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

andy700 said:
I think the point is, that you have based your argument entirely on a different set of factors.
It was a public road and the security guards were aware of that.
You then mention the "personal insult" by the photographer (which was?), and totally ignore the swearing, and personal insults by the security guards.
You then talk about the photographer "baiting" the guards, despite the fact that the photographer has been taking these type of photographs for a few years, and more importantly, it was the security guards who were offensive (and in the wrong) before the photographer had even spoken.
Click to expand...

Andy, for clarity.

1. I made a statement concerning a doubt I had - hence the "if". It is not an argument - it was an observation which if it had been a private road on a private industrial estate would have completely negated the togs case for defending his "rights" because Landowners have rights too.

2. The photographers insult to the female security guard? - you haven't watched all the clip then?

3. There is no excuse for the way the security guards behaved - I have never said that - they were out of order.

4. Neither side comes out smelling of roses.

5. The photographer went there looking for conflict - and unsurprisingly, like shooting fish in a barrel, he got a result. Nothing to be proud of there.

Not all security guards are numpties and not all photographers are angels either.

We have a very modern shopping centre locally where there is a large and clearly visible "NO PHOTOGRAPHY" sign at the entrance doors to the private land.

Most togs ignore it and plead ignorance when challenged saying "We didn't see the sign" - are such photographers "numpties" as well?

It seems to me some togs are selectively and deliberately ignorant on such matters when they want to be and if it suits them at them the time.

I'm not defending the security guards but neither will I defend hypocritical togs who deliberately ignore other peoples rights as well.

"Rights" is a double edged sword for everyone.

If we demand our rights are protected it is only fair to respect all aspects of it and not just choose when to apply it because it suits our needs of the moment.
 
Llamaman said:
I think you may be confusing public right of way with public access - they are NOT the same thing.

Public right of way means that you have a legal right of access, which the land owner cannot legally refuse or obstruct. This would also allow you to take photographs.

Public access purely means that the owner permits general access to the public. The landowner DOES have the right to refuse access, which would also include the right to refuse photography.

Note though, that if land is public access, normal traffic rules apply - even though it is NOT a public right of way. This means that if you drive like Nicki Lauder round the car park of Tesco, the police can still give you a ticket.

As I said before, Canary Wharf is public access, NOT public right of way. The landowners can, and do, restrict access (hence the security gates) and can, and do, ask people to leave. You have no legal right of access to the estate, and the owners can impose restrictions or limitations as the see fit.
Click to expand...


Your right to a point Im sure, I do Know this however. I'm not confusing them, just not splinting them into classes because the area kind smears all the usual classifications as its so massively diverse public wise. Like it includes peoples homes, shops, restaurants and many other public amenities open to all Londoners, its as much an asset to London like say other tourist attractions for example, not just business, that although it is public access it also falls under a quasi-public kinda right of way.

So although the &ankers can impose restictions they are also 'under obligation' to treat the general public in the same way as the rest of London. The roads, paths and walkways are all part of London's working life/business and are public use law wise, governed by The London Borough of Tower Hamlets, Highway Authority.

Ive found this planning permission application . From Canary Estate to LBTH ..it clearly states the purpose of placing parking bays on the public highway.

.
 
Last edited:
rhody said:
Andy, for clarity.

1. I made a statement concerning a doubt I had - hence the "if". It is not an argument - it was an observation which if it had been a private road on a private industrial estate would have completely negated the togs case for defending his "rights" because Landowners have rights too.

2. The photographers insult to the female security guard? - you haven't watched all the clip then?

3. There is no excuse for the way the security guards behaved - I have never said that - they were out of order.

4. Neither side comes out smelling of roses.

5. The photographer went there looking for conflict - and unsurprisingly, like shooting fish in a barrel, he got a result. Nothing to be proud of there.

Not all security guards are numpties and not all photographers are angels either.

We have a very modern shopping centre locally where there is a large and clearly visible "NO PHOTOGRAPHY" sign at the entrance doors to the private land.

Most togs ignore it and plead ignorance when challenged saying "We didn't see the sign" - are such photographers "numpties" as well?

It seems to me some togs are selectively and deliberately ignorant on such matters when they want to be and if it suits them at them the time.

I'm not defending the security guards but neither will I defend hypocritical togs who deliberately ignore other peoples rights as well.

"Rights" is a double edged sword for everyone.

If we demand our rights are protected it is only fair to respect all aspects of it and not just choose when to apply it because it suits our needs of the moment.
Click to expand...

Point one I will ignore, because it is not relevant to this particular case, and "if" has no place where facts are present.

Point two, I did say in brackets "(which was)", and I did watch the whole clip, because I reckon in comparison to the security guards, the photographer could not be described as insulting.

