Tripod use in London ?

When walking home tonight, I was on the south bank opposite parliament and there were about five tripods. One chap even brought lights. Then on the bridge there were three more tripod users.

It is my usual experience. Enjoy London.
 
st599 said:
I will. Because you're incorrect.
Click to expand...
You may wish to refer to Section 33 Criminal Justice Act 1972 or Section 16 of the Public Order Act 1986 or Section 91 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 or Section 10 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 or Section 57 of the Fireams Act 1968 or Section 139 Criminal Justice Act 1988 or Section 1 Prevention of Crime Act 1953 or Section 137 Serious Organized Crime and Police Act or Section 30 Policing and Crime Act 2009 or Section 121 Terrorism Act 2000. There is ample case law relating to what is and isn't a public place as a result of this legislation. It is very clear.
 
st599 said:
Sorry, but this is wrong.
Click to expand...

Just because the public are allowed somewhere doesn't make it public property. The stretch of the South Bank being discussed is leased by Merlin Entertainments, who own Tussauds, the Eye and London Aquarium. As such they have the right to apply a set of rules about how that land is used. They may not enforce those rules all the time, but they do have the right to enforce them at any time.....
 
So what about those tripod and real life situations? ;)
 
smudgie49 said:
You may wish to refer to Section 33 Criminal Justice Act 1972 or Section 16 of the Public Order Act 1986 or Section 91 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 or Section 10 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 or Section 57 of the Fireams Act 1968 or Section 139 Criminal Justice Act 1988 or Section 1 Prevention of Crime Act 1953 or Section 137 Serious Organized Crime and Police Act or Section 30 Policing and Crime Act 2009 or Section 121 Terrorism Act 2000. There is ample case law relating to what is and isn't a public place as a result of this legislation. It is very clear.
Click to expand...

You're right and "ignorance is no defence of the law" however, it's no good cutting and pasting legislation if you don't have the knowledge of how to apply it or when it should be used.

Ipso facto. That is all.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
You're right and "ignorance is no defence of the law" however, it's no good cutting and pasting legislation if you don't have the knowledge of how to apply it or when it should be used.

Ipso facto. That is all.
Click to expand...
Then it is fortuitous that I have 30 years experience of exactly that in Magistrates Courts, Crown Courts and the High Court.
 
Give it a go, worst that can happen is you get asked to pack it up and move along.

No point argung if you get captured, most of the security people are less than gifted especially in the common sense department

When I was younger and fitter I enjoyed the sport of discussing it with them, even if it got heated, too old and sensible now for that nonsense
 
Last edited:
tijuana taxi said:
Give it a go, worst that can happen is you get asked to pack it up and move along.

No point argung if you get captured, most of the security people are less than gifted especially in the common sense department

When I was younger and fitter I enjoyed the sport of discussing it with them, even if it got heated, too old and sensible now for that nonsense
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. Just go for it, regardless of the theoretical nonsense. Just be sensible about it and you'll be fine.
 
smudgie49 said:
You may wish to refer to Section 33 Criminal Justice Act 1972
Click to expand...

I would have thought that with your 30 years experience you'd be better able to interpret the law - for example section 33 of the CJA 1972 says that

for the purposes of the act a public place is defined as a place to which the public have access whether by payment or otherwise at the time of the material action. So if you commit an offence under the CJA 1972 say in tescos you can still be charged under that act ... however it doesn't mean that this definition extends to any circumstances not covered by the act (likewise for the other acts you've quoted)

If I walk up your garden path to deliver a letter I am not trespassing as its an activity to which you have implicitly consented (unless you have signed to say otherwise) , however if i stand in your front garden taking pictures you would have a perfect right to ask me to stop and to leave - this is because your garden is not a public place despite the public having access to it via your front gate.

This applies equally to tesco's or any other land or place which is owned by someone. ( If you doubt this go and start taking photos without permission in your local tesco and see what happens)

The Countryside and Rights of way act 2000 says that the public has a right of access on Public roads and pavements and the public rights of way network, and land designated as access land... it goes on to say that everywhere else is private land but access may be gained by permission or in some cases by traditional use. (Schedule 2 of the Act also says amongst other things that access rights do not confer the right to obstruct the use by others or to undertake any commercial activity. )
 
Last edited:
Forget 'public place'. It's private land with public access. That means it's the owners train set and you have to play by their rules.
 
