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

[mr_v_s]

There was no need for the Guards to even come out and question the photographer.
He was going about his lawful business of taking photographs, and required no permission.
If they thought he was doing something illegal on public property, they could have called the police, but they had no authority to do anything themselves.
If they have been sacked, they brought it upon themselves, however I feel that sacking was unnecessary, and some instruction was all that was required.

I think the problem is the nature of the opening gambit which was:

"You're not supposed to take photos....you're not allowed to mate."

I've been approached very rarely by security and when it has happened, their opening gambit approximates: "Who are you/what are you taking photos for?" And there really is no issue at all. If someone (incorrectly) stated that I wasn't able to take a photograph, I'd stand my ground too.

 

[parkmoy]

I don't think it matters whether or not the photographer went looking for confrontation with the security guards. What is important is what actually happened. He was challenged when he was doing something completely legal. Not only that, but security tried to bully him into stopping, they were abusive, and lied to him. He remained polite throughout. Had he avoided confrontation as has been suggested, and walked away, it would only have reinforced the attitude and beliefs of those security guards. I'd like to bet that the next truly 'innocent' photographer to come along would have received even more brusque treatment because of that. Yes, I understand that a lot are badly trained (if at all), poorly paid, and are only doing what someone in charge tells them to do, but that doesn't make it right. Tough times or not, they are rightly out of a job, I doubt that any amount of training could have changed their underlying disagreeable attitudes.

It isn't really about being a photographer either. It's about our rights as ordinary citizens to go about our business unhindered, providing we are not breaking the law. We should not have to accept being challenged by people employed as private security guards, unless we are on private property controlled by them, and hopefully the industry will use this video as a training example in 'how not to do it'.

Would I go out to deliberately provoke a reaction from security guards? No, I've better things to do, but if it happened when I was going about my lawful business I would definitely stand my ground and politely but firmly refuse to be intimidated by the tactics that these two used.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The buffoon with the camera went out of his way to cause a situation, a senseless one involving a crisp factory. Due to his actions two people are out of work, in very tough times, he should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.

Though I doubt that very much. He will probably be bulled up for standing up for photographers rights, whatever that exactly means?

It is not buffoonery for a photographer to go out and take shots of his surroundings. Especially when it was normal for him to supply such shots to his local interest online magazine.

There was no reason for him to suppose that anyone would react in the way these guards did. There was no reason for them to get involved at all.

It will be as sad day indeed if Photographers are intimidated from taking shots in public, on the off-chance that some person will try to illegally obstruct them from doing so.

At no time did he approach or berate the guards, they approached and berated him.

 

[graphilly]

Looked like he enjoyed the confrontation to me.

 

[fracster]

ohh well got to admit I haven't read further than page 2 (bit busy) but I have found buildings which I'd like to photograph, and have written to the company to ask for permission.

Exactly.
He could have just phoned up, explained who he was and what he wanted to do. He would probably have got a guided tour.

I know he did not legally have to ask them and that he has every right to do what he was doing, but why cause the confrontation in the first place.

And yes, the security guards did not help themselves, neither did the guy with the camera.

 

[mr_v_s]

Exactly.
He could have just phoned up, explained who he was and what he wanted to do. He would probably have got a guided tour.

I know he did not legally have to ask them and that he has every right to do what he was doing, but why cause the confrontation in the first place.

And yes, the security guards did not help themselves, neither did the guy with the camera.

 

[jon ryan]

And for the record the security staff haven't resigned, as was mentioned earlier; they've been summarily dismissed.

Has this been confirmed?

 

[big soft moose]

That's speculation with the benefit of doubt removed - both on whether the edit was made to bias a party and on what else might have happened - you can still witness and identify what was legally correct or uncorrect in the video that we have available.

Not true - because we can see what is in the video - and unless you really think that that the photographer edited so that it appears that the security guards said things or did things that they did not say or do then you cannot deny what the security guards said or did in the video - do you think that such an edit was made?

you can witness what was said on the video - but you can't witness what happened before after or during the editted gaps

The point is that you can't tell whether he set out to provoke or not - so while yes the guards were recorded behaving in an unacceptable manner we don't know what caused them to behave like that because we arent in full possession of the facts

and at the end of the day 'don't know' means 'don't know' and if you are going to insist that the photographer should be given 'the benefit of the doubt' then why not also extend that to the guards ?

