Funniest s*** I heard so far

AZ6 said:
Where does it say the landowner has the 'right' to confiscate equipment? Even if it did, I'm pretty sure this wouldn't be legal anyway. Anyone know the law regarding such?
Click to expand...


It depends on how it is phrased and what the mechanism is.

A landowner can't claim the right to seize equipment, but a Local Authority can by enacting a Byelaw.

For example see the "Parliament Square Garden Byelaws 2012 " with regard to photography equipment used in contravention of the Act, Sections 5K and 7.
 
What constitutes a 'small' camera? My Z6 + 24-70 is tiny compared to a D5 and 24-70! :help:
 
DemiLion said:
No. They can insist that you remove the kit or deposit it with them for safe keeping (on entry) but they can't involuntarily confiscate it.
Click to expand...
So, I’m guessing if you decline, they refuse you entry
 
jamesev said:
The rules for the bullring are published on their web site

Bullring & Grand Central is home to some of the most popular and photographed landmarks in the UK. Members of the public are allowed to take photographs in and around the centre with a small digital camera/mobile phone for personal use only. To take photographs of shop interiors and exteriors, permission must be sought from the individual retailer.
.
Click to expand...
For some value of “small”, undefined. Also film/plate cameras not mentioned so not banned or all banned?
@Pete B does not say if he was using a small Olympus or a large Canikon :)
 
This is what the Police think, you can take photos in public and no security guard or Police have the right to stop you. There are loads of Youtube videos on this topic. Well worth a look. ACPO 1.jpeg
 
sphexx said:
For some value of “small”, undefined. Also film/plate cameras not mentioned so not banned or all banned?
@Pete B does not say if he was using a small Olympus or a large Canikon :)
Click to expand...
It says all cameras except small digital cameras so your plate camera is excluded twice - too big and not digital.
 
jamesev said:
Well it does, if the website says by entering the premises you agree to not take photos and give the the land owner permission to confiscate recording equipment then you have given them the rights.
Click to expand...
That will only apply if those conditions are easily apparent at the point you enter the premises. Being on a website is irrelevant as you cannot see that as you enter.
 
Silver Simon said:
This is what the Police think, you can take photos in public and no security guard or Police have the right to stop you. There are loads of Youtube videos on this topic. Well worth a look. View attachment 270774
Click to expand...
I think you’ve slightly missed the point, The Bullring, where this incident took place, is not public land.
 
john.margetts said:
It says all cameras except small digital cameras so your plate camera is excluded twice - too big and not digital.
Click to expand...
Well, I’ve read it again and it doesn’t say that, it only describes some permitted cameras :).
 
jakeblu said:
I think you’ve slightly missed the point, The Bullring, where this incident took place, is not public land.
Click to expand...
No I fully understand that Steve, it is open for public access though. I agree it is one area I am uncertain about shopping centres like that. However, the security guard had absolutely no right to detain plus if he had laid a hand on me I would have sued him. Also, the fact children were 'in shot' is irrelevant, although I wouldn't go around taking photos of children.
 
jakeblu said:
I think you’ve slightly missed the point, The Bullring, where this incident took place, is not public land.
Click to expand...
Public land is not the same as public place, a place the public reasonably expects to have access. I think almost nowhere is public land, commons perhaps but they usually have some controls too.
 
Silver Simon said:
No I fully understand that Steve, it is open for public access though. I agree it is one area I am uncertain about shopping centres like that. However, the security guard had absolutely no right to detain plus if he had laid a hand on me I would have sued him. Also, the fact children were 'in shot' is irrelevant, although I wouldn't go around taking photos of children.
Click to expand...
If you fully understood then you will realise your initial post is irrelevant. The Bullring is private property, it has no bearing on the advice you posted. They can and do restrict the use of certain cameras on their property and are legally entitled to do so. Further they are legally entitled to ask you to leave if you refuse to stop, when requested not doing so would be trespass. I agree on the point about detaining him, and the children in shot being irrelevant.
 
sphexx said:
Public land is not the same as public place, a place the public reasonably expects to have access. I think almost nowhere is public land, commons perhaps but they usually have some controls too.
Click to expand...
The Bullring is private property. Their land their rules.
 
jakeblu said:
If you fully understood then you will realise your initial post is irrelevant. The Bullring is private property, it has no bearing on the advice you posted. They can and do restrict the use of certain cameras on their property and are legally entitled to do so. Further they are legally entitled to ask you to leave if you refuse to stop, when requested not doing so would be trespass. I agree on the point about detaining him, and the children in shot being irrelevant.
Click to expand...
The reason I posted the letter is, if nothing else it might help people to understand what the Police view is on 'street' photography, if they hadn't seen it. For me, the grey area is what is public access and what is a public place. I did say I was uncertain about being able to shoot there. :)
 
Donnie said:
@jamesev You've completely missed my point. It doesn't matter a jot what it says on the website about pictures etc, Im talking about the security guard detaining the OP, not about asking to leave.
Click to expand...
jamesev said:
Well it does, if the website says by entering the premises you agree to not take photos and give the the land owner permission to confiscate recording equipment then you have given them the rights.
Click to expand...