Point three I totally agree with.

Point four, the photographer has done nothing wrong, is totally in the right, and has remained calm throughout, so he has done himself a lot of credit in the face of substantial abuse and lies.

Point five, I totally disagree with you, because if you researched the photographer, this is what he does, he photographs the changing face of Scunthorpe.

The rest of your post about a shopping centre with a "no photography" sign is totally irrelevant to this case, as is you final comment about rights, particularly as it was the rights of the photographer which were being wrongly challenged in this case.
As for "hypocritical togs", I never saw any in evidence here, the only hypocrits are the ones supporting the security guards acting outside the law.
 
Someone needs a smoke and a pancake!!!! :wacky:
 
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)
Click to expand...

Hmm yes , I had an issue with that in Grosvenor Square once.. some pretty building with a big golden eagle on the top of it.... and then some pointy things that looked like they may contain bullets.:LOL::LOL:



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...

Basically the tog was a tit and so were the security guards. He was within his rights to photograph from public land, but seriously why would you want to (other than trying to cause hassle!)
 
I used to work as security for the ministry of defence. It was a tough job and security really had to be tight for that reason alone. Everyone including us had to be cleared to the uk nato level & sign the official secrets act to even get passed the gates. Now if someone was spotted taking pictures outside our gates, for a security point of view alarm bells would be ringing and we would start to get very concerend as to who it is and why they were taking those pictures. If not because the place we were working had many bomb threats and was also a possible target for terrorists, we would be well within our rights to walk out and question that person. If he did the same thing in being deliberatly secretive and waving his rights card, we would call the police and have them explain that the site is a government ministry of defence property and unless he had a good reason of taking the pictures and continued to take them after being advised not to by the police, he could fall under suspicion of breaching national security and being carted away in a meat wagon.
 
Last edited:
archamedes said:
I used to work as security for the ministry of defence. It was a tough job and security really had to be tight for that reason alone. Everyone including us had to be cleared to the uk nato level & sign the official secrets act to even get passed the gates. Now if someone was spotted taking pictures outside our gates, for a security point of view alarm bells would be ringing and we would start to get very concerend as to who it is and why they were taking those pictures. If not because the place we were working had many bomb threats and was also a possible target for terrorists, we would be well within our rights to walk out and question that person. If he did the same thing in being deliberatly secretive and waving his rights card, we would call the police and have them explain that the site is a government ministry of defence property and unless he had a good reason of taking the pictures and continued to take them after being advised not to by the police, he could fall under suspicion of breaching national security and being carted away in a meat wagon.
Click to expand...

Yup

But this was golden wonder so that's all largely irrelevant
 
Lynton said:
Hmm yes , I had an issue with that in Grosvenor Square once.. some pretty building with a big golden eagle on the top of it.... and then some pointy things that looked like they may contain bullets.:LOL::LOL:

Basically the tog was a tit and so were the security guards. He was within his rights to photograph from public land, but seriously why would you want to (other than trying to cause hassle!)
Click to expand...

I think that's a really fair summary, no one came out of it well.
 
Last edited:
Forbiddenbiker said:
You may be right from one perspective Im sure. But, :D The definition of a highway is : A highway is any public road. In American English, the term is common and almost always designates major roads. In British English, the term (which is not particularly common) designates any road open to the public.

The whole area is open to the public, hence it is a public highway.
Click to expand...

only if its freely open to the public by right - if its open to the public by permission then it isnt a public highway or indeed a public place and the landowner can put more or less any restrictions on usage and access that they wish.

the conclusive proof of this would be to ask the relevant local authority if its on their 'list of streets' (that is the definitive list of highways maintained bty them) if it is then its a public highway - if it not it isnt (it could still be a public right of way in which case it would be on the definitive map (maintained by the PRoW team) probanbly as a by way if vehicular traffic is allowed but even if it is a PRoW the points above about photography would still apply.

being on googler streetview isnt conclusive - all that means is the google van was able to drive down there and the owner didnt object
 
Llamaman said:
Public right of way means that you have a legal right of access, which the land owner cannot legally refuse or obstruct. This would also allow you to take photographs..
Click to expand...

no it wouldnt - as i said before all that being a public right of way gives you is the right to freely pass and repass, it does not confer any other right including the right to take photographs - you are still (usually) on private land and doing anything other than passing a repassing by means allowed by the designation (ie on foot on footpaths, on foot, horse or cycle on bridle paths, as above but also horse drawn carriages with fewer than 6 wheels on restricted byway, and as above but also in a motorised vehhicle on a byway) commits an act of trespass against the landowner.