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

we're are back to the loss of proportrion thing here - theres no comparrison between being slightly hassled while photographing a crisp factory, and being subject to apertheid due to your skin colour.

It would be equally easy to find examples of trouble makers who were no credit to society , but that comparrison would be equally flawed

Kinda tongue in cheek it was.
... But how about another perspective, like calling the photographer a trouble maker and making it a good reason to belittle his argument, just because he wants to demonstrate some thing he's passionate about, for egotistical reasons or not, is, out of proportion to the real problem he documented.

Honestly I sometimes think we're all so busy trying to behave, we loose sight of when to stand up for ourselves.

:shrug:

 

[big soft moose]

ohh well got to admit I haven't read further than page 2 (bit busy) but I have found buildings which I'd like to photograph, and have written to the company to ask for permission.

Even though I don't need to, it is polite, avoids encounters with security guards and might even result in an offer to have a look around - factory inspections used to be my job, I love seeing round factories

but then I find some people like confrontation

Spot on - somepeople like to argue, and if they go looking for trouble they'll find it , someone like yourself who takes a more reasonable line doesnt find it QED

 

[big soft moose]

Honestly I sometimes think we're all so busy trying to behave, we loose sight of when to stand up for ourselves.

Maybe so - but equally I think people often also lose sight of the fact that just because they've got a 'right' to do something that doesnt automatically make it a good idea to do it.

and equally also of the concept that rights come with responsibilities - in this case yes we have the right to take pictures in public but we also have the responsbility to do so in a sensible way that doesnt upset or offend, which as summer suggests could involve making a courtsey call ahead of time (you don't even have to ask, just a courtesy call to say you are going to be there would avoid all this resultant unpleasantness)

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

Politeness cost nothing I agree, but to ask permission to do something legal? ..especially off a corp who has no right to demand such a response of us, gained initially by incorrectly advising their security staff on the rights of the public standing outside! .. and obviously continuing to embrace bulling tactics we're all so sick off...Really!? these are the people you like me to politely inform when Im doing something totally legal so they don't get upset?

The responsibility of the unpleasantness becoming material was entirely down to the security, they bit!

 

[big soft moose]

Politeness cost nothing I agree, but to ask permission to do something legal? ..especially off a corp who has no right to demand such a response of us, gained initially by incorrectly advising their security staff on the rights of the public standing outside! .. and obviously continuing to embrace bulling tactics we're all so sick off...Really!? these are the people you like me to politely inform when Im doing something totally legal so they don't get upset?

The responsibility of the unpleasantness becoming material was entirely down to the security, they bit!

I'm not suggesting asking permission - but politely advising their PR dept that you are photographing scunthorpes industral heritage (although you may have to wait for them to stop laughing and realise that it isnt a wind up) and will be outside at 2pm on the 18th or whatever gives them the chance to advise their security that they know what you are doing and that theres no problem.

It also opens up the option of them being cooperative and you getting angles you wouldnt otherwise get.

Of course you won't then get the opportunity to have a row with security and get your 5 seconds of fame on youtube :shrug:

looking at it another way how would you feel if I decided to stand outside your house taking pictures of it... would you not be even a little tempted to come out and ask what I was doing ?

Wheras if I called you first and said I was doing a photo essay on houses in your area and i'd be there for 15 mins on x date you wouldnt have the same concern

 

[weybourne]

you can witness what was said on the video - but you can't witness what happened before after or during the editted gaps

So don't speculate and 'hang' someone for something that might not have even happened.

The point is that you can't tell whether he set out to provoke or not - so while yes the guards were recorded behaving in an unacceptable manner we don't know what caused them to behave like that because we arent in full possession of the facts

Whether he provoked off the camera or not is your suggestion and speculation (I see nothing to suggest that there was any off-camera provocation) and does not make any wrong-doing by the security guards acceptable - you said above that their behaviour was unacceptable - that is plain to see and is evidenced. Any unnacceptable (as opposed to unadvisable) behaviour by the photographer has been suggested as a possibility rather than based in fact. It would be just as logical to defend a thief on the suggestion that the victim might have taunted the thief by flaunting their wealth.

and at the end of the day 'don't know' means 'don't know' and if you are going to insist that the photographer should be given 'the benefit of the doubt' then why not also extend that to the guards ?

I wasn't limiting benefit of the doubt to either party - we only know what is in the video - that is not a 'don't know' but a 'know'. The benefit of the doubt and the 'don't know' is in respect of the speculative and suggestive accusations made in this thread for which there is no evidence.