DemiLion said:
Forget 'public place'. It's private land with public access. That means it's the owners train set and you have to play by their rules.
Click to expand...

Perhaps a little simplistic and not quite accurate. 'Public Place' and 'Private Land' are two different strands. Private Land affords the opportunity of 'civil trespass' to the aggrieved for unwelcome transgressors.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Perhaps a little simplistic and not quite accurate. 'Public Place' and 'Private Land' are two different strands. Private Land affords the opportunity of 'civil trespass' to the aggrieved for unwelcome transgressors.
Click to expand...

This is true any legal discussion is going to be simplified unless we all start cutting and pasting legislative paragraphs - however 'private land is the germane strand - if you are on private land (even if some definitions would still make it a public place) then the landowner has the right to restrict what activities can take place there, including saying no photography, or saying no tripods and saying "yeah but i'm in a public place because of xyz case law/legislation" would cut no ice whatsoever.

Admittedly as you say this would be a matter of trespass rather than a criminal issue , but if someone gets arsey with security guards or other 'agents of the landowner' they could still find themselves being removed by the police under the CJPOA 1994 .

Interestingly the right of access to the public right of way network and access land under CROW 2000 doesn't actually include a right to engage in photography - its not specifically listed as a non covered activity in schedule 2 (other than if it constitutes commercial activity) but nor is camera equipment covered under the list of 'usual accompaniments' (ie things you can carry/transport along a PRoW ) , in essence this means that it is still at the discretion of the landowner, which means that if he or his agents ask you to stop taking pictures "yeah but i'm on a footpath" isnt going to cut any ice either
 
Apparently there's a garden/Park in London where u are not allowed tripods at all. Forgot what the place is called but it's past archway heading west from there in a posh area
 
Sounds like St James Park. Out of interest I've just had a little read and commercial photograph requires permission. Personal photography (in a quick skim read) seems perfectly acceptable. Lucky because if you think how many thousands of young families visit ... :D
 
Hampstead Heath - per my posts further up - forbids 'the errection of photographic apparatus' in its byelaws (I'd suspect this was originally intended to cover the sort of 'take your picture, guvnor' flytraders who were more common before camera ownership became common place
 
Clearly commercial shoots in many places and you will get told to go away. Especially southbank, usually within a matter of seconds. Same but you get a few mins outside City Hall / More London.

Hobbyist with a tripod taking a nice snap of the river, you'll be fine.

Some (ie the royal) parks have it banned by bylaw, not just hampstead heath. You'd have to get a royal parks cop who hadn't had his doughnuts that morning to actually get in trouble for it though.

Generally, don't get in people's way and you'll be fine taking non-commercial photos. There's always tourists taking shots all over the place.
 
itsdavedotnet said:
Clearly commercial shoots in many places and you will get told to go away. Especially southbank, usually within a matter of seconds. Same but you get a few mins outside City Hall / More London.

Hobbyist with a tripod taking a nice snap of the river, you'll be fine.

Some (ie the royal) parks have it banned by bylaw, not just hampstead heath. You'd have to get a royal parks cop who hadn't had his doughnuts that morning to actually get in trouble for it though.

Generally, don't get in people's way and you'll be fine taking non-commercial photos. There's always tourists taking shots all over the place.
Click to expand...

The problem is many security guards can't distinguish Pros from Amateurs especially when expensive big DSLRs are mounted on tripods. They don't care, they just move you on.

My solution to this is shoot and scoot which I articulated earlier !
 
Blank_Canvas said:
The problem is many security guards can't distinguish Pros from Amateurs especially when expensive big DSLRs are mounted on tripods. They don't care, they just move you on.

My solution to this is shoot and scoot which I articulated earlier !
Click to expand...

I think this is at the crux of the 'problem'. I believe the security guards are trying to root out professional photographers. Or their perceived view of what makes a pro.
I had a similar experience at More London. Shooting a street portrait using a reflector. Security guard approaches to enquire as to what I was doing, was I a professional, what is the purpose of the shoot. I assured him it wasn't a professional shoot but he wouldn't have me using the reflector "for health and safety reasons"
My personal feelings are that it's not worth the argument. Just move on, there'll be other opportunities and life is too short to bother about missing a few photographs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top