I got escorted off Canary Wharf by security...

neil_g said:
laugh?

:shrug:
Click to expand...

:shrug:in other circumstances maybe but probably not on private property at 2am in the morning amongst the country's highest (probably) risk buildings:shrug:

There's a time and a place for such humour
 
It's a no tripod policy in force. Camera's and photos are allowed, of the buildings too. I clarified it after I had a similar experience. For the avoidance of doubt, you really should ask for a permit which is normally granted.

I maintain though, it is absolutely insane to speculate that a terrorist would pitch up at a location like this, armed with a DSLR with a job of carrying out recon and intelligence gathering. Terrorists are far more clever, far more evil and will ALWAYS find a way to hide out of the way and carry out their attack. You simply cannot stop them all, one day, we will be hit again - stupid photography rules or not.

Gary.
 
EdinburghGary said:
I maintain though, it is absolutely insane to speculate that a terrorist would pitch up at a location like this, armed with a DSLR with a job of carrying out recon and intelligence gathering. Terrorists are far more clever, far more evil and will ALWAYS find a way to hide out of the way and carry out their attack. You simply cannot stop them all, one day, we will be hit again - stupid photography rules or not.

Gary.
Click to expand...
I don't think any of us question the sanity behind the rules set out Gary, but those there to enforce them on private property are simply doing just that.
 
Simmotino said:
The bloke in front of you on your flight to New York jokes he has a bomb in his bag.

Laugh?
Click to expand...

IMO, it's hardly the same. Crowded plane for once, and nerves are on edge on most flights. This sounds like a stroppy security guard, stopped him for the 4th time and hassled him AGAIN. When I was granted permission to shoot (without tripod), they used the radio to contact the others, I was only bothered as I got my tripod required shot on my way out of the complex.

Gary.
 
Simmotino said:
I don't think any of us question the sanity behind the rules set out Gary, but those there to enforce them on private property are simply doing just that.
Click to expand...

Surely though, if he was allowed to take photos - he should have been left to do so after being stopped the first time? It's not fair to be stopped four times in an hour when you are doing absolutely nothing wrong. It is literally big brother gone mad.

I might not have got wise with the guy, but I would have been EXTREMELY angry at the insane over reaction on their part.

Gary.
 
EdinburghGary said:
IMO, it's hardly the same.
Click to expand...
For the security personnel it is though, surely.

At the point of questioning, an answer gives rise to there being the possibility that the person in front of you is a terrorist.

Now, do you laugh and think it's funny and take the chance that it isn't actually a joke, or do you do what you are paid to do?
 
neil_g said:
whos more dangerous, the guy who jokes about it or the slightly sweaty quiet guy at the back of the queue?

digressing slightly though..
Click to expand...
Not disagreeing with you there, but the point was in response to the idea of simply passing it off as a joke when you are there to prevent such possibilities within your capacity.
 
kelack said:
:shrug:in other circumstances maybe but probably not on private property at 2am in the morning amongst the country's highest (probably) risk buildings:shrug:
Click to expand...
Yeah those guards will do a great job of stopping a 737.
Lets face it if they need a photography of Canary wharf to find it from the air their in the wrong job as a terrorist.
And if they really are that dumb (and 9/11 suggests otherwise) they would just get jobs as security guards and take all the pics they want.
 
Simmotino said:
For the security personnel it is though, surely.

At the point of questioning, an answer gives rise to there being the possibility that the person in front of you is a terrorist.

Now, do you laugh and think it's funny and take the chance that it isn't actually a joke, or do you do what you are paid to do?
Click to expand...

I think the security were right to put him out at that point, but it's not the same. He would have been arrested and potentially jailed if he joked about a bomb whilst on a flight.

I just hate jobsworths who

A: Haven't a clue what the rules are, instead making them up as they please and...

B: Enjoy getting off on the fact that because they are in a position of authority, if gives them an excuse to bully and intimidate those without the badge.

They need better training, and they need to clarify the photography policy to avoid any doubt. If it means banning cameras, then so be it. Stupid in my opinion, but that's the way it goes now.

For the record, I suspect if any terrorist did want to take photo's - he or she would pitch up with a 5 mega pixel mobile, with built in video functionality, probably when the place is at its busiest....IF they were stupid enough to NEED the photos. Which I doubt.