 

[fracster]

Care to expand?

 

[weybourne]

looking at it another way how would you feel if I decided to stand outside your house taking pictures of it... would you not be even a little tempted to come out and ask what I was doing ?

The guard didn't come out and ask what the photographer was doing - she came out and categorically told the photographer that he couldn't take photos - so that is not looking at it another way but looking at a different scenario in another way.

If I asked a photographer outside my house what they were doing, I wouldn't then go on to tell them a load of untruths, make threats and demands (not requests) to which I was not entitled to make. If I suspected there was something underhand afoot, then I would consider whether to make my suspicions known to the police and I would gather 'intelligence' (descriptions, vehicle descriptions - maybe even take a photo or two myself) for reference.

 

[big soft moose]

So don't speculate and 'hang' someone for something that might not have even happened.

Oh FFS everything in this thread is speculation - I don't know he provoked them, you don't know he didn't (unless of course it was you in the video )

Whether he provoked off the camera or not is your suggestion and speculation (I see nothing to suggest that there was any off-camera provocation)

There are editing breaks in the you tube video , and thats a fact - why they are there is open to suposition - but an edited tape is not as conclusive as an SOOC one

and does not make any wrong-doing by the security guards acceptable - you said above that their behaviour was unacceptable - that is plain to see and is evidenced.

I agree - I have nver said that the security guards behaviour was acceptable - even if provocation occured , it is not an excuse for unproffesional behaviour

Any unnacceptable (as opposed to unadvisable) behaviour by the photographer has been suggested as a possibility rather than based in fact.

True in this case - but having been on the recieving end I know for a fact that provocation occurs in some cases (and the suggestion that it didnt occur is also only based on speculation not fact)

I wasn't limiting benefit of the doubt to either party - we only know what is in the video - that is not a 'don't know' but a 'know'.

no it isnt - because the video is only a partial part of the story and we dont know what the rest of the story was. Supose i walk up to you in the street, give you a load of abuse and then spit in your face , and you respond by punching me in the teeth and returning a volley of four letter words - Then supose someone shot a video that only showed you punching me and letting lose the profanity

would it be fair to judge your conduct as unacceptable based only on the video because what it recorded must be fact ?

The benefit of the doubt and the 'don't know' is in respect of the speculative and suggestive accusations made in this thread for which there is no evidence.

I agree that there is no evidence but theres no evidence either way so it is just as speculative for you to state that there was no provocation as it is to speculate that there was.

 

[u8myufo]

They all seem a few crisps short of a full bag imo.

 

[weybourne]

Oh FFS everything in this thread is speculation - I don't know he provoked them, you don't know he didn't (unless of course it was you in the video )

Not true - not everything in this thread is speculation.

There are editing breaks in the you tube video , and thats a fact - why they are there is open to suposition - but an edited tape is not as conclusive as an SOOC one...
...no it isnt - because the video is only a partial part of the story and we dont know what the rest of the story was. Supose i walk up to you in the street, give you a load of abuse and then spit in your face , and you respond by punching me in the teeth and returning a volley of four letter words - Then supose someone shot a video that only showed you punching me and letting lose the profanity

would it be fair to judge your conduct as unacceptable based only on the video because what it recorded must be fact ?

By that logic, all cases of assault should not be tried unless there is documented proof not only of the attack but also prior to the attack - just in case the victim provoked the attack.

Is your point that the photographer might have approached the security staff pre-emptively with untruths and abuse?
There is nothing in the video that is congruous with the analogous 'abuse and spitting' being edited out. Such behaviour in your analogy would be assault - as would a non-defensive punch in the teeth.

I agree that there is no evidence but theres no evidence either way so it is just as speculative for you to state that there was no provocation as it is to speculate that there was.

That's where benefit of doubt must be applied and only evidence of what happened can be considered - and there is evidence - are you really suggesting that the video was edited so that it only appears that the security guards said what they said?

True in this case - but having been on the recieving end I know for a fact that provocation occurs in some cases (and the suggestion that it didnt occur is also only based on speculation not fact)

This appears to be that you are letting your own bad experience colour your judgement. In spite of agreeing that the security guards behaved unacceptably, you keep mentioning un-evidenced provocation as though it changes the evidenced facts - but it doesn't.

 

[rhody]

Comment withdrawn

 

[rhody]

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"

What many people assume is a "public highway" is often wrong.

