An explanation from a security guard on why "you can't take photos here"....

He must be a pervert though.....I mean...who would take photos of a Golden Wonder factory for their own personal use?
 
Most of these situations it is not the fault of the security guard but from poor education regarding such matters. this lies entirely with their employers.

If we were to do a poll in a high street about taking photos, I reckon the majority would say it was against the law. It is only education that we need. These films do highlight the problem but I would like to see a follow up video of where the tog provides evidence to the employers about the law and taking photos and that the employers stance would change because of 'new' education.

Maybe he will get a reward of some snacks for a good deed done.
 
Brilliant - I was waiting for the "you have stop in case you are a terrorist".
 
While you absolutely have the right to stand on public property and photograph almost anything you like (There are exceptions in place for certain govt. installations) I do think that often arguments like this can be somewhat diffused by explaining why you're taking the photograph.

You're not legally required to explain yourself to a security guard of course but we should all try to understand that they have to apply due dilligence when asked to protect a property. If I was a security guard at golden wonder I think I'd approach a photographer to ask why they were photographing such an ugly building. If they reply with "I'm interested in local architecture" or "I'm writing a book on Golden Wonder and the positive impact they've had locally" or whatever sounds reasonably legitimate I as the security guard will be put at ease and can inform $complainant that there's nothing to worry about.

If I approach a photographer who staunchly asserts there rights without providing any explanation (which they have every right to do) I'm likely to consider that they form some form of threat to the company, further if I was not seen to make every effort to convince them to move on and there was a subsequent break-in or similar, my job could be in jeopardy.

Clearly the initial approach of the security guard was wrong, had the approach been more conciliatory in nature this whole conversation could have easily gone differently. Similarly there are plenty of photographers spoiling for a fight, armed with their rights - youtube is full of them.

As a former freelance press photographer I know what its like to get into discussions with security and the police and it was always the case that explaining "why" I was doing something and that I had a legal right to do it was the best way to diffuse any hostility.

Simply stating "This is my right" puts me in mind of so many other sectors of society that cling to rights without accepting any of the accompanying responsibility, we all have a responsibility to make our lives and the lives of the people we interact with a little bit easier.

Although I'm sure I'll get flamed for this post, please consider what I've said next time you're challenged by a florescent jacket. You may get more from being co-operative than combative - even if you are well within your rights.
 
I do agree with you Robert that a simple explanation will in most cases defuse the situation.

This would be my approach. However if then told I can't do it when I am not breaking the law, then it would get my back up and would probably enjoy the argument.
 
hyakuhei said:
While you absolutely have the right to stand on public property and photograph almost anything you like (There are exceptions in place for certain govt. installations) I do think that often arguments like this can be somewhat diffused by explaining why you're taking the photograph.

You're not legally required to explain yourself to a security guard of course but we should all try to understand that they have to apply due dilligence when asked to protect a property. If I was a security guard at golden wonder I think I'd approach a photographer to ask why they were photographing such an ugly building. If they reply with "I'm interested in local architecture" or "I'm writing a book on Golden Wonder and the positive impact they've had locally" or whatever sounds reasonably legitimate I as the security guard will be put at ease and can inform $complainant that there's nothing to worry about.

If I approach a photographer who staunchly asserts there rights without providing any explanation (which they have every right to do) I'm likely to consider that they form some form of threat to the company, further if I was not seen to make every effort to convince them to move on and there was a subsequent break-in or similar, my job could be in jeopardy.

Clearly the initial approach of the security guard was wrong, had the approach been more conciliatory in nature this whole conversation could have easily gone differently. Similarly there are plenty of photographers spoiling for a fight, armed with their rights - youtube is full of them.

As a former freelance press photographer I know what its like to get into discussions with security and the police and it was always the case that explaining "why" I was doing something and that I had a legal right to do it was the best way to diffuse any hostility.

Simply stating "This is my right" puts me in mind of so many other sectors of society that cling to rights without accepting any of the accompanying responsibility, we all have a responsibility to make our lives and the lives of the people we interact with a little bit easier.

Although I'm sure I'll get flamed for this post, please consider what I've said next time you're challenged by a florescent jacket. You may get more from being co-operative than combative - even if you are well within your rights.
Click to expand...

