# UK Photographer Gets Harrassed For Photography; Funny Exchange



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 21, 2012)

http://www.pixiq.com/article/uk-photographer-gets-harrassed-for-photography-funny-exchange

Full article at http://www.visitscunthorpe.com/ScunthorpeNews/headline/Golden-Wonder-Security

Video






The article gives a lot of background.  The video, was a riot. So polite they were. 

I liked the "I don't give a toss about the law" comment.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 21, 2012)

:chuckles:  I couldn't bear to watch the whole thing ... as may have become apparent over the years I'm rather 'English' and was terribly embarrassed for the security person trying desperately - and failing - to avoid falling into the pit of 'Jobsworth'.  I've made my opinions plain on Little Hitlers' over the years here so I shall say no more ... other than well done to the photographer for politely and un-threateningly standing his ground.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 22, 2012)

Why on earth would anyone want to photograph a crisp factory and in Scunthorpe of all places? I'm inclined to think especially as it's being filmed at the same time, someone is winding the security guard up and trying to make an issue out of not being photographed, a put up job methinks. I'm betting they've been there before, checked that the security will rise to the bait then set out deliberately to record it all.


----------



## granfire (Jan 22, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Why on earth would anyone want to photograph a crisp factory and in Scunthorpe of all places? I'm inclined to think especially as it's being filmed at the same time, someone is winding the security guard up and trying to make an issue out of not being photographed, a put up job methinks. I'm betting they've been there before, checked that the security will rise to the bait then set out deliberately to record it all.



The same type of people who's work we love to look at - 100 years later. I think he likes to do somewhat of a historian's work, just that to have that 100 yo picture, somebody had to take it of that crisp new place back then.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 22, 2012)

read the article, and related bits. Explains it better I think.

As to why? Honestly, to me it's pretty boring, but some folk like doing it.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 22, 2012)

granfire said:


> The same type of people who's work we love to look at - 100 years later. I think he likes to do somewhat of a historian's work, just that to have that 100 yo picture, somebody had to take it of that crisp new place back then.



Having seen the buikding I would entitled the book, 'Bland and Boring buildings that do nothing for anyone anywhere'. Sorry still think it's a wind up to make a fuss about photagrpahing thing. If not, if the photographer had contacted the manager of the building, asked if they could photograph it I'm betting they'd have been invited in and got to photograph anything they wanted out of pity for someone with lack of architechural taste if nothing else.
It's very unfair to put someone like the security guard in a position like that, they do what they are employed to do, most companies don't like unathorised photos being taken and give instructions accordingly, what else was the guard supposed to do, especially in this economic climate and high unemployment? ou can say they should have let them photograph the building but if then they got the sack? 'Jobsworth' it may be but it's still true that there's bills to pay, mouths to fee and a roof over the head to be kept' so really it's unfair to do that to the guard, walk away and take it up with the people responsible..the company.


----------



## granfire (Jan 22, 2012)

Are you buying int the American Paranoia? :lol:

No telling what catches a person's eye, even on a butt ugly building. I think Exile had an album up on MT with ugly A$$ empty stripmall stores, like old abandoned Walmart buildings. Certainly no architectural gems, but a part of our urban history. 

The color combination, how the light reflects off certain materials, Or just that he has been through there 10, 20 or 30 years prior and there was no building, or a different one. 

But seriously, you stand clear across the street from a building...


It kind of reminds me of the German people who have their houses pixilated on google earth, making it look like something Xrated, when any Tom Dick and harry can walk by their house and take pictures.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 22, 2012)

So, you're ok with being lied to, told you can't do something, that something legal was illegal?

See, I, as a photographer, take offense to clueless bullies giving me a load of crap when I'm doing something that's 100% legal.
More so when they are actual uniformed law enforcement types, and not rent-a-cops like these were.

More of the problem is the probability that both the guard and the supervisor actually thought that it was illegal.
Even more of a problem would have been an actual cop showing up who would have backed them and not the photographer.

Now asking for an ok would be polite. But it's apparently not a legal requirement.

The guard in there was obviously quite taken aback that her 'authority' wasn't 'obeyed without question'.  Little nazi's get that way, on both sides of the Atlantic.

What differs this British incompetent guard from her American version was that she didn't phone in a complaint about a 'terrorist' who 'threatened' her, resulting in a full military response, the assault and beating of the photographer, the theft and destruction of his gear, his loss of freedom, loss of employment, and excessive high legal defense bills. (actual case in the US btw)

Because he pissed her off by doing something completely legal in your country.


