these restrictions on photographing children have nothing whatsoever to do with protecting them from undesirables. They exist to protect the organisers from being sued by money hungry chancers. The Americans are blamed for a lot of stuff that's not their fault, but the 'sue for damages' culture that exists now is pretty much down to them.
h.r.ford
01-05-2007, 13:46
In one of the other threads of that artist guy (sorry awful with names) he said that in the US they put a huge English phone booth in the middle of a street but the guy with the camera is the one that got stopped by the FBI (they happened to do it right outside of their headquarters) for hours and never notice the cemented in phone booth.
It is all insane really! I agree with chuckles it is about personal responsibility and not relying on the government to protect you from everything that just might possibly at some stage maybe cause you some sort of itty bitty problem.
Wyvern971
01-05-2007, 15:51
Where tripods are banned, use a monopod, you get much the same benefit (unless the light is really poor) without the footprint and with more portability.
Unfortunately I was going for long exposures (30 secs or more) at night and I don't think i could have held a monopod steady for that long......
Geordi69
01-05-2007, 19:43
Not been told anything yet. One day when I was off work, I thought i'd get out and practice (sitll a noob to photography) and I went of to a old graveyard, so when I am looking round and taking some test shots I notice it over looks a first school and there was this stern looking woman staring at me from the doorway. So I thought oops i'd better bugger orf before I got accused of anything.
Why should we feel uncomfortable, the world is truly fubar.
Cheerz:thumbs:
ilikebowens
02-05-2007, 22:05
I was outside a whackking great big insurace office in Guildford which had a comanding possition on the river frount when a security guard came down the terraced garden to the public right of way to “tell” me to stop taking picturs of his building. I’ve still got his picture somewhere!
If these companies are going to build fancy offices in prominent locations they can’t be surprised when people take ‘photos of them can they?
ilikebowens
shiato storm
03-05-2007, 10:56
if an architect has spend many moons designing and over-seeing the construction of a big fancy building they'd be proud of the interest in it, no?
Jimmy_Lemon
03-05-2007, 11:58
its all daft imo.
Did some work for the local panto group over the last year, and they have a policy of letting anyone who wants to take part have a role, but they also make everyone sign a consent form, which states that the panto will be photographed and filmed, and if anyone wont sign it - they dont let them take part. Which is a shame for the child but it seems to be the only way to fully cover yourselves these days. Which doesnt help in public at all though :(
If you're on public property you can shoot whatever or whomever you like
Tell that to security of the London Eye... even from the footpath a way off, they tell you 'no photo'...
Sadly, I have a few tales to tell, and I've only had a dSLR for 6 months!
1. As above, been told off for taking photos of the London Eye
2. Been told 'no photos' when taking shots around Canary Wharf
3. Been told I couldn't cover a testimonial football match, as two of the squad were under 16
The only time I've been asked what I was doing is when I met up with some mates outside a Tesco store in Plymouth for a car meet. We all parked up and had a chat and took photos of the cars, bearing in mind not to obstruct anyone's way or cause trouble. Then we had two security staff come over and ask us what we were doing.
I was so tempted to reply with "What does it look like?" (there were 4 of the same type of car parked up perfectly in line with us stood near them, I'd have thought that was obvious!) but we just explained what we were up to and they replied;
"Oh, that's OK then, it's just we've had some customers come up and ask us why there are guys stood outside taking photos. As long as you don't get any of the store in shot then you can carry on."
Why is everyone so damn nosey?! If we were going to rob them or steal their cars we wouldn't stand around with cameras taking pictures we'd just do it!
Just remember though it's not always that straightforward. Take your average school sports day as an example which is a private event. Before the head will give you permission you need to to have the written consent of the parents of any child who might appear in your photos. In practice that means all of 'em.
A lot of schools now get the parents to blanket-sign a consent form when the kids enrol (so I just found out when doing a job at the secondary school here).
This allows the school to take the kids on trips, outings, sports events and for phots to be taken for internal and external publicity purposes (I read it to make sure).
This is a standard thing across a lot of schools in the UK now, so check with the Head-Teacher. Parents who don't sign face having their kids excluded from all group events.