A pavement does not make it a public highway and if it is a privately owned and managed industrial estate (which many are) the whole purpose of this indignant photographers "case" is lost because his logic is fatally flawed and incorrect and the security guards would indeed have every right to ask him to move on.

 

[Lensflare]

You're all missing the point.

Security Guard baiting is a great sport! I do it all the time in order to get decent pictures for several of my clients.

I don't go and find the clipboard warriors on purpose, by I have plenty of run ins with them, and the Po Lice, who are better informed than they were a couple of years ago.

The daft thing is, we are only doing the same kind of thing that we did 15 years ago. I can remember several occassions doing a shoot and the Po Lice turning up and quizzing us. When asked if they would put handcuffs on someone and pretend to give them a thrashing over the bonnet of the Po Lice car, they were only to keen to play along and act up for the camera. It is a different story now. Even did a shot of a bike doing a burn out on the roof of a Po Lice car once, outside the Po Lice station. Those were good days, when people were allowed to use their own judgement. The last Labour Gvt put paid to all that and put us all under State Surveillance. It has gone down hill ever since - them and those ruddy HSE people.

I enjoy being in a dangerous situation and risking my safety. It is called living life. After all, life is a terminal function.

 

[weybourne]

What many people assume is a "public highway" is often wrong.

A pavement does not make it a public highway and if it is a privately owned and managed industrial estate (which many are) the whole purpose of this indignant photographers "case" is lost because his logic is fatally flawed and incorrect and the security guards would indeed have every right to ask him to move on.

Your whole post pivots on one 'if'. It is clear from the video that it was not claimed by either party that he was on GW property nor was it challenged that the photographer was not on 'public property' [sic] when he asserted his rights on that premise - so there is nothing other than posters' conjectures and 'guesstimates' to suggest that he was on private property; "fatally flawed and incorrect" is a rather strong term to use for in a conclusion derived from an unfounded supposition. To go on and say what the security guards "would indeed have every right to do" is treating that unfounded supposition as a fait accompli.

 

[weybourne]

You're all missing the point.

Security Guard baiting is a great sport! I do it all the time in order to get decent pictures for several of my clients.

I don't go and find the clipboard warriors on purpose, by I have plenty of run ins with them, and the Po Lice, who are better informed than they were a couple of years ago.

The daft thing is, we are only doing the same kind of thing that we did 15 years ago. I can remember several occassions doing a shoot and the Po Lice turning up and quizzing us. When asked if they would put handcuffs on someone and pretend to give them a thrashing over the bonnet of the Po Lice car, they were only to keen to play along and act up for the camera. It is a different story now. Even did a shot of a bike doing a burn out on the roof of a Po Lice car once, outside the Po Lice station. Those were good days, when people were allowed to use their own judgement. The last Labour Gvt put paid to all that and put us all under State Surveillance. It has gone down hill ever since - them and those ruddy HSE people.

I enjoy being in a dangerous situation and risking my safety. It is called living life. After all, life is a terminal function.

Yeah - I was that biker and you still owe me my fee

 

[andya700]

What many people assume is a "public highway" is often wrong.

A pavement does not make it a public highway and if it is a privately owned and managed industrial estate (which many are) the whole purpose of this indignant photographers "case" is lost because his logic is fatally flawed and incorrect and the security guards would indeed have every right to ask him to move on.

The security guard agreed that he was on a public footpath, and then went on to tell him that didn't mean that he could take photos whenever and wherever he pleased.
She then went on to say
"I don't give a toss about the law".

 

[DemiLion]

Can we start using a bit of brain power here please people?

Two minutes on Google maps will show you that the photographer was standing on public property, ie a pavement.

Btw Rhody is spot on. If it had been an industrial estate the photographer's argument would have been completely invalid, but I have a feeling that he

a) has done his homework in advance

and

a) is far to fly to have to have made that mistake

 

[faddius]

End of the day, even if they were muppets, two people are out of work. What if they are unable to find a new job? What if they are unable to keep up mortgage repayments? What about their families? They still do not deserve it, at least they are trying to contribute to society, paying taxes and earning an honest income. At least they are not sat at home, claiming benefits and have no interest in ever working in their lives. Who knows what the repercussions of this will be for them?