Gary.
 
48thEagle said:
You are the one that led the security to believe you are a student, it would appear you are seeking education too.
Click to expand...
It was that or get escorted off the property because a security guard thinks you need to be a student to photograph there! So what would you do? Tell a little lie so you can continue to shoot (which is allowed anyway), or tell the truth and get escorted off the property by a security guard who doesn't know the rules. Bare in mind it took us 40 minutes to get there, 40 minutes back and a further 30 minutes going to mine to get the camera.
 
Kryptix said:
It was that or get escorted off the property because a security guard thinks you need to be a student to photograph there! So what would you do? Tell a little lie so you can continue to shoot (which is allowed anyway), or tell the truth and get escorted off the property by a security guard who doesn't know the rules. Bare in mind it took us 40 minutes to get there, 40 minutes back and a further 30 minutes going to mine to get the camera.
Click to expand...

Just shows they haven't a clue. When I was there, non commercial shots only. No tripod. You get told, Students only. And someone else here mentioned, COMMERCIAL shoots only - with a permit.

And people wonder why it ****es us off.

Gary.
 
Kryptix said:
get escorted off the property by a security guard who doesn't know the rules.
Click to expand...

If it is considered private property and he is told be one of his superiors that you aren't allowed there, then I would hazard a guess that he does know the rules.
 
swanseamale47 said:
Yeah those guards will do a great job of stopping a 737.
Lets face it if they need a photography of Canary wharf to find it from the air their in the wrong job as a terrorist.
And if they really are that dumb (and 9/11 suggests otherwise) they would just get jobs as security guards and take all the pics they want.
Click to expand...

I meant the joke bit, if you look at my whole post there rather than half of it. I think I have an alright sense of humour but at that time of the morning, I probably haven't, don't know about you. But this is digressing from the point.
 
48thEagle said:
If it is considered private property and he is told be one of his superiors that you aren't allowed there, then I would hazard a guess that he does know the rules.
Click to expand...

I would hazard a guess, that they are clueless.

An official response found on a flickr discussion:

"Following the experiences of people here and people I know personally, whilst taking photos at Canary Wharf, I contacted the management at Canary Wharf about this, and received the following reply which may be of interest to people here:

"I am responsible for security on the Canary Wharf Estate and am extremely concerned at your suggestions of 'hassle' and 'assault'. You are correct in your assumption that the Estate is private property, to which members of the public are generally permitted access. There are numerous signs throughout the complex, advising of the fact that the Estate is private property and not a public right of way. That said, Canary Wharf Group welcomes visitors, whether they be workers, shoppers, tourists or photographers, but obviously retains the right, under civil law, to question and, if necessary, eject, individuals suspected of criminal, anti-social or prohibited activity.

Photography is not banned on the Estate and therefore there are no signs advising of its prohibition. However, professional photography is only permitted with our permission and when granted, a permit is issued. Amateur photography is welcomed but, in the light of the current extremely high threat from terrorism, photographers may be questioned by security staff. Once satisfied with their legitimacy, security personnel will permit the photography to continue and I am very disappointed at your comments about the threats to confiscate the memory card or delete the photos.

Whilst I have, in the past, received a small number of queries regarding the questioning of visitors to the Estate by security personnel, this is the first time that I have heard of threats. If you can give me specific occurrences, I will investigate.

The Metropolitan Police are fully aware of our activities, aimed at combating the threat from terrorism and, provided that my staff are polite and provide an explanation for their actions, are comfortable with our approach.

I acknowledge that photographers are more likely to be challenged at Canary Wharf than in many other areas of London, if only because there are private security personnel on the Estate. I have to find the balance between providing a welcoming environment and also ensuring safety and security and it is extremely difficult to satisfy everybody.

Please be assured that there is no intention to hassle or assault and I regret if you or your acquaintances feel that to be the case."

I have asked for more clarification, particularly on how his staff define "professional photography". Any further responses shall be posted back."
 
:p Gary - pay attention now, Jo and I have already posted that :lol:
 
Do you need any more proof as to why the situation is nothing but disgraceful and farcical?

"Muslim architecture student quizzed by police over Canary Wharf photo project"
A Muslim architect student was hauled before police, strip-searched and questioned for hours on suspicion of terrorism - for taking pictures of Canary Wharf.