:thumbs:
As for actual rights, 2 little tales since I posted last night. An email from my friend in Germany first - she went upto the castle in the town near by last night, armed with tripod and her D50. She got there early as its a popular spot for some good night time photography, set her camera up and then waited for the light to fade. With her was her hubby [sorry, partner :naughty: ] who is a seargent in the British Army, so no wall flower of a chap. He had walked off a little way to look at something when she was approached by a guy with a big load of kit. With no introductions he told her she must move as she had the best spot, and he was there on 'official' business. She asked what his business was - "taking pictures for the local paper" - to which her response was "good, then I am sure as a local you know how popular it is here and should have been here earlier" He started to rant in german, until the hubby walked back over to see what the fuss was about, at which point he seemed to decide there were other good spots and stomped off! :lol:
I usually find that in all arguments with Ze Tchermans that reminding them who actually won the War generally does the trick...
I've been asked a couple of times what I was up to but usually find that a hard stare and an attitude of "F*** off or I'll rip your Nads Off!" generally works.
I try to be polite, but it doesn't always come off. Stand your ground - in most cases, even security personnel aren't sure of the legal ground they stand on - if you just front them out, in many cases they'll back down. If not then take the photos anyway - if they attempt to physically restrain you they can be liable for charges of assault (as can we all, including Police Officers on duty where it can be proved that more than Reasonable Force was used), so stand firm.
Our biggest problem is that we can be timid, timourous beasties, us photographers and as such are an easy target for the PC-Crowd. My old Boss, Pete Bristo http://www.petebristophotography.me.uk/ used to just hit people with his cameras. Then take a photo of them lying unconcious.
He's more mellow now if you need a wedding doing.
magpieant
08-05-2007, 07:21
Think I have posted this in another forum somewhere else, but for what it's worth ......
I work as a primary school teacher and the policy that our school (and a lot of others) are adopting is the following. We send a letter out to parents at the beginning of the term asking them to sign if they OBJECT to any photos of their children being taken.This way, we are nor relying on letters coming back into school before we can take photos, and you would be amazed at how many parents 'don't mind' you taking photos when they have to sign something to prevent you taking them!
Anth
Gary Bagshawe
08-05-2007, 16:07
Interesting thread, Im with Arkady on this one, I have been told to stop taking photos on lots of occasions and just tend to give the person doing the telling a hard stare followed by a look of annoyance and just continue what I was doing. Including security at Meadowhall and a Policeman outside an army recruitment office where the great unwashed were having a demonstration. By Law I know you are not allowed to take photos of mod buildings etc as he pointed out to me and I just said, "is that right " whilst firing off another few before moving on.
I've been asked a couple of times what I was up to but usually find that a hard stare and an attitude of "F*** off or I'll rip your Nads Off!" generally works.
I try to be polite, but it doesn't always come off......
ROFL - if we had a "post of the year" award - that would have to be a nominee! :lol:
Hi
Just been reading this thread with mild disbelief... but not really surprised these days...
Now caution all southern trainspotters... this was in my local paper a couple of weeks ago... http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1004/1004423_trainspotter_threatened_with_arrest.html
Ridiculous!
Martin
unclerichy
09-05-2007, 15:50
Hi
Just been reading this thread with mild disbelief... but not really surprised these days...
Now caution all southern trainspotters... this was in my local paper a couple of weeks ago... http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1004/1004423_trainspotter_threatened_with_arrest.html
Ridiculous!
Martin
The article mentions "He was confronted by a railway worker who forced him to delete one of the photographs, took his name and address and said he was breaching the Data Protection Act.". Hmmm - looks to me like it's the Rail-muppet who is trying to breach the DPA by not explaining the purpose of taking his details. I'm a bit rusty on the DPA but I'm confident that photos don't get a mention, especially if they're for personal use. :cuckoo:
He'd have to be the world's dumbest terrorist to try and use a modern train to wreak havoc - people would just think he worked for the railway :D 'Terrorism averted by leaves on the line'
shiato storm
09-05-2007, 19:04
rail staff, no offence but...muppets.
Slovensky
09-05-2007, 19:21
I've not been told not to take photos....yet.
But along a similar vein, when I've taught children to ride horses I am REQUIRED to tell them if I am going to have to touch their leg, hand or foot, or whatever, and ask whether that is ok.
If they say no then I'm not allowed to help them onto the horse, I'm not allowed to position them properly on the horse and if it comes to it I am, technically, supposed to let them fall off rather than grab them before they hit the deck!
Just BONKERS :shake:
I am, technically, supposed to let them fall off rather than grab them before they hit the deck!
Just BONKERS :shake:
And then they sue you for injuries :bang: :bang: :thumbsdown:
My old Boss, Pete Bristo http://www.petebristophotography.me.uk/ used to just hit people with his cameras. Then take a photo of them lying unconcious.
He's more mellow now if you need a wedding doing.