Excellent post Robert, no flaming from me as it's the voice of common sense. I didn't listen to the commentary as I can't abide swearing so I cannot completely comment but looks like another case of a security guard letting down the security industry and a photographer badly representing the majority.
 
hyakuhei said:
Although I'm sure I'll get flamed for this post, please consider what I've said next time you're challenged by a florescent jacket. You may get more from being co-operative than combative - even if you are well within your rights.
Click to expand...

:plus1: An excellent, balanced post Robert.
 
To be honest I agree with Robert. The guy who made the film was obviously looking to bait the security guards. The problem was that they rose to it.

had they simply ignored him, he would have got cold and bored and left within 5 minutes.

He was aksign security for details of 'what law' and would have had a far easier time if he had been able to produce a copy of the memo to the Met Police that was widely circulated explaining to police officers what the law was.

The 'photographers' aim was primarily to get a rise out of the security guards - which he did - and nothing to do with actually taking photos - which he was totally entitled to do.
 
Very funny. Well done for standing your ground and not letting them intimidate you.
 
hyakuhei said:
While you absolutely have the right to stand on public property and photograph almost anything you like (There are exceptions in place for certain govt. installations) I do think that often arguments like this can be somewhat diffused by explaining why you're taking the photograph.

You're not legally required to explain yourself to a security guard of course but we should all try to understand that they have to apply due dilligence when asked to protect a property. If I was a security guard at golden wonder I think I'd approach a photographer to ask why they were photographing such an ugly building. If they reply with "I'm interested in local architecture" or "I'm writing a book on Golden Wonder and the positive impact they've had locally" or whatever sounds reasonably legitimate I as the security guard will be put at ease and can inform $complainant that there's nothing to worry about.

If I approach a photographer who staunchly asserts there rights without providing any explanation (which they have every right to do) I'm likely to consider that they form some form of threat to the company, further if I was not seen to make every effort to convince them to move on and there was a subsequent break-in or similar, my job could be in jeopardy.

Clearly the initial approach of the security guard was wrong, had the approach been more conciliatory in nature this whole conversation could have easily gone differently. Similarly there are plenty of photographers spoiling for a fight, armed with their rights - youtube is full of them.

As a former freelance press photographer I know what its like to get into discussions with security and the police and it was always the case that explaining "why" I was doing something and that I had a legal right to do it was the best way to diffuse any hostility.

Simply stating "This is my right" puts me in mind of so many other sectors of society that cling to rights without accepting any of the accompanying responsibility, we all have a responsibility to make our lives and the lives of the people we interact with a little bit easier.

Although I'm sure I'll get flamed for this post, please consider what I've said next time you're challenged by a florescent jacket. You may get more from being co-operative than combative - even if you are well within your rights.
Click to expand...

I'll plus one this. I think this video was setup with an expected reaction invited. I survey and audit as part of my job, and some of the sites I visit have some very relevant security concerns so approaching or being approached by the 'flourescent jackets' all needs to be managed in a pleasent and positive manner to ensure I can capture relevant images. Sometimes they say no, for no other reason than they are not sure, and you have to accept that.

EDIT: Some of the security I have been approached by have guns. It seems to focus your attention slightly!
 
Last edited:
Why wasn't a photographer videoing me while I was on duty and said:
"If you want to come into the building out of the sleet, I'll take you up to the covered walkway. Pretty nice angle, too."
 
CaelansMummy said:
Ahh aren't scunny folk lovely! :LOL:
Click to expand...

The only scunner in that video was the photographer who went out of his way to belittle two people trying to do their jobs.
 
malo50 said:
The only scunner in that video was the photographer who went out of his way to belittle two people trying to do their jobs.
Click to expand...

I think they managed to belittle themselves without the help of the photographer. An over-inflated sense of their own importance coupled with ignorance of the law is not a good combination for a security guard.
 
No one in that video came away in a good light, photographer or security guard.

I have been in that situation before, but only start playing the 'these are my rights' card after co-operating with the security.
If they turn out to have a chip on their shoulder, then that's fair enough, but don't give them one just so that you can shoot them back down.
 
Tenubracon said:
I think they managed to belittle themselves without the help of the photographer. An over-inflated sense of their own importance coupled with ignorance of the law is not a good combination for a security guard.
Click to expand...

If this had been a police operation, it would have been classed as entrapment, in that the photographer engineered a situation designed to elicit a specific response.

Another thought is, perhaps the security guards training is site specific and the scenario where someone came to photography the factory hadn't occurred to anyone. Whereas security at a more popular tourist attraction may have the requisite knowledge as it's more likely to be photographed. I don't think a knowledge of the law and an over inflated ego s a good combination in a photographer on a mission.
 