Trust me I was a rights of way officer for over 5 years and the issue about what rights a PRoW confers came up a lot.

To have the automatic right to take photos you would have to be on public land (which includes publicly maintained highway as on the list of streets but not public rights of way ).
 
I guess this also applies to taking a leak playing ball games and any other form of activity other than walking through. Does make sense though
 
big soft moose said:
The conclusive proof of this would be to ask the relevant local authority if its on their 'list of streets' (that is the definitive list of highways maintained bty them) if it is then its a public highway - if it not it isnt (it could still be a public right of way in which case it would be on the definitive map (maintained by the PRoW team) probanbly as a by way if vehicular traffic is allowed but even if it is a PRoW the points above about photography would still apply.

...
Click to expand...

Forbiddenbiker said:
.....So although the &ankers can impose restrictions they are also 'under obligation' to treat the general public in the same way as the rest of London. The roads, paths and walkways are all part of London's working life/business and are public use law wise, governed by The London Borough of Tower Hamlets, Highway Authority.

Ive found this planning permission application . From Canary Estate to LBTH ..it clearly states the purpose of placing parking bays on the public highway.

.
Click to expand...

Note the wording of the second numbered paragraph on the application letter.
Seems pretty conclusive if canary Wharf estates themselves, refer to the their own roads, as public highways.
 
Last edited:
But 'Public Highway' does not automatically mean publicly owned. As per the dictionary definition posted earlier, it only means 'open to the public', which would just as validly describe private land with public access. And as has been explained ad infinitum, private land gives the landowner substantial rights to restrict access.

Ask yourself this - if the roads were owned and managed by the council, why on earth would the estate owners be allowed to erect permanent security gates to enable them to close off the road? Obstructing Her Majesty's Highway is an offence!
 
Llamaman said:
But 'Public Highway' does not automatically mean publicly owned. As per the dictionary definition posted earlier, it only means 'open to the public', which would just as validly describe private land with public access. And as has been explained ad infinitum, private land gives the landowner substantial rights to restrict access.

Ask yourself this - if the roads were owned and managed by the council, why on earth would the estate owners be allowed to erect permanent security gates to enable them to close off the road? Obstructing Her Majesty's Highway is an offence!
Click to expand...

Did I say the roads where publicly owned, or owned by the council?

No, I didn't.

Where did you want me to go in discussing this, cos I've lost your track of thought?

We all know the land is private, the debate we started is ( From a photography perspective) whether it is or not its public highway or not?


:shrug:
 
Last edited:
During the 2010 election campaign, as a student I managed to tag along with the press and photographed Gordon Brown (boo). I was approached by a member of security, and i explained who i was expecting a dam good thrashing and she conversed with someone else and they allowed me to stay.... Got some cracking shots of a man with so much power yet so helpless. (no I dint like him), but alas the thrill of it all was erm...... thrilling.
Also i had to borrow someone's canon EOS 450D (I had deadlines to complete work, including 20 prints in the darkroom for my project) and my god, its one of the most pathetic, useless pieces of camera junk i have ever had the pleasure of using in my life. i have used many cameras over the past 12 years but not many cameras compared to that. (I suppose the man i was shooting was as good a PM as the camera was at taking pics)
Personally, i take the view of, try, push your luck, be polite, and if that fails leave it, there's always going to be another shot around the corner.
I once moved a wheelie bin out of a shot i had found (not far 3-4 feet) shot it, as I came back (to undo my actions) this nun was approaching me questioning me (I thought her demands where reasonable, just explained but she was still quite irritated/ abrupt, i apologised but at the end of the day i got the shot, what she thought, i could not give a ----.
But people i find are getting more paranoid, and to me ought to get more of a life/ open up their eyes.
Motorways are a prime example, how many people push in or cut you up for no reason, i often think i should do a project on my observations, to make people think.
One thing that I do find interesting, remember the incident on the train when a young man got thrown of a train for no ticket. well if we (assuming we all have a DSLR/ camera of sorts) photographed the incident, what's betting the man with the DSLR would get prosecuted over the man with a camera phone? remember stations/ trains/ railways are private property.
 
Lecina said:
if we (assuming we all have a DSLR/ camera of sorts) photographed the incident, what's betting the man with the DSLR would get prosecuted over the man with a camera phone? remember stations/ trains/ railways are private property.
Click to expand...
Prosecuted for what, exactly? And by whom?
 
The photographer did and should get annoyed and outraged. If some one comes up to me and says I cant walk down the street smiling ( I often do that .. ) for no other reason than they have some bolshy attitude and think I am gonna roll over.. They canF*&&^%^&^&^%&^% off! If they persist I'll press on until my point is made. end of!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top