:notworthy:
Pete-stories abound in the Army Phot Branch.
Like the 'Pete Getting Shot in the Head In Bosnia While Taking a Rubbish-Photo' story; the 'Pete Telling 2PARA to Get Back on The Plane and Do It Again' story; the 'Pete killing any Army Phot whose Camera Wasn't Set To Manual' story etc etc etc
Not been told anything yet. One day when I was off work, I thought i'd get out and practice (sitll a noob to photography) and I went of to a old graveyard, so when I am looking round and taking some test shots I notice it over looks a first school and there was this stern looking woman staring at me from the doorway. So I thought oops i'd better bugger orf before I got accused of anything.
Why should we feel uncomfortable, the world is truly fubar.
Cheerz:thumbs:
I was walking to a church to take some photos and was walking past a school when I saw a couple of birds in a tree in the other direction. I felt really exposed (for want of a better word) taking a photo that close to a school. The fact it was half past 5 an noone was there didn't help me one bit. There is to much over the top culture in this country now, mainly due to the media hyping everything up. It's a real shame.:(
shiato storm
11-05-2007, 17:11
I wonder what would happen if you wandered around with a camera and dressed tidily rather than casual...would people still pester you?
Iain MacIntosh
11-05-2007, 18:33
All depends where you are. If its public land/highways theres nothing to stop anyone shooting. If you are in stadium or closed private grounds then you need permision and can be asked to stop shooting.
Case in point, 2 weeks ago , after contact a race organizer I was told by the Triathlon event organizer not to come to his event this year as they have an official tog who has been given soul rights to shoot and sell the images and that if I did turn up I would not be allowed to shoot or sell the images.
Ok, someone else has the job, fair enough.
In reality, the organizer cannot tell anyone not to shoot nor to sell the images. The race is in public land, a beach, and on the open highways ie cycling. Anyone can shoot and sell the images as long as they don't use the sponsors name to advertise their images.
The e-mail used very legalized jargon, which it looks like was to scare me off. I also checked with the Scottish Press Photographers Asc on their views.
In these cases, stand your ground, if the officail tog is there, don't let them bully out of shooting. Number of events I have been official tog for and other togs have turned up....nature of the game, just get on with taking the best pics you can.
cheers
Iain
dougdarter
12-05-2007, 10:53
I've been reading this thread with interest, and the subject certainly raises some issues.
As a former police officer however, I can confidently state that there are no laws or other legislation, that restrict the taking of photograps in a PUBLIC place. This includes Canary Wharf and the London eye, which, unless anybody tells me differently, are both approached by a public right of way, ie the road or the footpath.
In essence, what this implies is, that you can politely tell any so called 'official' or other jobsworth, that you intend to continue taking photographs, whatever he may say. If he continues to insist, then the most direct course of action is to take out your mobile, and call the police, and tell them that there is a potential breach of the peace. The police are honour bound to attend, though whether they actually do is anothe matter.
Taking photographs on private property is another matter however, but unless there is a sign to the contrary, or a notice printed on the admission ticket, I would contend that the same applies here as it does on public property. As there is no legislation regarding taking photographs on private property (other than those properties subject to the Official Secrets Act, ie sensitive government or military properties), I would tend to take action in the same manner - ie, ask the officious official/official officious photographer, to wait whilst I called the police. You certainly wouldn't be breaking the law!!
So, snap away - the law is on your side (at least for the time being), and there are no legal restrictions whatsoever that could curtail your hobby.
The above said, there are some circumstances that may preclude you taking the photographs that you want. Parent sensitivity is the most obvious one. Taking photographs at serious accidents/incidents is another - you would be surprised how many ghouls are around when there is blood to be seen. As a former SOC photographer, I can attest to this!! Often when I was photographing a serious accident, drivers would stop their cars, and start taking pics of blood'n bones - not in it'self an offence, but a good police officer could always frame an offence to fit the situation. In any case, I wouldn't stop or take pics in this situation. It would be unhelpful, and I'd almost certainly get in the way.
Stick up for your rights as a photographer. The law is on your side, at least for now!
Hi Doug
Canary Wharf is a private estate... no public right of way through it at all.
dougdarter
12-05-2007, 13:13
Hi Doug
Canary Wharf is a private estate... no public right of way through it at all.
Hi Weggy, that may be true, but the approach roads, and the roads through it, if subject to the Road Traffic Act, and I can't see how they could not be, will be public rights of way. Stand on the road, and take all the pics you like.