Kamran Tariq was wandering amongst other tourists who were snapping the dock-lands hoping to gain inspiration for an art project when he was arrested by a troop of nine officers.

The Grenwich University student was bundled into a police car and taken to a station where he said he was subjected to a grueling strip-search and questioned for six hours.

The twenty-year-old was also fingerprinted and required to provide a DNA sample.

"I was singled out for being a young Pakistani Muslim and I was humiliated," said Mr Tariq, who is originally from Walsall and in his final university year.

"I was made to feel small and treated like a criminal - all for a piece of university coursework."

Mr Tariq's ordeal began when he approached two Canary Wharf security guards on October 9 to ask for some advice for his project, "Floating Cities."

Finding the area quiet, and hoping to get pictures of workers streaming down the docks, he asked the guards if there might be a busier time to take pictures.

He showed them his university badge, camera, the pictures he had taken and the contents of his shoulder-bag.

The guards, one of who had identified himself as a fellow fasting-Muslim, advised him to wait until the people finished work.

But minutes later the security guard returned to quiz him why his university photograph was in black and white, which Mr Tariq said was not unusual.

Mr Tariq, who is bearded, and was dressed in a traditional, long Muslim robe, believes he was victimised because of his looks.

"It was quite obvious it was because I was dressed in this way that they thought I was a terrorist," he said.

"The officer was telling me this was all procedure but I don't see how it can be - there were other people taking pictures and they had already searched my bag."

"Other students have been taking photographs of the area and they have not had any problems."

"I think public suspicion of Muslims has worsened since July 7."

Mr Tariq says he was then inspected by a sniffer dog and as he continued through the docks into a city-park, Mr Tariq was detained a third time.

Once again, he was asked to produce his photographs, and willingly complied.

Mr Tariq says after finding a quiet spot to take his afternoon prayer, two more guards questioned him and informed him he had been seen "acting suspiciously."

Soon afterwards, they were joined by two policemen.

Mr Tariq said: "Being in a public park, I felt quite embarrassed - I didn't appreciate being treated like a criminal and people had begun to gather round and watch.

"When the policemen asked me to take a walk to their car, I thought it was unnecessary but I complied nonetheless."

"We walked around the corner only to my horror to find seven uniformed officers were waiting."

"I was utterly gob-smacked. I was an architecture student who was working hard to be like those people who constructed the buildings around us, yet I was being treated like someone who would destroy such fine work."

The student was then arrested on suspicion of planning terrorist activity and taken to Limehouse Police Station in London where he was strip-searched and questioned.

He was eventually being released without charge at half past seven-six hours after first being questioned by security staff.

Mr Tariq says the ordeal left him feeling violated and believes he may need counseling.

He is currently looking into registering a complaint with the IPCC.

A police spokesman said: "We can confirm Mr Tariq was arrested on October 9 and released without charge the same day without further action to be taken."

"This was an isolated incident and our officers took the action they deemed to be appropriate."
 
Kryptix said:
Oh right darling! Where did he say they were there to entertain people? He's right, they should be educated. I got told several times that you need to be a student to shoot there, unless you're a professional in which case you need a permit. Tripods aren't allowed and you cannot take any shots that contain buildings what-so-ever.

So I completely agree with him, they do need educating.
Click to expand...

So are you a student? No. Are you a professional? :shrug: Did you make up your mind on that yet?

It's besides the point anyway. I honestly think you got less that you deserved for being a smart arse. You should have been escorted off by the police IMO. While there you should have confessed to taking naked/glamour pictures of under 18's. Why not eh? You seem to have a very immature way of looking at things. If you deny this and still believe you did nothing wrong on either occasion, tell the police. Let them decide. You really shouldn't call me darling.

EdinburghGary said:
Surely though, if he was allowed to take photos - he should have been left to do so after being stopped the first time? It's not fair to be stopped four times in an hour when you are doing absolutely nothing wrong. It is literally big brother gone mad.

I might not have got wise with the guy, but I would have been EXTREMELY angry at the insane over reaction on their part.

Gary.
Click to expand...