What the company likes, is irrelevant.
What the guard wants, is irrelevant.
What the officer demands, is irrelevant.
Unless the law requires it. Then it is relevant.

Comply now, argue later still equals = I got them to do it anyway. I stopped them from doing a lawful act. I win, freedom loses.

Sure this is a case of some urban shooter taking pictures of stuff that many of us (me included) find boring and meaningless. That's besides the point. 

I applaud this guy for knowing his rights under the law, and putting his foot down to claim them.
If people don't do that, ultimately you lose those rights as it becomes 'common law' and 'accepted'.
He kept his cool. Neither she nor her supervisor did.

Now if he'd been trespassing, done a break in etc, I'd fully support the local constable smacking him. But that's a different argument.


----------



## Gnarlie (Jan 22, 2012)

This looks to me like an almost perfect example of what happens when two people share the shallow end of the gene pool.

Of course the photographer is within his rights to be taking photographs on public property, but it would have been courteous to ask if you can photograph the company's private property.  Worse, when he is asked not to take photographs, rather than respecting the wishes of the person asking he causes confrontation by stating his rights.  OK, he can be right in the eyes of the law, but that doesn't mean he's not being a bit of a dick in exploiting it and waving the loophole in someone's face when they are only doing their job.  If he had any sense, he'd have asked first out of respect, and the whole situation could have been avoided.  In fact, he'd probably have gotten better photographs from on site, but I guess being right and getting one over on someone were more important.

Same goes for the security - it would have been easier and less aggravating for them to ask politely what he was doing, contact the PR people and let him into the site to take better pics.  Would have got them out of their little hut for an hour.

My working life has been full of maggots like this, causing confrontation and abrasion for the sake of it, rather than working together.  I might sound like a bit of a hippy, but why do people fail to co-operate so often?  It's not that hard.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 22, 2012)

I think it would have been better to confront the people giving the orders that he wasn't to photograph the building not pick on a security guard who works a 60 hour week for £3 ($1.55) an hour. Better to have ignored her and taken it up with those who are in charge, who told her that to keep her job she had to keep to their rules. Picking on a security guard is easy, don't get mad at the monkey, get mad at the organ grinder. The best thing about being British is that we can compromise, not harangue someone, not get in their face but to change things the way they are supposed to be changed. Confronting a powerless security guard is cowardly, raising it in the media, with your MP, make a campaign about it but why pick on a security guard how ever wrong they may be. 
The guard is someone on minimum wage trying to do a job, maybe she doesn't do it well, maybe the photographer had come on to the Golden Wonder property which actually did look like it when talking, even if he wasn't taking photos from there but how pointless is it to have an argument with a security guard when you could be campaigning properly, it's weak and feeble to try to campaign this way after all it hasn't done any good, hasn't made the news, the company isn't shamed. It's done nothing probably except lose the woman her job, yeah nice one and I bet she still doesn't know what's legal and what's not so this 'effort' has done nothing. Education is what's needed not harrassment on any side. 

Photograph any of my buildings you will be arrested and probably sent to prison, that's legal and there's signs everywhere saying we can do it...because we can and will.


----------



## Gnarlie (Jan 22, 2012)

Completely agree Tez, it's not a hard thing to sort out if you want to take photos on company property, and for everybody to be happy at the end of it.

Can I photograph your buildings if I ask nicely first, or do I go to prison either way?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 22, 2012)

Gnarlie said:


> Completely agree Tez, it's not a hard thing to sort out if you want to take photos on company property, and for everybody to be happy at the end of it.
> 
> Can I photograph your buildings if I ask nicely first, or do I go to prison either way?





Sometimes people are allowed to photograph certain places but the MOD has it's own photographers so control is tight, there's certain buildings that can be phtographed from roads in some locations. My house is an MOD one as is the land it's on so you can't photograph that either lol it all comes under the Offical Secrets Act. There's signs everywhere warning people. Often people can't see why they can't take a photo of a building etc but you'd be surprised what they can be used for,making legends for a start, imagine taking a photo of a college for example I could then make it look as if I studied there, 'see there's me on the steps' sort of thing. 

As for the Golden Wonder thing, if the point was to show that people don't know the law etc it's fallen short, filming a security guard making a fool of herself doesn't cut it. If they want to campaign and educate the public on what the law allows and doesn't, this isn't the way to do it. Anyone can wind someone up and film them, it would be more to the point if the company were educated about the law and what photographers can and can't do, looking at that building they'd probably be grateful someone wanted to photgraph it. Ecuating the company would be a start, educsating the public would be a better way to go and this isn't educating anyone.