The building of any estate, private or not, can NEVER take precedence of public rights of way, which is why, despite the attempts of landowners and farmers, there still exist public footpaths in the UK.
Hi Weggy, that may be true, but the approach roads, and the roads through it, if subject to the Road Traffic Act, and I can't see how they could not be, will be public rights of way. Stand on the road, and take all the pics you like.
The building of any estate, private or not, can NEVER take precedence of public rights of way, which is why, despite the attempts of landowners and farmers, there still exist public footpaths in the UK.
Thanks Doug. It's a busy place, but I'll have a go at standing in the road and taking some shots... see if I get pulled by security, again!
London Eye is definately on private property I'm afraid - there are signs up to that effect also. However I've never had any problems around there until I've tried to use a tripod - that upsets 'em!
dougdarter
12-05-2007, 14:45
London Eye is definately on private property I'm afraid - there are signs up to that effect also. However I've never had any problems around there until I've tried to use a tripod - that upsets 'em!
Is it.... I wonder??
Notices can be deceptive.
As far as I remember, the London eye was built on Queens Walk, on the Thames Embankment, as a TEMPORARY structure to celebrate the Millenium. It was supposed to have been torn down in 2001, and is now an 'illegal' structure in contravention of planning regulations, and is still subject to an on-going case in the courts, following 'temporary extended permission which expired in 2005.
The Thames Embankment is certainly a public right of way.
http://www.londoneye.com/community/pdf/planning_guide.pdf
inophoto
14-05-2007, 12:28
Madness. I am pleased to say that so far 'knock on wood' I have not had so much as an ugly stare.
shiato storm
14-05-2007, 16:41
Is it.... I wonder??
Notices can be deceptive.
As far as I remember, the London eye was built on Queens Walk, on the Thames Embankment, as a TEMPORARY structure to celebrate the Millenium. It was supposed to have been torn down in 2001, and is now an 'illegal' structure in contravention of planning regulations, and is still subject to an on-going case in the courts, following 'temporary extended permission which expired in 2005.
The Thames Embankment is certainly a public right of way.
http://www.londoneye.com/community/pdf/planning_guide.pdf
apply pigeons...insert cat :rules::bat:
Hi Weggy, that may be true, but the approach roads, and the roads through it, if subject to the Road Traffic Act, and I can't see how they could not be, will be public rights of way. Stand on the road, and take all the pics you like.
The building of any estate, private or not, can NEVER take precedence of public rights of way, which is why, despite the attempts of landowners and farmers, there still exist public footpaths in the UK.
The entire estate is private, with the entrance roads being guarded and access being restricted. Nor was there any public right of way before the construction of the estate, with it formerly being a dockyard.
The land came under the control of the LDDC which was set up by the government to regenerate the area, and which had complete power of the use of the land, including being responsible for planning approval, which enabled them to attract private developers.
Michael.
dougdarter
14-05-2007, 22:40
The entire estate is private, with the entrance roads being guarded and access being restricted. Nor was there any public right of way before the construction of the estate, with it formerly being a dockyard.
The land came under the control of the LDDC which was set up by the government to regenerate the area, and which had complete power of the use of the land, including being responsible for planning approval, which enabled them to attract private developers.
Michael.
Hi,
I can't disagree with anything you say - however, unless the LDDC wishes to have roads that are not subject to the Road Traffic act, which means essentially that national (or local) speed limits cannot be enforced, and where accidents, including those in which people are injured, do not have to be reported to the police, and for which insurance companies will not become involved, and where road markings have no lawful meaning, then the roads at least will be subject to the Road Traffic Act, which by definition, means that the roads at least, are public rights of way.
There is a large commercial estate to the north of Carlisle, the size of a small town, called Kingstown. When it was first built in the late seventies, the developers wished to keep it private, though 'allowing' access to members of the public. It had several miles of 'private' road, two of which were over a mile long, and both were used, day and night by 'boy racers', mostly driving cars which were uninsured, and had no MOT or Tax, which isn't required on private property. There were many accidents and incidents on these roads, and whilst all were reported to police, (I myself attended many accidents there), no action was taken against the perpetrators because for the purposes of the law, it was private property, and not subject to the Road Traffic act. Subsequently, these roads were 'adopted', and handed over to the local authorities, and became roads under the RTA.
This situation still exists, particularly on smaller industrial estates, and large car parks, which is why, if you are involved in an accident in a supermarket car park, the police won't help, and your insurer will almost always insist on recompense on a 'knock for knock' basis, and regardless of fault, you'll lose your no claims bonus.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.