Again, Im talking about detainment, again you missed the point.

Im not even going to argue the fact that it is blindingly stupid for a landowner to assume that because they have put something on a website that it is a) legal and b) readily and fairly available!
 
Silver Simon said:
The reason I posted the letter is, if nothing else it might help people to understand what the Police view is on 'street' photography, if they hadn't seen it. For me, the grey area is what is public access and what is a public place. I did say I was uncertain about being able to shoot there. :)
Click to expand...


A lot can change in 10 years...
 
Nod said:
A lot can change in 10 years...
Click to expand...
Too true but has not been superseded. I have seen videos taken this year where the police have said taking photos in a public place is legal.
 
Last edited:
jakeblu said:
The Bullring is private property. Their land their rules.
Click to expand...

Within the law. So, they really don't have any actual powers to prevent anyone taking photos or filming. Or to detain anyone (other than for criminal acts/prevention of harm), or confiscate any equipment. The only thing they are legally entitled to do is ask you to leave. It really is this simple.
 
As for the insinuation regarding 'children' being present; that is the bit that really gets my goat. People trot this out as a catch-all justification to try to impose stupid rules. This, and 'terrorism'. Worth pointing out that if there is CCTV present, does that make the security guards themselves, 'peados'? Soon shuts people up.
 
jakeblu said:
The Bullring is private property. Their land their rules.
Click to expand...
This would back up your point regarding the Bullring being private land, well done you! (y):)
It is well worth a watch, a few minutes in and a Police Inspector is interviewed .......... Know the law
 
Last edited:
AZ6 said:
Within the law. So, they really don't have any actual powers to prevent anyone taking photos or filming. Or to detain anyone (other than for criminal acts/prevention of harm), or confiscate any equipment. The only thing they are legally entitled to do is ask you to leave. It really is this simple.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, I never said otherwise.

Edit. Just one proviso to that, refusal to leave, when asked, would be trespass
 
Last edited:
jakeblu said:
Absolutely, I never said otherwise.

Edit. Just one proviso to that, refusal to leave, when asked, would be trespass
Click to expand...
So the they can sue you, it’s a civil offence AFAIK, unlike in US, unless you have gun etc etc.
 
jakeblu said:
I know the Scots have the right to roam, but it doesn’t apply to everything including houses, gardens and nonresidential buildings.
or so google tells me anyway :D
Click to expand...
I know,
But if you refuse to leave, they can't charge you with trespass:)
 
jakeblu said:
I know the Scots have the right to roam, but it doesn’t apply to everything including houses, gardens and nonresidential buildings.
or so google tells me anyway :D
Click to expand...
It applies to far more than many landowners like to imply to you as they stand demanding you to leave open access land.

Scottish Outdoor Access Code is a wonderful thing as is entirely deregulated Sunday shopping (since 1976)
 
sphexx said:
So the they can sue you, it’s a civil offence AFAIK, unlike in US, unless you have gun etc etc.
Click to expand...
I’m not certain but possible they can use reasonable force to evict you from private property if you refuse to leave.

Private security personnel generally do not have any more legal powers than any member of the public. They can only use ‘reasonable force’ to:

  • prevent a crime from occurring or if they have a reasonable suspicion that an offence
    has been committed.
  • remove trespassers from private property, when they are acting as agents for the
    property owner.
https://netpol.org/2016/08/11/briefing-protest-private-security/

Again this is from a google search I’m no solicitor or security guard, thankfully :)

edit apologies to any security guards or solicitors reading this.
 
Last edited:
jakeblu said:
I’m not certain but possible they can use reasonable force to evict you from private property if you refuse to leave.

Private security personnel generally do not have any more legal powers than any member of the public. They can only use ‘reasonable force’ to:

  • prevent a crime from occurring or if they have a reasonable suspicion that an offence
    has been committed.
  • remove trespassers from private property, when they are acting as agents for the
    property owner.
https://netpol.org/2016/08/11/briefing-protest-private-security/

Again this is from a google search I’m no solicitor or security guard, thankfully :)

edit apologies to any security guards or solicitors reading this.
Click to expand...
Not sure about England, but in Scotland:
Trespass to land is a civil matter and as such the police have no jurisdiction. Under common law, the landowner has a right to re-entry on the land; however the ejection of the trespasser is fraught with danger for the landowner. Initially, the landowner should ask the occupier to leave the land and if he/she does then all is well. The problems start however, if he/she refuses to leave the land.

It is also a criminal offence under the Trespass Scotland Act 1865 for a person to lodge in premises, occupy or encamp on any private property, without the consent and permission of the owner.

Anything done by a member of the public in exercising their access rights under the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003 does not amount to trespass. The Scottish Outdoor Access Code details these rights and how they should be exercised.

