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

bigrob said:
I think the chap knew he was on public land.
Click to expand...

That is a very dangerous assumption to make and whether the land is indeed private or public is a key factor in this issue.

If the photographer was not on a public highway, his whole reason for indignation falls apart and he would have made and engineered a fuss over nothing.

Instead of criticizing others he would only have highlighted his own failings and lack of knowledge.

If he was on a public highway - fine, righteous indignation prevails.

If he is on private land (without realizing it) - he can be asked to leave and told to move on by security staff and his sense of righteous indignation is totally misplaced.

My point is that his whole case hinges on whether the land is a public highway or not and there are many industrial estates that are not.

And there are thousands of photographers who see a pavement and think it is a public highway.

It is not that clear and on this one, I have my doubts.

I don't know the area but Google satellite raises big doubts in my mind.

Let's just say I wouldn't go out on a limb to assume his is 100% correct and defend his stance on the basis of what I've seen in the clip and if I wanted to shoot some industrial images on a private industrial park - I would ask first.

It is a very dangerous assumption to see a pavement and assume it is a public highway.
 
malo50 said:
I don't think you're hijacking, I think it just shows that security have other things to think about than someone taking photos.
I get the impression that the guy who took the original video is sitting nekked in a bean bag somewhere watching his video and rubbing his cheesy whotsit.
Click to expand...

PMSL - coffee spat all over the keyboard with that mental image
 
Jonathan Shl said:
So it is probably a public road until proven otherwise.
Click to expand...

The person who made the film is confident that it is in his mind but as it is key to his case there is more than a reasonable doubt that it isn't.

In which case the whole "reason" for creating the fuss falls apart and the photographer has only demonstrated his failings and lack of knowledge on the matter.

The onus is on the photographer to prove it is a public road as he is the one making the fuss.

How would people feel if it does prove to be a private road and the photographer was indeed in the wrong?

That doubt cannot be ignored as it is the keystone of his case.

If it is a private road - his "case" evaporates into nothing and he will look very silly indeed.
 
The security staff do say in the video that it's public, and certainly not owned by Golden Wonder.

Even if it does turn out to be a private road, it still doesn't make it against "the law", just against company policy, and it doesn't excuse the swearing, threats, and unprofessional attitude of the security staff.
 
HMansfield said:
Even if it does turn out to be a private road, it still doesn't make it against "the law".
Click to expand...

Trespass if you do not have permission to be there, permission that can be removed even if it is open to the public.

If it turns out to be private property, then the security guards are well within their rights to ask the guy to stop and leave. Same as train stations / shopping centres etc. they're all private property and owners / security guards are within their rights to ask you to leave immediately.
 
So why don't they say that, instead of "it's against the law to take photographs"?

And even if that were true, AND they asked him to leave in the proper manner, they STILL DON'T have any authority to tell him to delete them.

All these "what ifs" mean nothing though. Both parties in the video agree that the street is public and not under the juristiction of the Wotsit Luftwaffe.
 
Interesting, so many threads on here about photographers rights and stand your ground don't be bullied by security guards, yet this bloke is getting a real bashing. Maybe he had had trouble before so wanted to show what they were like. The flip side is that I don't envy security guards their jobs, like so many things many judge on the one bad interaction they have had.
 
I just had to chuckle throughout that video because this photographer has such a fantastic salt-of-the-earth accent. :D

I agree with Robert that conflict resolution is far better than engaging with a security employee on this level and it did have an element of baiting about it. It is a terrible irritant for people to counter authority with a plea of "tell me what law says that". I would be interested to know if that photographer was able to quote the statute that indicates it would be illegal for someone to thump him upside the head, or the Act which stops someone from urinating on his front lawn. Catching out a security guard for not knowing their statutory powers is cheap. :nono:
 
No matter who is right and who is wrong, why put yourself in such a position? The security people and photographer will both consider themselves victors of the situation, whilst in fact both parties made fools of themselves. As has been said, if you really need to photograph this building why not just ask and explain your reasons. The OP really needs to consider other togs before getting into this situation, no doubt the security people will now consider ALL togs to be complete idiots.
 
To be perfectly honest, the security guard acknowledged that it was a public road, but by that time had decided on a personal set of rules (rather than the law), to try to dissuade the photographer from taking images.
Yes, the photographer was not backing down, but he was in the right.
Rather than criticise the photographer, it may be good if this video was used as a training example to security guards, showing what they must NOT do when confronted by a situation such as this.
I am also of the opinion that ignorance is no excuse for not knowing the law, particularly in the case of security guards.
The final act of the male security guard could in fact be grounds for disciplinary action or possible dismissal.
 
I think its more than the training thats at fault, security guards areoten just expected to carry out orders without any real justification.

