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

malo50 said:
There are no such things as toggers' rights.
Click to expand...

Shall we make it easy to understand then?
How about the rights of any person, to be allowed to go about their business in a public place, and not face the unwanted attention of a couple of ignorant numpties, who are misusing their powers.
 
andy700 said:
Shall we make it easy to understand then?
How about the rights of any person, to be allowed to go about their business in a public place, and not face the unwanted attention of a couple of ignorant numpties, who are misusing their powers.
Click to expand...

OK then.
 
andy700 said:
As far as I could see, the "tog" was only after taking photographs of Scunthorpe, to show how the town and surrounding area has changed/is evolving.
Click to expand...

OK then.
 
Jonathan Shl said:
Strictly speaking it's liberties - freedoms - that form into de facto rights.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, and I'm not being obtuse Jonathan, thats a bit too subtle a distinction. I would appreciate an explanation please.
 
sturisoma said:
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.
Click to expand...

This throws up a potential problem though. Imagine this:

"Hello, Golden Wonder? I write for The Only Way Is Scunthorpe website, and was planning on taking some photo's of your factory and the surrounding area next week"

"Well, we'd prefer it it you didn't".

Do you say to them, "Sorry you feel that way, but as I need it for my article, I'll be taking them anyway, but will only do so from the public highway"? Do you just say, "Okay, bye" and then go do it anyway?
Either way, you're now doing it knowing that they don't want you there. They can argue now that you're knowingly causing a nuisance.

Of course, the alternative is to lie down and let them decide what you can and can't do.

What if you get put through to frontline staff, and it's Mrs Security that answers the phone?

"Hello, Golden Wonder? I'll be in the area next week and intend taking some photo's of your factory"

"You can't do that, it's not allowed"

"It'll only be from the public highway, I won't be coming onto the premises."

"Doesn't matter. You can't go around taking photo's willy nilly of whatever you feel like. It's against the law to take photo's of a private company"

Now they're expecting you, and they're hostile before you even get there.

As I appreciate a bit of the old deco, I take the odd photo of buildings myself. Generally, I expect those around me to not give two hoots why I'm taking a picture of a big block of brick and tile, and almost every time, nobody does. I'm certainly not going to go drawing attention to myself by announcing it if I'm only taking pictures of what's on public view.

"Hey! Look at me! Look at me everyone! I'm doing something unexceptional and perfectly legal! I'm doing the same as lots of other people do!"

That said, I've never had someone announce that I can't take a photo of a building due to law or because they've spoke to someone. On the few occassions anyone's approached me, they usually go "You alright there, mate?" or something similar.
 
Last edited:
Woman was just doing her job although she was in the wrong, but thats due to her not knowing. The guy behind the camera wanted to pick more of a fight then she did and maybe thats why it was recorded.
 
I can't believe I've just wasted my time reading this thread! :shake:
 
Splog said:
I can't believe I've just wasted my time reading this thread! :shake:
Click to expand...

You loved reading it really or you would have given up early on and not bothered to post anything on here. :razz::p ;)
 
Nice to see some balanced views in this thread.

The security guards - the woman particularly - were woeful in their attitude and their ignorance, but the photographer could easily have diffused the situation with a simple explanation of what he was doing rather than continually asking them what law he was breaking.

A pretty sad confrontation which reflects no credit whatsoever on any of the parties involved.
 
This was no doubt very badly handled by the guards, their language, behaviour and attitude was terrible.

The photographer was correct to stand up for "rights" to a point but perhaps he could have handled things better.

Hindsight is a great tool and I'm sure there have been times when we could all have done more to diffuse situations like this. This whole video should remind everyone that there are always different ways to handle confrontational incidents.

Andy
 
We live in a camera society. I bet the front of the factory is on Google streetview, and google earth. I bet the CCTV cameras at the factory cover the street. I bet if I stood there with a 8MP phone I would be unchallenged, I bet the security guard shoots pics of her kids on the beach

I have the task of shooting some security fencing this week, besides the obvious permissions I need to be on a "secure site" I sure as hell don't want the pain of seeking permission from all the neighbourly properties. Its getting daft
 
faddius said:
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:
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting then that if someone is unable to do a job properly they should still be employed because they may have a mortgage etc. ? People are sacked every day for incompetence, is that wrong? Why should these two be any different?

