Council bans 'beach photography'

R

razor777

Messages
854
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello all,

I read with interest this following news article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/8185883.stm

To summarise they state that a notice was put up to prevent people taking 'inappropriate' photos but are encouraging parents etc to take photos and was simply giving the council an excuse to stop anyone else they felt should not be taking photos.

However, what intrigues me is that now a non police body is enforcing a photography ban on public land? Are what they are attempting to do even legal?

Apologies if this topic has already been brought up but a quick search indicated nothing.

Mark
 
If the photos they are trying to restrict are inappropriate, then surely that would be illegal (I'm thinking naked etc perhaps?), so why is the signage needed then?

Surely a sign stating "Dont break the law" would be just as effective?
 
Seems very odd - here is the sign

3748980176_e3537a844a.jpg


Looking at the sign it seems to indicate that photography is banned unless its the 'official beach photographer'.
 
I am not shocked or even suprised at these signs anymore or this sort of attitude..


BUT A BEACH IN NOTTINGHAM? now thats a shock!!!
 
Oh dear....thats a bit gay!

If it was Gary Glitter with a telephoto lens then yeah I can understand but normal landscapes?!?

Seems a bit ott to me!
 
KIPAX said:
I am not shocked or even suprised at these signs anymore or this sort of attitude..


BUT A BEACH IN NOTTINGHAM? now thats a shock!!!
Click to expand...

:lol: i was thinking exactly the same thing LOL
 
Watching that video it looks pretty cool! Think they would have a hard time stopping you getting shots from around the side anyway as that is a public footpath, then again I would have though Slab Square was public, but if it has been 'rented' out to whoever is running that there could be some restrictions in place.
 
They trucked in 300 tonnes of sand to make the "beach"....that is an unenforcable rule as it is a public square.

They have not had a byelaw signed off, it is a temporary "beach" for the summer holidays and I suspect it is merely to try and distract commercial interests from taking advantage of the effort taken to create the setting.

You go down wiht your wife/girlfriend/significant other and take pictures and they can do nothing whatsoever to prevent you. If they try to get between you and subject, then you can complain about them harrassing and obstructing you from normal rights of unhindered passage.
 
They trucked in 300 tonnes of sand to make the "beach"....that is an unenforcable rule as it is a public square.

They have not had a byelaw signed off, it is a temporary "beach" for the summer holidays and I suspect it is merely to try and distract commercial interests from taking advantage of the effort taken to create the setting.

You go down wiht your wife/girlfriend/significant other and take pictures and they can do nothing whatsoever to prevent you. If they try to get between you and subject, then you can complain about them harrassing and obstructing you from normal rights of unhindered passage.
 
pfffft!

"A spokesman for Nottingham City Council said: "The signs are provided so security staff can deal with anybody they feel might be taking inappropriate photographs. "

More like...

"A spokesman for Nottingham City Council said: "The signs are provided so security staff can deal with anybody they dont like the look of. "
 
One of my projects is photographing Nottingham City Centre around the hours of Dawn. I will be there at about 4:30am on Saturday and it will be interesting to see how things go! Personally I think 4:30 is a very inappropriate time to be taking photographs

Nottingham is also the first city to impose the work place parking tax on companies with more than 10 parting spaces! Makes me feel all proud !

Debs
 
jamesoliverstone said:
pfffft!

"A spokesman for Nottingham City Council said: "The signs are provided so security staff can deal with anybody they feel might be taking inappropriate photographs. "

More like...

"A spokesman for Nottingham City Council said: "The signs are provided so security staff can deal with anybody they dont like the look of. "
Click to expand...


Heh probably.. the worrying part now though is that now its reached national news, other councils will be thinking 'we'll have some of that' and start putting up similar 'no photography' all over the place from beaches to parks. To me this enforces the belief in ignorant people that its actually unsociable/unacceptable to walk around with a camera - I'm waiting for the first news story to surface where a photographer is attacked by a mob/angry parents for just having a camera.

It may sound laughable at the moment but give it time.. ;)
 
It sounds like petty bureaucracy at it's best, posting (probably) illegal rules and then saying they're not going to enforce them. It could only happen in this country. :bonk:
 
More Nutts than Notts!!

Who the hell employs these people to think up such A-hole "rules"?!
 