Bob as for being lied to, happens every day 'wasn't me', education, education, education not confrontation when it's not necessary.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 22, 2012)

I'm kind of in the middle with this one.

The photographer has a point; he wasn't breaking the law (I assume), he wasn't trespassing, all he was doing was taking pictures.  Why?  Don't ask me...  Maybe he saw something in the play of light & shadow on the building...  Maybe he just likes factory buildings.

The guards have a point, too.  He's taking pictures of their building and staff without permission.  That can be a problem...  Maybe there are corporate espionage concerns, like a "secret ingredient" or employees who could be vulnerable to some sort of coercion or pressure.  Or just plain image control.  Don't know...

Neither side handled it particularly well.  No, the photographer didn't get pissed off and violent.  Neither did the guards.  But the photographer was rather passively aggressive, pushing the issue on and on, rather than simply stopping and moving along.  And the guards shouldn't have cited "the law" without being able to actually cite a law.  Since he wasn't breaking the law, back off.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 22, 2012)

In the US, I don't need your permission to take pictures in public. 
According to this UK shooter, you don't there either.
There -is- a movement there to educate the cops and public.

http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#United_Kingdom
http://www.photographersrights.org.uk/
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/

UK law is different from US law in some ways.

Now Tez, as a member of the Armed Forces, gets special privilege. The average Brit, not so much.


> *United Kingdom
> Legal restrictions on photography*
> 
> In general under the law of the United Kingdom one cannot prevent photography of private property from a public place, and in general the right to take photographs on private land upon which permission has been obtained is similarly unrestricted. However a landowner is permitted to impose any conditions they wish upon entry to a property, such as forbidding or restricting photography. Two public locations in the UK, Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square have a specific provision against photography for commercial purposes without the written permission of the Mayor,[2] and permission is needed to photograph or film for commercial purposes in the Royal Parks.[3]
> ...


and


> *Photography and privacy*
> 
> A right to privacy exists in the UK law, as a consequence of the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998. This can result in restrictions on the publication of photography.[27][28][29][30][31]
> 
> ...


Wikipedia.


Based on these links, and my admittedly limited understanding of UK laws, to be blunt, the guard was a tit and her supervisor a git.
The shooter was perhaps rude, but not by my NY standards. I would have said simply "If I'm breaking the law, get a cop and let him make the call. If not, sod off and stop harassing me." 
Well, maybe not the last part....out loud.

At the end of the day, my view is that the guards were out of line, not the shooter.

As to German law, that's a whole different ballpark.
http://guidedmunich.com/german-privacy-laws/


----------



## granfire (Jan 22, 2012)

Yeah, the Germans are nuts that way.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 23, 2012)

granfire said:


> Yeah, the Germans are nuts that way.


I wouldn't say nuts, I'd say different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_copyright_(Germany)
http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=1118
These show some of the differences in laws.

I cracked my head good looking at houses this afternoon, so a more indepth dig will have to wait until I stop seeing quintuple.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 23, 2012)

I'm a civvie actually rather than being a member of the armed forces, the MOD owns a lot of property including several farms, a few villages and a pub where we are, they are all leased out to civvies.
http://www.darlingtonandstocktontim...66.The_Bolton_Arms__Downholme__near_Richmond/

If there's a campaign here to educate people it's not making any impact ...probably I have to say because no one is particularly interested apart from a few who seem to think there's a problem where there isn't. Most Brits are actually private people, they prefer not to have their homes or places of work photographed, just because it's not illegal to photograph doesn't seem a good reason just to take photos. However if you do wish to, asking politely is the way to go, just because something is legal doesn't mean you have to leave good manners at home. You will find saying 'right I'm taking a photo and it's legal' won't get you very far with most people, all it does is set their backs up. You don't have to ask but it's polite to do so. If you insist on taking them against the owners wishes and there's an argument you may find yourself being done for breach of the peace.

The law may say you can photograph anyone you want but there's also a moral point that says surely that if that person doesn't want to be photographed they shouldn't be. To go around photographing people for your own ends and telling them it's tough it's legal and I'm doing it anyway is the mark of a scoundrel and is immoral even if it is legal.   

Nobody came out of the video looking good, shouldn't have been done.


----------



## Gnarlie (Jan 23, 2012)

I don't know about the US, but the rules around the use personal and commercial data in the UK and Germany are remarkably similar, as they stem from the same EU legislation.  

The way that the legislation, case law and precedent have been interpreted in the two countries is different, meaning that the application of laws is also different.  There are many grey areas, and photography of people and their property is certainly one of them.

