Seeing theres lots of discussion on taking photos of children... (me has a question)

AleksanderLoesch

AleksanderLoesch

Messages
808
Edit My Images
Yes
What about big, important buildings?

The American Embassy is Grosvenor Square, London to be precise.

About a year and a half ago, I was wondering about the small park in front of the Embassy, taking pics of different things for my AS photography coursework.

Then I had the rather silly idea of getting a (just the one!) photo of the front of the embassy...

Within minutes two Officers of the law came up to me (I was taking photo's of flowers at this point) and asked me what I was dooing and stop-and-searched me.

The also asked to see the photo's, but I explained that I couldn't as it was a film camera, and they said they should remove and expose the film, but as I was a teenager, whose school, address etcetera worked out right, and that as it was my A-Level photography, they wouldn't.

Fair game me thought, it was the US embassy etc "security & terrorism" et al, but now ages later, its got me thinking!


A- I know I don't have to show the police any images taken if asked, but in this case WOULD I have to for some "anti-terror" reason? -I know it was a film camera I had, but if it was digital, I instantly would of had to shown them the images, and they would ask for me to delete that image!

B- The photo was taken in a public (well, "Royal") park, and in theory it is totally allowed, but again, is there some over-riding legislation saying its not due to the US Embassy being right outside?


Any help would be appreciated! There are a few interesting subjects around their, and I would love to go and get some shots, but then theres the big white elephant of the Embassy in the way:bang:


The police officers were very understanding and sympathetic themselves, its the most boring assignment they can get according to them NOTHING! ever happens, other than the occasional American tourist who goes "Oh my god! Thats super amazing!" and takes a pic of the embassy, and then goes about getting stop-and-searched:LOL:

The very next day, one of the armed officers who stop-n-searched me offered to show me his MP5? and field stripped it etc infront of me cos he was so bored:LOL::LOL:


PS: sorry, the thread title is a bit misinforming :D:D:D!
 
Embassies are very confusing as they are not actually British land.

Could argue that you're taking photos over a country's border and all of the complications of British and American law without even considering if they wanted to argue a case for spying
 
I do ask permission (now) its all rather confusing though, because I was in a public park, thinking therefore I must be safe?

oh well! not really fair as a few years back I had lazer-dots following me around at sunset in the park, and I saw two figgurs on top of what was then, the "US Marines/Security" building with two red dots :eek: not really fair!
 
You can take a picture of an embassy from a public place. The embassy may be considered foreign land but you would be on English soil so English law would be in effect.

Buildings are not copyright protected.

No official, even the police can order you to delete photos or take your film or camera.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
You can take a picture of an embassy from a public place. The embassy may be considered foreign land but you would be on English soil so English law would be in effect.

Buildings are not copyright protected.

No official, even the police can order you to delete photos or take your film or camera.


Steve.
Click to expand...

cheers(y) thats what I thought! its just cos of all the silly high-security of it all! and the fact that apparently they have arrested quite a few people in the past who have refused to show pics/delete them.

its quite infuriating really, the place is swarming with armed and non-armed police, who are supposed to go on patrols around the area, and hardly ever do!

I live round the corner, but where are they when bicycles, motorbikes or cars get stolen:shrug: or when the high-end drug dealers sit in their mercedes waiting for the people to come out of the classy-clubs near-by?

:bang::bang::bang:
 
It would have been a bit stupid to expose your film, if it went to court wheres their evidence of spying (or whatever trumped up charge they think of) Oh dear Mr Plod destroyed it, Whoops!
 
AleksanderLoesch said:
apparently they have arrested quite a few people in the past who have refused to show pics/delete them.
Click to expand...

Yes but just because what you're doing is legal does not mean that you are not going to be harrassed by ignorant officials/officers. Most cases of this which have been reported have ended with an apology being made.

Deleting an image or exposing the film is tampering with evidence which is in itself an illegal act.


Steve.
 
Destroying the film or deleting images would be criminal damage. Sounds like you met a couple of the bullies who give the rest a bad name :(
 
interesting. I was a couple of weeks back taking some photos round past Garelochead, right across the water from faslane naval base, and I wondered about the implications of that. I had a pretty big zoom lens too, and could make out pretty good detail.

och well, I was in the wifes car, so it will be her they send to guantanamo bay....
 
Steve Smith said:
Yes but just because what you're doing is legal does not mean that you are not going to be harrassed by ignorant officials/officers. Most cases of this which have been reported have ended with an apology being made.

Deleting an image or exposing the film is tampering with evidence which is in itself an illegal act.


Steve.
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't harrasment of any kind (to me anyway) they were all very polite about it and were very chatty! One of their kids did photography AS and so they were rather sympathetic. This is why I am confused! Usually it would be ignorant harrasing officers.

this is why it lead me to think if there is any other reason why -aka Anti-Terror laws etc...

I did offer to give them a copy of the prints when I developed them, but they said that there was no need for them:LOL::bonk:
 
I think you should have pulled out your manual release cable and threatened to press the trigger if they didn't back off. I bet you'd have got a good shot of their MP5 then :D
 
DizMatt said:
Mmmmmm 17-50mm against 9mm....I think they would win
Click to expand...

it would be a different story if I had one of those 19 Grand Sigma Bazooka's/Lens....
 
FruitFlakes said:
I have a feeling they'd mistake it for something that fires rockets. Just a hunch though.
Click to expand...

probably:crying:

although you could stand on the otherside of the square!

or set up a hide like for nature photography:LOL: -in central london? I don't think too many people would notice...
 
lol i love this.