Interesting that a BBC video on a ban on 'inappropriate' photography starts off filming up a little girls skirt, yet that wasn't banned, I wonder what is 'inappropriate' then?
 
They are also banning smoking on the beach?

Ah well, can only happen in Notts :lol:

Edit: Just watched the video ... that all looks pretty cool! :lol:
 
So how does this differ from the temporary ice rink that sits in Millennium Square Leeds from September to March.
It has a similar sign, though there is no ambiguity surrounding official photographers and it doesn't actually say photography is banned, just that you will be watched for inappropriate behaviour.
Maybe the Nottingham beach sign is just badly worded, in the official photographers favour....hmm...:suspect:
 
It sounds like a money-spinner more than anything else to me, to make sure people buy photographs from the "official" photographer.

In terms of banning photography on public land, legally I don't think they have a leg to stand on. Photography is not illegal, but it is accepted that it can be restricted in areas that have a condition of entry, most commonly theatres, cinemas and live events. Otherwise, in a public area, there isn't any public body - police, council or otherwise, that can "ban photography".

Worse still, I see these legally-unenforceable rules being enforced by ogrish muppets from some local security agency thinking they're the police...
 
Just a question;

If the market square (the location of the sand pit in question) is owned by the council is the land strictly public property and are the council allowed to impose their own rules as the “event organiser”. I would also be interested in knowing how they advertised and appointed the official photographer as I have not seen anything listed in the council job pages.

Debs
 
debbiejo said:
Just a question;

If the market square (the location of the sand pit in question) is owned by the council is the land strictly public property and are the council allowed to impose their own rules as the “event organiser”. I would also be interested in knowing how they advertised and appointed the official photographer as I have not seen anything listed in the council job pages.

Debs
Click to expand...

Well yes, all public land is technically owned by the council isn't it? If it is not public property because it is owned by the council then there would be no public property at all. :shrug:
 
Call me cynical I’m getting more cynical the more I look at this, but this is the official photo gallery for the councils sand pit.

If they are concerned that people will take photos of kids for inappropriate use then it seems to me that they have simply taken the photos themselves and posted them to the web.!!

http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/TheNottinghamRiviera/index.html

I wonder if they have used the comical licence for picasa??
 
More likely no photography means we'll try and stop you so you have to buy off our official photographer.
 
Edtog said:
More likely no photography means we'll try and stop you so you have to buy off our official photographer.
Click to expand...

This sounds more like the real reason to me - we should organise a group day-out and swamp the area with 'Togs - try and stop that!
 
debbiejo said:
If they are concerned that people will take photos of kids for inappropriate use then it seems to me that they have simply taken the photos themselves and posted them to the web.!!
Click to expand...

Hang on a minute..

People are upset about their kids being photographed, in case their pics get uploaded to the web for paedophiles to gawp at..

The council has taken pics of a random bunch of kids, and uploaded them into a nice paedophile-friendly gallery... :bang:
 
Steve Smith said:
Irrelevant. A sign does not alter the law.
Click to expand...

No, but it almost guarantees that anyone taking photos who is not with a family, will get harassed by some jobsworth hell bent on wanting to look important for once in their lives. Which is a shame because there looks to be a few good pictures to be taken around the fair grounds rides etc. I've taken some good pictures at fairgrounds, though mostly after dark I guess.

I find it all rather depressing. Politics today seems to have lost all common sense and honesty.
 
HoppyUK said:
No, but it almost guarantees that anyone taking photos who is not with a family, will get harassed by some jobsworth hell bent on wanting to look important for once in their lives. Which is a shame because there looks to be a few good pictures to be taken around the fair grounds rides etc. I've taken some good pictures at fairgrounds, though mostly after dark I guess.

I find it all rather depressing. Politics today seems to have lost all common sense and honesty.
Click to expand...

This is also my main concern - if this sort of behaviour by councils and other public bodies become the main it also indirectly influences ignorant / worried parents into thinking that 'photography is a bad thing that is the remit of paedophiles / <insert other unsavoury character type here> '

I think the 'official photographer' part of the sign was just a cover to veil the reason reason why these so called PC deciders of policy wanted to ban photography on that beach.
 
Hang on, Hang on, Hang on.
how many of you have been to the Nottingham beach???