The manager of this plant could have sent them out with the instruction to just get rid of the photographer. Even if they knew what they were doing was wrong, it's better to argue with some numpty with a camera than with the manager (and risk the sack).
As with the recent shopping centre incidents, it's about the management of the centre's rewriting their rules. Nothing to do with the behaviour of security guards, who are just asked to implement the rules.
We really can't expect the security guards to know the law, can we just give this a rest. As someone else said, if someone hit you with a baseball bat would you know what law they were breaking? And if they're just walking seemingly innocently down your street at 9.30 at night? Or driving down your street?

Yes they behaved like numpties, but I'd not be proud to be associated with the photographer either. The photographer was within his rights, but they wer probably just acting on orders.
 
Phil V said:
Yes they behaved like numpties, but I'd not be proud to be associated with the photographer either. .
Click to expand...

This

Although we arent as easy a target as security guards or police Its not unknown for us to get these 'documentary' makers trying to provoke us so that they can get their jollies dissing us on youtube .

I generally file them under lifes too short unless they are majorly out of order (for example we had one earlier this year setting up a tripod in the middle of the coast path and refusing tho move even though the only way round took walkers periously close to the edge - his mate then proceeded to video us moving him on) but i would note that videos can be editted and sometimes these tits are pretty confrontational on opening - which I would guess doesnt make it into the final cut.


My policy however is that we'll be unceasingly polite and not give them the satisfaction of geting arsey whatever they say to us, for example the one i mentioned above went pretty much like this

Me : scuse me Sir, could you move your tripod as you're blocking the path

him: are you saying I can't take photos here ?

Me: no sir, I'm saying you need to move your tripod as you're endangering other walkers by blocking that path

him: so you're saying i cant take pictures of this view ?

Me no sir I'm saying that you're blocking the path, I'm more than happy for you to take pictures of the view so long as everyone stays safe while you are doing it

him: so your saying i can't take pictures here, I know my rights (etc)

me : I apreciate that sir, and i agree you have a prefect right to take photos of that view, but you don't have the right to block a public right of way so could you please move your tripod

Him so you're saying I cant take pictures ?

Me: no sir, I'm saying you can't block the path while doing so, i'd be happy to show you other locations where you could take the pictures without blocking the path

And so on, for about twenty minutes (he moved in the end)

Its quite clear that these sad onananists were after a youtube video of " Ranger abuses photographers rights" but they picked the wrong location and the wrong guy

As applied to the situation in the OP , yes of course the security guards were in the wrong too, but what credit attaches to the photographer for going looking for a confrontation ? is he really furthering photographers rights , or just perpetuating a sterotype of photographers as assholes
 
Last edited:
spaniel said:
No matter who is right and who is wrong, why put yourself in such a position? The security people and photographer will both consider themselves victors of the situation, whilst in fact both parties made fools of themselves. As has been said, if you really need to photograph this building why not just ask and explain your reasons. The OP really needs to consider other togs before getting into this situation, no doubt the security people will now consider ALL togs to be complete idiots.
Click to expand...

The issue is that the security guard decided to start spouting the law, which was wrong. They are employed to secure the property, not the pavement outside the property. They are employed to know the law and thier rihts - that's the point of their job.

The photographer was being provocatively arsey... he did however miss out on a trick - that is the CCTV cameras that more than likely cover the pavement
 
spaniel said:
No matter who is right and who is wrong, why put yourself in such a position? no doubt the security people will now consider ALL togs to be complete idiots.
Click to expand...

The reason to "Put yourself in such a position" would be to stop photographers rights from being further eroded I would have thought, this will affect all photographers in the long run, not just people who are interested in street photography. If it were to become accepted that you weren't allowed to use a camera to photograph a building from a public highway it's a very short step to camera's being forbidden to be used anywhere on the public highway.

Not so long ago innocent photographers were being threatened with arrest under anti terrorist laws by the police in London. After demonstrations by photographers showing the ridiculousness of this (especially when you consider the amounts of tourists wandering around snapping away) the police were issued with new guidelines. Maybe the next logical step is to get those last few people in the security industry to realise that not everyone with a camera is up to no good. If nothing else those security guards at GW might go away & look it up on "T'net" & get their facts right before they go quoting non existant laws as if they were gospel.
The woman was just furious that the snapper wouldn't obey her orders as much as anything else by the look of things.

As has been pointed out many times on other threads it would be highly unlikely that anyone who was up to something would stand out in full view with a camera snapping away, there are just too many miniture spy cams in the gadget shops that are cheap to buy.

Stew.
 
chimper said:
The reason to "Put yourself in such a position" would be to stop photographers rights from being further eroded I would have thought,.
Click to expand...