Last edited:
malo50 said:
The only scunner in that video was the photographer who went out of his way to belittle two people trying to do their jobs.
Click to expand...

Hmm not quite sure what part of their job description says "if you see someone doing something you don't like - lie out of your ar*e".

It may very well have been engineered but the security guards are idiots.
 
+1 for a great post by Robert (#8). Brilliantly and eloquently put. I know we all have our rights and if we stick to the letter of the law in defending those rights i.e. no explaination or dialogue of what we are doing then people are likely to react the way the guards did.
 
crofter said:
Now where's that walkers factory?
Click to expand...

Theres a Walkers crisp factory in a lovely northern town just down the road from me in Skelmersdale. Anyone that has visited skelmersdale will inform you of its wonder. There are days when you drive down the M58 you can even smell the crisps from your car, heaven! :D
 
malo50 said:
If this had been a police operation, it would have been classed as entrapment, in that the photographer engineered a situation designed to elicit a specific response.
Click to expand...

That's a huge assumption, isn't it? Unless you know something we don't.

malo50 said:
Another thought is, perhaps the security guards training is site specific and the scenario where someone came to photography the factory hadn't occurred to anyone. Whereas security at a more popular tourist attraction may have the requisite knowledge as it's more likely to be photographed.
Click to expand...

They would have been wise to check the law before wading in. A quick internet search would have put them straight. They could then have approached him in a more conciliatory manner, perhaps explaining that whilst they understood they couldn't stop him, they'd appreciate it if he'd be as quick as possible.


malo50 said:
I don't think a knowledge of the law and an over inflated ego s a good combination in a photographer on a mission.
Click to expand...

Agreed! Over inflated egos are never nice.
 
bigrob said:
It may very well have been engineered
Click to expand...
Well that makes everything alright, then, doesn't it.

Makes me wonder how many of these juveniles with video-capable cameras go around until they find a guard that bites, simply for their 15s of exposure on youtube.
Obviously, this forum's vocal minority consensus seems to be that all security staff are brainless grunts, barely capable of writing their own name, and therefore fair game for baiting. Bit like picking on the slow kid at school. Not big or clever. Grow up.

It does annoy me though that we're all looked on as the lowest, when all we're trying to do is stay employed in an over-subscribed field. In a recession.
A good security company trains it's staff well. The property manager/owner often feels the need (over-inflated sense of their own importance?) to try and override this (ignorance of the law?), with the very real threat of requesting that officer be reallocated if they won't comply. This is often a common clause in the contract between the security company and the property, no reason need be given for the request.
 
Last edited:
He was really spoiling for a fight wasnt he?

Such arrogance with an over inflated ego. Especially when he starts taking personal digs at the security guard, shes just trying to do her job.

I agree he engineered the situation, and hes doing nothing to help diffuse the situation, seems like he intentionally went out after reading a few reports and seeing a few videos on youtube and decided he wanted to be in the limelight and be a rights warrior :roll:
 
Tenubracon said:
That's a huge assumption, isn't it? Unless you know something we don't..
Click to expand...

It takes two to tango.

Sometimes the best way to diffuse a situation is to become the hobby bore. Go into minute detail and talk about your hobby until they get really bored and walk away :D
 
Mike

I never suggested it was all right to engineer a situation like this (if it was engineered).

I also stated in direct response to Robert's first post that a conciliatory approach is how I would have handled it.

However the security guards have decided in their own minds that it is against the law to photograph a building belonging to a company. Then they decide to just make it up as they go along & lie lie lie.

On this occasion it does seem as though these security guards (in your own words) are 'brainless grunts' oh yes and did I say lying ones as well.
 
Carter64 said:
all security staff are brainless grunts, barely capable of writing their own name, and therefore fair game for baiting. Bit like picking on the slow kid at school. Not big or clever. Grow up.
Click to expand...

Yes :plus1:

Its this attitude, though I wouldnt go as far as to say its the general consensus of this forum, that causes the vast majority of problems.

Admitted, some of the people I worked with when I was employed in the security sector were extremely dimwitted, but others were proven to be well educated and intelligent. Heck, one guy I worked with had 2 degrees, he just needing the extra work to see him through till he found a better paid job that he had studied for.
 
i think we all agree the security guards where wrong and she just kept backing herself into a corner and got mad when she realised it...... but the photographer is the sort that gives us all a bad name...
 