Gary, tbh we are only going by what he has said, which I actually believe to be less than truthful. I've an inkling that things didn't play out quite as innocently as Luke makes out. Having said that I still think that at that time of night, in such a high risk place the security guards acted professionally.

For all we know there could have been an alert in the system for Canary Wharf at the time, and orders were to be extra extra vigilant. Act on anything suspicious or 'new'. :shrug:
 
Jo said:
It is a fact that terrorist use imagery when plotting, so preventing this seems like the answer. If they can't be accurate, then they stand less chance of success surely?
Click to expand...

Preventing what? If they want imagery of any 'target' site in the world they just have to hit up Flickr and Google Maps/Street View....even if that was banned it's hardly beyond their capabilities to maquerade as /recruit a student to take some. It's utterly pointless and serves only to **** everyone off, in the name of trying to look like they are doing something useful.

On the other hand, yes, it was quite annoying being hassled, but if I was a security guard bored out of my mind at 2am I'd go and speak to people lugging a camera and tripod around as well. Maybe it would have been nice if they'd radioed round to tell everyone to leave you alone, but I wouldn't expect it.

Good pics though :)
 
Jo said:
I have to say that I'm impressed by the security of Canary Wharf. Before you continue to complain, just think about what you and thousands of other people would say if Canary Wharf was hit by terrorists ...
Click to expand...


Again!
 
48thEagle said:
You can't own an adjective.



It is that clear cut is it?

Having read a number of examples of the mentality and attitude of the OP, I am left wondering how much of their 'harassment' was due to provocation?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the English lesson, appreciated. Any more?

Sounds clear cut to me. Stopped 4 times in an hour for doing something which is within the rules and permitted.

How would you like to be pulled over 4 times in an hour, whilst maintaining the speed limit and doing nothing to warrant such attention?

Gary.
 
Gary, to be totally truthful I can see why he was arrested. I also think the lad was really silly to put himself in that position given his/the whole situation.

People will say "But terrorists aren't stupid enough to be that obvious". Well there is such a thing as reverse psychology. Not saying it is so, but it is possible. Especially if their other avenues of gathering accurate information begin to fail them. These people will give up their lives ... worse they will happily blow themselves to pieces for their cause. I don't put anything else past them. They are capable of anything to get what they want. A lot of them are highly educated people who will know acting stupid is sometimes the cleverest way to act to get what you want.
 
neil_g said:
i chuckled.. :cuckoo:

has no one thought that if the OP was a terrorist then he would of gone at the most crowded time of day to blend in rather than go when no one else is there, completely exposing himself?
Click to expand...

Like I said, that's not the security guard's call to make. As far as I can tell, no security guard said that they were terrorists anyway. They asked questions, that's their job.
 
On the other hand chaps, you're a security guard, working a night shift, possibly bored and some entertainment comes your way...
 
It was actually about 8 times but most of them were exactly the same as the first time.
 
I spent a nice afternoon wandering around Canary Wharf with my kit (but no tripod) without a single word from security.



Maybe I just don't look Terroristy :shrug:
 
EdinburghGary said:
How would you like to be pulled over 4 times in an hour, whilst maintaining the speed limit and doing nothing to warrant such attention?

Gary.
Click to expand...


LOL - I've been stopped for "driving too carefully". "Officer, there's three cars behind me, it's pouring down with rain, I'm in a car with way too much horsepower through it's rear wheels and it's 11pm at night. What do you expect"




and yes I should have added the "..and we're wearing sunglasses.." line.
 
EdinburghGary said:
Thanks for the English lesson, appreciated. Any more?

Sounds clear cut to me. Stopped 4 times in an hour for doing something which is within the rules and permitted.

How would you like to be pulled over 4 times in an hour, whilst maintaining the speed limit and doing nothing to warrant such attention?

Gary.
Click to expand...

My record is only 3 times in an hour, one of the joys of working nights in London.

I remember reading the thread you put up about Canary Wharf, and to be honest, whilst the seeds of each story are the same, there are few parallels from that point onwards, but with the attitude explained by the OP of this thread, and in previous threads, I honestly think their reactions during that hour were borne of being faced with an attitude I doubt you displayed.

And my apologies for the 'English lesson' I should not have posted that, it is my problem, something I find as annoying as people who say "simples" - as I said, my problem, my apologies for unloading it on you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top