Anyway, they will be replaced so that means 2 other people back in work and able to pay their mortgages.
 
parkmoy said:
Are you suggesting then that if someone is unable to do a job properly they should still be employed because they may have a mortgage etc. ? People are sacked every day for incompetence, is that wrong? Why should these two be any different?

Anyway, they will be replaced so that means 2 other people back in work and able to pay their mortgages.
Click to expand...

simples.....
 
Security were poorly trained, the snapper had nothing better to do.

When silly people meet, anything can happen.
 
In all honesty and joking aside, I think that the security guards, may have thought that the photographer bore a strong resemblance to Gary Lineker, and therefore suspected that they had stumbled on a case of industrial espionage from one of Golden Wonders closest rivals


Walkers Crisps!:eek:
 
MWHCVT said:
That's nice and mature :clap: and if you want to come out a call me what you want (y) it will only make you look worse :shrug: if you want to make these boards into the playground go on try, you will not be sucessful I'm sure :LOL: :LOL: anyway if you have anything sensible to say go for it (y)
Matt
Click to expand...

Very nice of you to give me permission to post, thank you. :LOL:
And as for the way I spoke to you there I would remind you that up to that point in previous posts I had been perfectly polite to you, it was you who started infering that it was me who had been the photographer outside GW basically because you were losing the argument. Just for the record I live in London & shoot sport in case you didn't already know (which I rather suspect you did ;))

Why is it that some people think they can be as rude & obnoxious as they like but everyone must treat them with the utmost politeness & respect. As I said in a previous post in this thread, politeness is a two way street if you want it, give it.

I apologise to other forum users for this stupid spat, I won't be responding any further in this thread to MWHCVT with regard to this (although I'm sure I may have more to say regarding GW & the snapper :LOL:)
To MWHCVT I say if you want to carry on regarding our personal differences please feel free to do it via PM.

Stew.
 
parkmoy said:
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.
Click to expand...

(y) My feelings exactly.
 
andy700 said:
The guy in question has a link to more videos, which he takes mainly to submit to a site -
http://www.youtube.com/user/Hamstify
and
www.visitscunthorpe.com
This is where he documents the changing face of Scunthorpe.
The guy was simply doing what he normally does.
Click to expand...

Spot on Andy & exactly what I thought myself after a quick look at the site.

I believe it's mentioned somewhere that he's been doing this for 4 or 5 years, if he went out to deliberately bait security guards as some people are suggesting he would have more videos showing the results than the couple I can find. He looks to be a fairly prolific snapper of the area.

I don't know for sure if he did go out to cause trouble on this occasion obviously, if he did maybe something snapped inside him & we'll see loads of vids now & I'll have to revise my opinion of the whole saga. At the moment though the way I read it is he didn't like the attitude of the guards coming out (as I didn't) & decided to dig his heels in, as I would have done in the same situation actually. I have been approached by guards a couple of times myself, once while waiting to shoot a cycle race passing what I assume was some kind of sensitive area off a main road in the countryside many years ago (can't even remember where it was) they were probably wondering who was outside their grounds with a whopping telephoto, a 300f2.8 which weren't as common as they are now back then, they spoke to me very politely & I answered them in the same manner & all was well. If they had come out like the guards at GW I think the same sort of situation would have ensued.
The same sort of scenario the other time, with the same result, it's all in the initial approach. I don't think security guards even have to have lawer like knowledge of the law but they should at least be taught how to deal with the public.

Shame on Kingdom Security if they have sacked them, it could have all been avoided with proper training. As you & weybourne have put it so more eloquently than I ever could it's ridiculous to blame the photographer for their dismissal.

Stew.
 
The issue has just been aired on local TV. Golden Wonder apologised to the tog and have invited him to the factory. The security guards were said to have resigned.
 
Yellowbelly said:
The issue has just been aired on local TV. Golden Wonder apologised to the tog and have invited him to the factory. The security guards were said to have resigned.
Click to expand...

resigned, moved to another site probably.
 