So he is our champion then?

nagh I am still going with ******* :)


OMG I cant believe thats on the edit list? seriously?.. even my gran wouldnt flinch at that :)
 
Last edited:
chimper said:
The reason to "Put yourself in such a position" would be to stop photographers rights from being further eroded I would have thought, this will affect all photographers in the long run, not just people who are interested in street photography. If it were to become accepted that you weren't allowed to use a camera to photograph a building from a public highway it's a very short step to camera's being forbidden to be used anywhere on the public highway.

Not so long ago innocent photographers were being threatened with arrest under anti terrorist laws by the police in London. After demonstrations by photographers showing the ridiculousness of this (especially when you consider the amounts of tourists wandering around snapping away) the police were issued with new guidelines. Maybe the next logical step is to get those last few people in the security industry to realise that not everyone with a camera is up to no good. If nothing else those security guards at GW might go away & look it up on "T'net" & get their facts right before they go quoting non existant laws as if they were gospel.
The woman was just furious that the snapper wouldn't obey her orders as much as anything else by the look of things.

As has been pointed out many times on other threads it would be highly unlikely that anyone who was up to something would stand out in full view with a camera snapping away, there are just too many miniture spy cams in the gadget shops that are cheap to buy.

Stew.
Click to expand...

You do realise that there is no such thing as "photographers rights" just because we are holding a camera doesn't make us any more or less than any other member of the public
 
I liv in London and have spend work and leisure time in both the City and Canary Wharf. I have seen guards telling folks not to take pics and moving them along.
As was said earlier, some common sense need to be applied. If the photo being taken is of a family posing near a fountain it is somewhat different to say taking an image of the security layout, i'm sure many on here have tried explaining that to our security friends
 
A few people on here in this thread have asked has this photographer in the youtube vid done us as photographers any good?? well I hve just seen this on a bike forum i am on and to be fair they pull no punches with what they say and in a few posts this is the way they see it.

Security guards = low paid people in a job that they more than likely need more than want and will do what ever they are told by the boss.

Photographer= t**t

Like said they say it like it is. a few on there are togs aswell so said more or less what we did but the majority said above.

so there you have it he has done us as togs no favours at all.


spike
 
MWHCVT said:
You do realise that there is no such thing as "photographers rights" just because we are holding a camera doesn't make us any more or less than any other member of the public
Click to expand...

Quite right. So how would you feel if the security guards had come out & said to you "move along please we don't want you standing there looking at our building"? if you did't even have a camera with you.
 
jon ryan said:
Umm, I don't think UK security guards are allowed to carry guns.
Click to expand...

Try driving up to an Army camp, Airbase or Naval dockyard and you'll see plenty of weapons in evidence :)

And yes, they are security guards - they're on guard duty.
 
KIPAX said:
So he is our champion then?

nagh I am still going with ******* :)


OMG I cant believe thats on the edit list? seriously?.. even my gran wouldnt flinch at that :)
Click to expand...

Well I think somebody has to stand against all this nonsense.

The way some photographers are agressive and carry on when confronted is not the way I'd do it personally but I didn't think he was particularly rude, just fairly forcefull that he wasn't going to be bullied off.

(I really want to know what you typed there that was deleted) :LOL:
 
chimper said:
Quite right. So how would you feel if the security guards had come out & said to you "move along please we don't want you standing there looking at our building"? if you did't even have a camera with you.
Click to expand...

I would explain why I wanted to take a photo or look at a building, the photographer featured in this video did nothing to further the cause of photography, all he did was antagonise security guards, it clear that the video been edited, what else was said that the guy didn't want shown, he made no effort to explain what he wanted to do, maybe if he had said look this is what I want to do etc he might not have had the problem, he did nothing to defuse the situation...

I do loads of light trails, a good 50% of the time that I'm out doing light trails I will be asked questions by the police, I've never had any issues from them and I've always been able to continue taking photo's (y)

Matt
 
Richard King said:
They are employed to know the law and thier rihts - that's the point of their job.
Click to expand...

No they are not. The are employed to protect the building etc. Knowing the law has nothing to do with their job. All they need to know is that they can use reasonable force, when necessary, to eject trespassers etc, just like any other person.

The police are there to know and enforce the law, and they don't know them all by heart.
 
Bristolian said:
Try driving up to an Army camp, Airbase or Naval dockyard and you'll see plenty of weapons in evidence :)

And yes, they are security guards - they're on guard duty.
Click to expand...

Pedant! :p I'm going to tell the next bored squaddie on stag with an SA 80 that I see about this bloke in Bristol who called him a security guard...
 
chimper said:
Well I think somebody has to stand against all this nonsense.

The way some photographers are agressive and carry on when confronted is not the way I'd do it personally but I didn't think he was particularly rude, just fairly forcefull that he wasn't going to be bullied off.

(I really want to know what you typed there that was deleted) :LOL:
Click to expand...

I agree Stew, although he may come across as a bit of a stubborn character, he did not shout at or threaten them, and was simply consistent in his correct interpretation of the law. In fact it was his reluctance to comply with the security guards "orders" (which had no justification), which further enraged the female security guard.
 