The photographer may not have raised his voice, but his attitude was quite foul, he is constantly argumental, calling out when the guards are walking away, trying to belittle them. Just like a teenage kid having an argument, and due to his attitude he could seriously affect two peoples lives regardless of their behaviour. The guards werent polite, and neither was he. During the time between the guards walking away and coming back, he hung around. Why? He could of finished getting the shots he wanted (bearing in mind the time he was there before being approached) and cleared off, instead of hanging round watching for the guards with his finger resting on the record button :shake:

The photographer has gotten his 5 minutes of fame, but for all you know in a few months, his actions could possibly result in someone loosing their home :shake:

 

[weybourne]

End of the day, even if they were muppets, two people are out of work. What if they are unable to find a new job? What if they are unable to keep up mortgage repayments? What about their families? They still do not deserve it, at least they are trying to contribute to society, paying taxes and earning an honest income. At least they are not sat at home, claiming benefits and have no interest in ever working in their lives. Who knows what the repercussions of this will be for them?

The photographer may not have raised his voice, but his attitude was quite foul, he is constantly argumental, calling out when the guards are walking away, trying to belittle them. Just like a teenage kid having an argument, and due to his attitude he could seriously affect two peoples lives regardless of their behaviour. The guards werent polite, and neither was he. During the time between the guards walking away and coming back, he hung around. Why? He could of finished getting the shots he wanted (bearing in mind the time he was there before being approached) and cleared off, instead of hanging round watching for the guards with his finger resting on the record button :shake:

The photographer has gotten his 5 minutes of fame, but for all you know in a few months, his actions could possibly result in someone loosing their home :shake:

It was not the photographers actions that were wrong - it was the security guards'. The photographer only responded to incorrect assertions and arguments made to him.

You use a lot of emotive language - the photographer was not "just like a teenage kid having an argument" and it certainly wasn't his attitude that has caused any potential hardship for the security guards. "At least they are not sat at home, claiming benefits and have no interest in ever working in their lives" what has that got to do with what happened with the photographer - absolutely nothing other than you trying to lay guilt where it doesn't belong.

If you feel that there is blame to be had for the misfortune of the security guards then it does not lie with the photographer who was going about his lawful business and being challenged for doing so.

If you think that the security guards were put in an unwinnable situation due to pressure from their employer or Golden Wonder - then you ought to be blaming the employer or Golden Wonder - not the photographer. Otherwise blame the guards - if the guards did lose their jobs over this then it was not the photographer's doing.

If you insist on blaming someone for any demise suffered by the security guards - put that blame where it is due - do not make a scapegoat of the photographer just because you didn't like his attitude.

By your logic, if a crime is committed against me, I should not report it lest the offender be put in prison and his/her family flung into hardship as a result!

 

[Simon photo]

I agree that if your in a public space then you should fight for the right to use that space for legal activities, including photography, i wouldn't have kept on as long as this guy, i would have just left it then returned at a later time.
Unfortunately the photographer is being apprehended by someone who has clearly managed to escape the holding pen for the Jeremy Kyle show and is exercising, what she thinks are rights to say "clear off" and "the law"
Had it been a security guard with half an ounce of sense would the photographer kept plugging away?

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

It would be a shame if the security suffered financially for a style of security that has been asked of them by the very employer punishing them. .. perhaps we should blame the employer for poor training rather than the photographer for simply making his own documentary. ..do we really have to curtail our freedom to express our concerns in a legal way simply because it might trigger the poor reactions of under educated staff ...

I'm not suggesting asking permission - but politely advising their PR dept that you are photographing scunthorpes industral heritage (although you may have to wait for them to stop laughing and realise that it isnt a wind up) and will be outside at 2pm on the 18th or whatever gives them the chance to advise their security that they know what you are doing and that theres no problem.

It also opens up the option of them being cooperative and you getting angles you wouldnt otherwise get.

Of course you won't then get the opportunity to have a row with security and get your 5 seconds of fame on youtube :shrug:

looking at it another way how would you feel if I decided to stand outside your house taking pictures of it... would you not be even a little tempted to come out and ask what I was doing ?

Wheras if I called you first and said I was doing a photo essay on houses in your area and i'd be there for 15 mins on x date you wouldnt have the same concern

Can i refer you to Weybournes reply to echo my own. (a few posts down from this post of yours) But also id feel its not really any of my business, this is London, everyone is watching someone and Im not sure id bother much.... and lets say I lived in a pretty cottage I might actually be flattered. dunno, but id be nice... like I haven't got razor fences or a big steel gate or anything right.