I went today to take a few piccys to send to my daughter in Canada, "they think we are crazy".

Having seen the sign I found a bobby, told him what I wanted and he said "no problem mate" "I can see you have a wide angle lens on your camera and are obviously just taking general views, but be careful as some parents are a bit touchy. If you do have problems come and see me and together with whoever is giving you grief we will go through your shots.
He went on to explain that the signs just gives them a bit more power if there is someone iffy with a long lens taking photo's of childrens bits.

Whatever I think of the Notts council I found on a sunny day hundreds of squealing kids enjoying a day out and happy parents, this area has been well thought out and is a safe mecca for children. AND IT'S ALL FREE.

Don't just moan before you know the facts. it's what blows things like this out of all proportion.

Here endeth my lesson.
 
You need to look at the bigger picture (no pun intended), it's the fact they are putting misleading signs up to begin with. Fact is, they dont have any power - signs or not but if this sort of thing (councils putting ridiculous signs such as these and employing half wits to enforce those rules) becomes the norm then before you know it - photography becomes effectively banned due to widespread misinformation and those influenced by such misinformation because no one could be bothered to highlight the issue. PSCO's were a perfect example where they were deleting tog's photos willy nilly because they thought thats what they should be doing. Now, we have any one who classes themselves as an 'official' thinking that they can accost photographers.

You are right, there is always a balance and their intentions may mean well but the potential fall out could be quite serious if members of the public start having a go just because of silly rules like this being put in place.

Hell, sometimes I feel like I'm being scrutinised by families who are taking a dim view of me with a camera even when I'm on a woodland trail trying to get some decent wildlife shots in. :D
 
Razor you have my sympathy.
Usually when I am about with my camera, and that's often and has been for over fifty years now I am usually plagued by folk wanting to know what I am photographing and why but in the nicest possible way, they are nosey, as I am. I have never ever had any hastle. I have even taken peoples addresses and sent them photos, this ranges from a group of Romany folk with the old type caravans going to a horse fair, "I ended up staying for dinner". to kids doing all sorts of activities.
I feel for you having to feel guilty doing a perfectly legal thing.
 
I understand your point DUNKS, and it's great that the officer had such a sensible view.
However, I do take point with this.

He went on to explain that the signs just gives them a bit more power if there is someone iffy with a long lens taking photo's of childrens bits.
Click to expand...

This is the excuse they are using. However, they don't NEED any more power. The law is power enough, and this sign doesn't give them absolutely anything. It's a completely unenforcable 'sign' (legally).
The only thing that the police can do wrt to anyone taking indecent photographs anyway....is due to the laws that we already have, the sign changes nothing....so why do they need it?

The point also is, it does nothing to help repair the damaged reputation that photographers have (created by the mass hysteria brought about by media hype and claptrap).
 
Just peeked at the gallery, shame the official tog can't get anything in focus...
 
Marcel said:
However, they don't NEED any more power. The law is power enough, and this sign doesn't give them absolutely anything. It's a completely unenforcable 'sign' (legally).
The only thing that the police can do wrt to anyone taking indecent photographs anyway....is due to the laws that we already have, the sign changes nothing....so why do they need it?

The point also is, it does nothing to help repair the damaged reputation that photographers have (created by the mass hysteria brought about by media hype and claptrap).
Click to expand...

Totally agree with this - I mentioned earlier, the sign changes nothing legally - but it gives people a false impression. The main problem (I hope, fingers crossed) will not be with local plod, but with over-zealous security-type numpties...who so often cause more problems than they solve.
 
swanseamale47 said:
Interesting that a BBC video on a ban on 'inappropriate' photography starts off filming up a little girls skirt, yet that wasn't banned, I wonder what is 'inappropriate' then?
Click to expand...

Inappropriate, will be any photograph taken with a dslr. The point and shooters, and camera phone users never seem to get the same hassle as we do.
Another point is where do they draw the line, you could stand 50 foot back, technically not on the beach or sand pit whatever it is, and still get decent shots. :shrug: I'm confused.
 
Arkady said:
This sounds more like the real reason to me - we should organise a group day-out and swamp the area with 'Togs - try and stop that!
Click to expand...

If I was in your part of the world I would definately join you on that.

Lunacy to state no photography on a beach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top