This is the same video as in this thread:
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=380326

If you look through the channel of the photographer, he does appear to have a genuine interest in uninteresting buildings around his home town. There is one other video where there's a confrontation with security, which is not as confrontational until a second officer comes out and comes on a lot more strongly, but eventually settles down.

In this one, the conversation starts with the lady declaring that he's not allowed to take photo's. Not even a "Hello, can I help you?"
What would have happened if he'd said "I'm sorry, but you're wrong, it is allowed, and is for an article of the This Is Scunthorpe website"?
Chances are he'd still get the same reply of "Doesn't matter, it's not allowed/it's against the law".

Poor education of staff is no excuse. They could read a newspaper sometime, or just generally make an effort to be aware of what they're allowed to do.
 
Should be settle for unedifying on both sides?
 
Well, I for one didnt exactly know the laws surrounding photography and what was allowed and what wasnt until I started getting more involved in it.

Is it that reasonable to expect every security guard out there to know all the laws? Presuming of course that they have no interest in photography. Not even police get it right all of the time, and their level of training far surpasses the quality of training security guards such as these get.

When I did similar roles, I suppose the easiest way to describe it would be "Only let in people who are meant to be here, get rid of anyone who looks dodgy just incase".
 
KIPAX said:
i think we all agree the security guards where wrong and she just kept backing herself into a corner and got mad when she realised it...... but the photographer is the sort that gives us all a bad name...
Click to expand...

A BIG :plus1: to that, yeah we all know in this instance the security guards were so far off the mark not even a sat nav could have got them back on course, but in this instance in my mind it's the photography that was morally wrong, he clearly went out with the sole intention of baiting a security guard into confronting him, his attitude stank, part of me hopes he's a member here so that he can see this post and those above to show that far from him getting the support of the photographic community he can see that he is the very worst part of it and one that we really could do without :shake:

Matt
MWHCVT
 
Carter64 said:
Well that makes everything alright, then, doesn't it.

Makes me wonder how many of these juveniles with video-capable cameras go around until they find a guard that bites, simply for their 15s of exposure on youtube.
Obviously, this forum's vocal minority consensus seems to be that all security staff are brainless grunts, barely capable of writing their own name, and therefore fair game for baiting. Bit like picking on the slow kid at school. Not big or clever. Grow up.

It does annoy me though that we're all looked on as the lowest, when all we're trying to do is stay employed in an over-subscribed field. In a recession.
A good security company trains it's staff well. The property manager/owner often feels the need (over-inflated sense of their own importance?) to try and override this (ignorance of the law?), with the very real threat of requesting that officer be reallocated if they won't comply. This is often a common clause in the contract between the security company and the property, no reason need be given for the request.
Click to expand...

It's a bit much claiming that the security guards were being picked on! They were they ones trying to stop someone doing something they're perfectly entitled to do, and using threats too! If they ended up looking foolish, it's their own faults. Yes, they might be under pressure from management, but if a guard knows the law, he/she can explain it to the manager in situations like this, surely?
Of course, there's good and bad security guards, as in any job, and clearly there's good and bad training, too. In any situation like this, acting like a barrack room lawyer, as the photographer did here, is rarely the best approach. However, I can fully understand the frustration people feel in these situations, particualrly when you know the law better than those claiming to be enforcing it!
 
bigrob said:
Should be settle for unedifying on both sides?
Click to expand...
Fair do's. :)
I've usually kept quiet generally on this type of far too often trotted out 'amusing' video. I just thought it was getting a little tired now, and time to say something to balance.


BTW, I operate PSS (Public Space Surveillance) CCTV too. Shame I can't show any 'amusing' ones, but I'm bound by laws (and a sense of decorum).
Joe's making complete dick's of themselves on a daily basis.
 
If he had of produced the memo, they would have simply screwed it up and thrown it on the floor, or worse, "at him".
Hodders said:
To be honest I agree with Robert. The guy who made the film was obviously looking to bait the security guards. The problem was that they rose to it.

had they simply ignored him, he would have got cold and bored and left within 5 minutes.

He was aksign security for details of 'what law' and would have had a far easier time if he had been able to produce a copy of the memo to the Met Police that was widely circulated explaining to police officers what the law was.

The 'photographers' aim was primarily to get a rise out of the security guards - which he did - and nothing to do with actually taking photos - which he was totally entitled to do.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top