Anyhow Im not disagreeing with being polite and courteous...as I said, it would be a shame if the security suffered financially for a style of security that has been asked of them by the very employer punishing them.

 

[The Greek]

I hope and pray, the people defending the halfwits, never encounter similar situation.
If we now have to write a letter before we turn up with our camera, then FOR SALE.....

 

[SThornton]

Although I have not experienced this, I do carry a copy of the mets advice on photography "laws" just in case!

 

[sturisoma]

re. emailing and asking for 'permission' to shoot their building


imagine the satisfaction this fella would have got if he'd been in possession of an email saying he could shoot their building whenever he felt like it!

costs nothing to ask, and if they refuse you can ignore them anyway, if you're on public land.

 

[boliston]

Just noticed this thread, and think that it highlights the appalling level of ignorance in some parts of the security industry with regard to UK law.
Hopefully any publicity about this could feed back to security companies so they can "clean up their act".
There was recently a similar film which actually showed some members of the police who had actually been correctly briefed on this area of the law, so perhaps there is hope for security firms as well.

 

[faddius]

Removed - not worth getting into an argument over points that people wont read.

Have a nice evening

 

[matthewb]

removed also-
although i had read the points

 

[andya700]

End of the day, even if they were muppets, two people are out of work. What if they are unable to find a new job? What if they are unable to keep up mortgage repayments? What about their families? They still do not deserve it, at least they are trying to contribute to society, paying taxes and earning an honest income. At least they are not sat at home, claiming benefits and have no interest in ever working in their lives. Who knows what the repercussions of this will be for them?

The photographer may not have raised his voice, but his attitude was quite foul, he is constantly argumental

If you had said "the attitude of the security guards was quite foul" then you may have a point, but the photographer was restrained, quite calm and more importantly put his point across in the face of ignorance, abuse and lies.
I for one think that the security guards brought this whole thing on themselves. They were rewarded for their bullying tactics.

Tell me honestly. If you were taking photographs in the street. and a member of the public approached you and used the same language as those security guards, how would you react to them.
The fact is, that the security guards in that situation had no more power than a member of the public. They were trying to use their "work powers" in a public place, outside of their jurisdiction.

 

[malo50]

If you had said "the attitude of the security guards was quite foul" then you may have a point, but the photographer was restrained, quite calm and more importantly put his point across in the face of ignorance, abuse and lies.
I for one think that the security guards brought this whole thing on themselves. They were rewarded for their bullying tactics.

Tell me honestly. If you were taking photographs in the street. and a member of the public approached you and used the same language as those security guards, how would you react to them.
The fact is, that the security guards in that situation had no more power than a member of the public. They were trying to use their "work powers" in a public place, outside of their jurisdiction.

Which is exactly what the tog was after.

 

[Jonathan Shl]

End of the day, even if they were muppets, two people are out of work. What if they are unable to find a new job? What if they are unable to keep up mortgage repayments? What about their families? They still do not deserve it, at least they are trying to contribute to society, paying taxes and earning an honest income. At least they are not sat at home, claiming benefits and have no interest in ever working in their lives. Who knows what the repercussions of this will be for them?

The photographer may not have raised his voice, but his attitude was quite foul, he is constantly argumental, calling out when the guards are walking away, trying to belittle them. Just like a teenage kid having an argument, and due to his attitude he could seriously affect two peoples lives regardless of their behaviour. The guards werent polite, and neither was he. During the time between the guards walking away and coming back, he hung around. Why? He could of finished getting the shots he wanted (bearing in mind the time he was there before being approached) and cleared off, instead of hanging round watching for the guards with his finger resting on the record button :shake:

The photographer has gotten his 5 minutes of fame, but for all you know in a few months, his actions could possibly result in someone loosing their home :shake:

Look, I don't mean to sound nasty, but if people like those security "guards" whose jobs depend on the law are so ignorant then they deserve whatever natural consequences come their way. I would prefer not to have to go this way re: security guards, but if making an example and putting someone on the streets is what it takes for toggers' rights to be respected then so be it.

 

[malo50]

Look, I don't mean to sound nasty, but if people like those security "guards" whose jobs depend on the law are so ignorant then they deserve whatever natural consequences come their way. I would prefer not to have to go this way re: security guards, but if making an example and putting someone on the streets is what it takes for toggers' rights to be respected then so be it.

There are no such things as toggers' rights.