North Lincolnshire Council have confirmed that Colin Road is indeed a public highway, and not privately owned.
 
Well the photographer has done us all a favour... politicians are even starting to talk about it
 
Richard King said:
Well the photographer has done us all a favour... politicians are even starting to talk about it
Click to expand...
Politicians talked about it last year. And the year before. And the year before.

There's nothing else they can really do in our favour, short of making the BSIA guidelines mandatory for all private security, with harsh penalties (be they monetary or it becoming a recognised offense) for those that don't follow them.

The law on the matter - after the repealling of Section 44, the Met guidlines and the ACPO memos - is pretty good when the hi-vis Herberts actually acknowlegde it.
 
CT said:
Nice to see some balanced views in this thread.

The security guards - the woman particularly - were woeful in their attitude and their ignorance, but the photographer could easily have diffused the situation with a simple explanation of what he was doing rather than continually asking them what law he was breaking.

A pretty sad confrontation which reflects no credit whatsoever on any of the parties involved.
Click to expand...

Oh come on!

The photographer handled himself pretty well considering the provocation he was under! Maybe not perfectly, but probably far better than I would have been able to do!
 
weybourne said:
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.
Click to expand...

My whole point is Adrian that you cannot tell what is "public highway" by looking at it.

The only way to be sure is to ask or check with the Local Authority.

We have some superb privately owned industrial estates locally - and security guards at the entrances.

The pavements are indistinguishable from Local Authority owned ones - but they are not "public highways" they are owned by private companies.

If the photographer had been on private land his baiting and personal insult to one of the security guards would indeed have been "fatally flawed".

No photographer has a "right" to take photographs on privately owned land and can be asked to move on by the owners or their agents (security guards).

Photographers who bait security guards are doing everyone a great disservice in their efforts to score cheap points.
 
Sorry-But baited or not,those two numpties were so out of line its hilarious.
Do i think photographers should "bait" them?-No,there are far more productive things to do with your time.
I have to say this though-I would have been in stitches during that exchange of views..
While i would have started things off a little differently,(ie,explain why i was there etc) i kinda get the impression those two wouldnt have given a damn no matter what i said.
At the end of the day,a certain level of professionalism (sp?) and civility is to be expected from anyone in a position where they have contact with the public.
Couldnt give a hoot whether that be from a security guard,a shelf filler,or all the way up the ladder.
They simply started digging themselves a rather large hole,and just...kept...digging..
Damaging company property,calling a member of the public a perv among other insults just isnt the way to go about your job-No matter how sure you are that you are "in the right". (And oh dear they got that a bit wrong :D)
Should the photographer feel guilty because two people lost their jobs? (If that is what happened?)... Not at all!-If they had not behaved in the manner they did it wouldnt have been an issue.A simple "I dont believe you are allowed to photograph this building,can you stop please?",followed by calling the police if thats what they believed was needed would have had a dramatically different outcome. (Nono im not advocating calling the boys in blue on random members of the public taking photo's!-Just that if Security really believed it was against the law,then there were "proper" ways to deal with the situation.)
Im fairly sure that by the end of that little conversation i wouldnt have been quite as calm as the tog...
 
rhody said:
My whole point is Adrian that you cannot tell what is "public highway" by looking at it.

The only way to be sure is to ask or check with the Local Authority.

We have some superb privately owned industrial estates locally - and security guards at the entrances.

The pavements are indistinguishable from Local Authority owned ones - but they are not "public highways" they are owned by private companies.

If the photographer had been on private land his baiting and personal insult to one of the security guards would indeed have been "fatally flawed".

No photographer has a "right" to take photographs on privately owned land and can be asked to move on by the owners or their agents (security guards).

Photographers who bait security guards are doing everyone a great disservice in their efforts to score cheap points.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mischief said:
Im fairly sure that by the end of that little conversation i wouldnt have been quite as calm as the tog...
Click to expand...

(y)
I was thinking that all the way through. He never lost his temper or was rude at any point, in fact he just sounded a bit weary of it all.
 
The Canary Wharf 'campus' looks a lot like public highway.

But the giveaway is the flower pots and lack of litter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top