Looks like they've both resigned.

Their statement is:

"Golden Wonder Ltd has been made aware of the video on various sites of the Internet. The security team at the Golden Wonder facility are not employees of the company this service is provided by Kingdom Security Ltd. As a matter of urgency, we have asked Kingdom Security to conduct a full investigation into this incident with those employees involved and to take any appropriate action"

I'm with the photographer, he's brilliant! (y)

EDIT - His site: http://www.visitscunthorpe.com/ScunthorpeNews/headline/Golden-Wonder-Security
 
Last edited:
MWHCVT said:
I would explain why I wanted to take a photo or look at a building, the photographer featured in this video did nothing to further the cause of photography, all he did was antagonise security guards, it clear that the video been edited, what else was said that the guy didn't want shown, he made no effort to explain what he wanted to do, maybe if he had said look this is what I want to do etc he might not have had the problem, he did nothing to defuse the situation...

I do loads of light trails, a good 50% of the time that I'm out doing light trails I will be asked questions by the police, I've never had any issues from them and I've always been able to continue taking photo's (y)

Matt
Click to expand...

Have you got any proof that anything was edited "that the guy didn't want shown"? And as for him antagonising the security guards maybe if they'd approached him a little differently to start with it would have taken a different course.

In my time I've only been approached a couple of times by people wanting to know why I was taking photos, both times politely & I responded politely. Politeness is a two way street if you want it, first give it! :)
 
Ploddles said:
No they are not. The are employed to protect the building etc. Knowing the law has nothing to do with their job. All they need to know is that they can use reasonable force, when necessary, to eject trespassers etc, just like any other person.

The police are there to know and enforce the law, and they don't know them all by heart.
Click to expand...

I would disrgree, they should certainly know the laws that affect their job and how they perform it.
 
chimper said:
Have you got any proof that anything was edited "that the guy didn't want shown"? And as for him antagonising the security guards maybe if they'd approached him a little differently to start with it would have taken a different course.

In my time I've only been approached a couple of times by people wanting to know why I was taking photos, both times politely & I responded politely. Politeness is a two way street if you want it, first give it! :)
Click to expand...

Well I spotted at least 1 break in the footage, so clearly this is not SOOC footage, if the guy wanted to shot exactly what happened he would put up SOOC footage, I've checked up on previous stuff relating to the video and it's producer, he has a previous record of this kind of thing, that makes me suspicious, it makes me think that he goes out looking for a confrontation, he effectively called the guard thick part way through this video...

I can admit I think the behaviour of the guards was inept at best to completely abhorrent, but frankly they were not the only parties at fault here and you don't seem to be able to accept this :thinking: you went outside Golden Wonder were you :cautious:

Matt
 
chimper said:
Well I think somebody has to stand against all this nonsense.

The way some photographers are agressive and carry on when confronted is not the way I'd do it personally but I didn't think he was particularly rude, just fairly forcefull that he wasn't going to be bullied off.

(I really want to know what you typed there that was deleted) :LOL:
Click to expand...

Can we try and get a sense of perspective here, please? Someone has been hassled while trying to take a picture of a factory. It's not exactly Tianneman Square is it?
 
malo50 said:
Can we try and get a sense of perspective here, please? Someone has been hassled while trying to take a picture of a factory. It's not exactly Tianneman Square is it?
Click to expand...

Quite

and as i said above the W anchors go looking for a confrontation so its not that suprising that they find one periodically

I bet he doesnt put other videos of circumstances where the guards etc do know the law and are charming and polite - so its hardly objective documentary making
 
MWHCVT said:
Well I spotted at least 1 break in the footage, so clearly this is not SOOC footage, if the guy wanted to shot exactly what happened he would put up SOOC footage, I've checked up on previous stuff relating to the video and it's producer, he has a previous record of this kind of thing, that makes me suspicious, it makes me think that he goes out looking for a confrontation, he effectively called the guard thick part way through this video...

I can admit I think the behaviour of the guards was inept at best to completely abhorrent, but frankly they were not the only parties at fault here and you don't seem to be able to accept this :thinking: you went outside Golden Wonder were you :cautious:

Matt
Click to expand...

Oh well if you spotted a break in the footage that's convinced me then.:wacky:
The guards actually swore at him & made up the law to suit their argument (not effectively) if anything I would say it's you who seem unable to accept this. And let me get this right are you saying you suspect I was the man outside the GW factory? I'm looking for a smiley using 1 hand doing something beginning with "W" to describe you but can't find one.
 
malo50 said:
Can we try and get a sense of perspective here, please? Someone has been hassled while trying to take a picture of a factory. It's not exactly Tianneman Square is it?
Click to expand...

I think the only one who's mentioned Tianneman Square here is you.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top