Do the security services honestly believe that anyone is going to be ****ing stupid enough to stand outside an embassy with a whacking great big SLR forthe purposes of terrorism. What the hell are you gonna use it for for gods sake? It's in plain public view all the time...you could just go on Google street view, or look it up on google image search.

What is this stupid paranoia that somehow terrorists might use photos to do something evil. What would a terrorist be able to utilize a snap of a warship/an embassy for? What are they gonna do? Plan where do plant their bombs? Oh please.

It is harassment in my books and i think its totally unacceptable. I think alot of security people are just bored.
 
AleksanderLoesch said:
it would be a different story if I had one of those 19 Grand Sigma Bazooka's/Lens....
Click to expand...

Now the questing is would a point blank 9mm round be able to penetrate the hugely thick (I assume) front element?:LOL:
 
Amp34 said:
Now the questing is would a point blank 9mm round be able to penetrate the hugely thick (I assume) front element?:LOL:
Click to expand...

Well, if theres anyone willing to find out, I will happily owe them a pint!:LOL:
 
FreeloaderJoe said:
lol i love this.

Do the security services honestly believe that anyone is going to be ****ing stupid enough to stand outside an embassy with a whacking great big SLR forthe purposes of terrorism. What the hell are you gonna use it for for gods sake? It's in plain public view all the time...you could just go on Google street view, or look it up on google image search.

What is this stupid paranoia that somehow terrorists might use photos to do something evil. What would a terrorist be able to utilize a snap of a warship/an embassy for? What are they gonna do? Plan where do plant their bombs? Oh please.

It is harassment in my books and i think its totally unacceptable. I think alot of security people are just bored.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, ever heard of hiding in plain sight? ;)

Also, people seem to assume that if someone is taking photos of a building then they are just taking photos of a building. It could be that they are taking photos of people coming and going, making a record of the guards and their placements, times of shift changes etc. Just a thought? :shrug:
 
Hmmm. I can't find it on Google street view with this computer/net connection. :eek:
 
fabs said:
Hmmm, ever heard of hiding in plain sight?
Click to expand...

Yes.

I have heard of a photographer who makes himself 'invisible' when shooting city architecture by wearing a high visibility jacket and mounting his camera on a yellow (surveyor's) tripod.

Because people think he is official, they just ignore him.


Steve.
 
Voyager said:
Hmmm. I can't find it on Google street view with this computer/net connection. :eek:
Click to expand...

Here it is from one side:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en...=3lQnqxRM1jqZgBF0DHPc5g&cbp=12,144.88,,0,-0.6

And another:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en...=3lQnqxRM1jqZgBF0DHPc5g&cbp=12,144.88,,0,-0.6

Silly really its on google earth for all eyes to see, and theres not really anything else you can see unless you go right up to the fence.

[edit] - I feel the need just to post (just in case!) that I am linking to pics of the embassy that are readily available to all on google maps, just to show how silly it is that photographers are being forced to delete photos of the place! Its not for any terrorist-related activity whatsoever!

-But I do understand why there is a need to be careful with photographers around such places!
 
lol, thought I should just add a disclaimer in case I get PC plod knacking on my door.
 
AleksanderLoesch said:
Silly really its on google earth for all eyes to see, and theres not really anything else you can see unless you go right up to the fence.
Click to expand...
It is some time since I've been there so I wonder if the road outside the frontage is pedestrianised now?
 
FreeloaderJoe said:
lol i love this.

Do the security services honestly believe that anyone is going to be ****ing stupid enough to stand outside an embassy with a whacking great big SLR forthe purposes of terrorism. What the hell are you gonna use it for for gods sake? It's in plain public view all the time...you could just go on Google street view, or look it up on google image search.

What is this stupid paranoia that somehow terrorists might use photos to do something evil. What would a terrorist be able to utilize a snap of a warship/an embassy for? What are they gonna do? Plan where do plant their bombs? Oh please.

It is harassment in my books and i think its totally unacceptable. I think alot of security people are just bored.
Click to expand...

However annoying or 'inconvenient' it may seem, it's not harassment at all. They are doing their job. Yes, they probably are bored and humourless but it's not the best assignment in the World let's face it. The guards are there as a psychological and visible deterrent. Of course they're not really looking for the guy with the "whacking great big SLR". The high visibility procedures are more for the guys watching quietly from a parked car or building nearby. It's the appearance of checking. Professional and vigilant.

If the guards were sitting around smoking, laughing and playing cards, it just wouldn't have the same effect. It's about instilling doubt in your opponent(s) and making them nervous, forcing mistakes and such.
 
However annoying or 'inconvenient' it may seem, it's not harassment at all.
Click to expand...

Er..yes it is,

In my experience echoed by other posters, private security guards seem to think they are a cross between Robocop and Judge Dredd , most of them are legally ill informed and go under the mantra of following orders ( where have we heard that before ).

I am sure that the security guards at Treblinka and Auschwitz were ‘ just doing their job, however it does not make it right, legal or morally expectable to be bullied out of your democratic rights. :thumbsdown:

As for terrorist attacks you don’t need to do a reccie with a camera, if we believe the media it’s Mad Mullahs with exploding vests that we should be looking out for, from past experience they are not to worried who they blow up as long as it makes the headlines .
 
You were on public land and not breaking the law this is just another example of Police harassment brought about by these poorly thought out anti terror laws, lets face it if Osama and his mates were going to blow up the embassy they wouldn't stand outside with an SLR or DSLR now would they
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top