The owner of the land could commit several criminal offences if he forcibly removes the trespasser and his/her property from the land. The best and safest course of action is to obtain a court order, which if breached may then turn into a criminal matter.

If the police do attend an incident such as this, they are merely there as observers for any possible criminal offences committed by either party. The police cannot assist in the removal of the trespassers or their property from the land in question.

The police do have some powers against larger groups of occupiers if damage has been caused. Trespass is very complex and guidance should be sought where appropriate.

From here....
https://www.askthe.scottish.police.uk/content/Q56.htm
 
Silver Simon said:
The reason I posted the letter is, if nothing else it might help people to understand what the Police view is on 'street' photography, if they hadn't seen it. For me, the grey area is what is public access and what is a public place. I did say I was uncertain about being able to shoot there. :)
Click to expand...

Silver Simon said:
Too true but has not been superseded. I have seen videos taken this year where the police have said taking photos in a public place is legal.
Click to expand...


The ACPO CAG letter was only ever an opinion and as such was advice passed on to Chief Constables.
Since ACPO was replaced by the NPCC, it is no longer extant.


It's also poorly worded in that it fails to identify the difference between a 'public place' and a 'private place with public access'.

It also fails to mention that there are laws preventing photography in a public place, albeit under specific circumstances. Namely the OSA 1911, the Criminal Justice Act 1921, The Protection of Children Act 1978 and the Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019.

Those are laws which specifically prevent the taking of an image, as opposed to its publication - a very important difference.

Virtually the only 'public space' in the UK are the roads and their pedestrian access (pavements).
All other land is privately owned in one form or another, including so-called common land; that being private land with certain common rights such as grazing.

As such a land owner can set whatever terms of access to that land that he wishes to.
There are certain implied rights of access (ie the right to approach a front door to deliver mail or to visit/knock) but these can be rescinded.
Photography is not an implied right.

In short, if a land owner doesn't want you taking images on his property, he can demand that you stop.

If there is a notice to the effect that prevents photography, then to access that property for the purposes of taking a photograph would be 'trespass ab initio'.





Phil V said:
It can...
but it hasn’t
Click to expand...

It has. See above.
 
DemiLion said:
The ACPO CAG letter was only ever an opinion and as such was advice passed on to Chief Constables.
Since ACPO was replaced by the NPCC, it is no longer extant.




In short, if a land owner doesn't want you taking images on his property, he can demand that you stop.

If there is a notice to the effect that prevents photography, then to access that property for the purposes of taking a photograph would be 'trespass ab initio'.
Click to expand...
You can take photos in a shopping centre unless asked to stop.
However you can take photos of said shopping centre from say, a public pavement, correct?
You cannot take photos of inside somebody's lounge (voyeurism) but you can take photos of an office/cafe/restaurant etc. during opening hours, correct?

P.S. I totally agree with the confusion over public area, space etc.
 
Last edited:
Silver Simon said:
You cannot take photos in a shopping centre unless asked to stop. .
Click to expand...

Um, that actually doesn't make any sense.

However you can take photos of said shopping centre from say, a public pavement, correct?.
Click to expand...

Yes. Well. Sort of. As long as you don't create an obstruction. Roadways and pavements are for 'passing and repassing' only in theory and
much of the land under them is private.

From the House of Lords:
". . . the right of the public upon a highway is that of passing and repassing over land the soil of which may be owned by a private person. Using that soil for any other purpose lawful or unlawful is a trespass."


You cannot take photos of inside somebody's lounge (voyeurism) but you can take photos of an office/cafe/restaurant etc. during opening hours, correct?
Click to expand...

You can take photos of both from a 'public space' as long as you don't take any extreme efforts to view what is happening; ie use a step ladder.

P.S. I totally agree with the confusion over public area, space etc.
Click to expand...

Being brutal, the only confusion is public ignorance. The laws are generally quite clear.
 
Last edited:
jamesev said:
what does that allow the landowner to do?
Click to expand...

Not a lot more than if they were to prosecute as normal. It just means that the trespasser entered the property with the intention of breaching their licence.
It could possibly lead to greater damages if the case were taken to court but that very rarely happens.
 
DemiLion said:
Um, that actually doesn't make any sense.



Yes. Well. Sort of. As long as you don't create an obstruction. Roadways and pavements are for 'passing and repassing' only in theory and
much of the land under them is private.

From the House of Lords:
". . . the right of the public upon a highway is that of passing and repassing over land the soil of which may be owned by a private person. Using that soil for any other purpose lawful or unlawful is a trespass."




You can take photos of both from a 'public space' as long as you don't take any extreme efforts to view what is happening; ie use a step ladder.



Being brutal, the only confusion is public ignorance. The laws are generally quite clear.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I fully understand you can't obstruct people, put big tripods up, lighting stands etc.
I am not interested in taking images of people's lounges.
I would suggest you could possibly put up a step ladder to say take an overview of a street, maybe a protest march, as long as you do not cause an obstruction.

P.S. I edited my post to say 'can' take photos, not cannot. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top