In the UK, I wasn't allowed to take photographs at my TKD gradings without signed permission slips from the parents / all involved.

In Germany, people want their properties blurred on Google Street View.

Neither of those were a legal requirement at the time, but until a court case takes place to establish precedent, it's prudent to err on the side of caution, which is what both my TKD club and Google had done.

Often European case law and precedent leads to subtle changes in the way legislation and law is interpreted and applied.  For this reason, it's sensible not to work to close to the edge of the grey areas, as a small change in current thinking can leave one rather vulnerable.

Aside from all of that, surely it's just easier to get a better result by actually co-operating with the people involved, and respecting their wishes.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 23, 2012)

As someone who does event photography, this is of interest:


> In the UK, I wasn't allowed to take photographs at my TKD gradings  without signed permission slips from the parents / all involved.



I'd be unable to work if I had to do that.  1 wedding, 100 guests, 12 say 'no photos', how can you keep it straight in your head to comply?

In the US it's simple: In public, your fair game. You have no expectation of privacy in public. Of course, for private events, most tickets/etc have disclaimers/agreements on them that serve as a photo release. In the case of weddings it's just expected that you don't make a scene with the hired photographer out of respect for the happy couple.

Now in private, is a different thing.  If you were shagging on a public beach in plain view, you have no right of privacy. (I've seen it btw) As a photographer I could have shot the nice couple all I wanted (I didn't). No invasion of privacy there as they were in public.  Now, had they been in their home, I couldn't walk up to the house and press a lens against a window as they had an expectation of privacy. Even if the curtains were wide open. (also seen it).

Extreme example, but fitting.
My understanding is that in the UK the same is true, but in Germany that same couple would expect privacy in both cases.

When dealing with photography in public while I will agree asking for permission is the polite thing to do, it shouldn't be a legal requirement. One only needs to see a case of police brutality, or an accident, or a crime to understand why.

"Hello officer, could you turn a bit to the right so I can catch the highlights on your blood soaked baton better please?"
"Hello Mr. Regime Bully, could you growl a bit more evilly while you drag that woman by her hair? Say, is it ok if I take you picture, it's for the Times?"

I can't see than ending well.

Public photography has captured some of the worst highlights of things like the Arab Spring, the Kent State shootings, and thousands of events in between.  Laws that would stop some guy who likes to shoot boring factory fronts, would also apply to those folks, allowing government and police to stifle free speech more.  As an American that lives in a nation that claims such is important (reality is often other mind you), it's important to me to push for the defense of it world over.

My position/opinion.  YMMV and all that.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 23, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> As someone who does event photography, this is of interest:
> 
> 
> I'd be unable to work if I had to do that. 1 wedding, 100 guests, 12 say 'no photos', how can you keep it straight in your head to comply?
> ...




There's no law against taking photographs of gradings however most organisations that involve children now not just martial arts, require that you ask the permission of parents before taking photos, it's part of the child protection policies many organisations put in place now. It's not a legal requirement.

There's nothing stopping wedding photographers from working, there's no ban on photography. 

No one is saying one should ask 'permission' before taking photographs of such things as riots etc, we were talking _specifically_ about this video you posted, there it would have been polite to ask.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 23, 2012)

Correct.  Which is why I agreed with you in that it would have been polite to do so, but not legally required. Nor is he legally required to stop just because someone asked/ordered. Not his fault the factory hires uninformed guards, or seeks to make up nonexistent laws. 

I liked the part where the guard encouraged a passerby to run him over.  I'm sure that was polite?  (ok, in parts of NYC that actually might be a mating ritual, I dunno, lol)


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 23, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Correct. Which is why I agreed with you in that it would have been polite to do so, but not legally required. Nor is he legally required to stop just because someone asked/ordered. Not his fault the factory hires uninformed guards, or seeks to make up nonexistent laws.
> 
> I liked the part where the guard encouraged a passerby to run him over. I'm sure that was polite? (ok, in parts of NYC that actually might be a mating ritual, I dunno, lol)



Lincolnshire is a very strange place, the residents are called Lincolnshire Yellowbellies.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/lincolnshire/asop/people/what_is_a_yellowbelly.shtml

_"If there's one thing you can say about true yellowbellies it's that they're an argumentative lot. The easiest way to prove this is to ask them where the name 'yellowbelly' came from. Chances are every single person you ask will have a slightly different version of events. So here for your enlightenment and delight are a few of the most common stories."

_The security guard is what you get when you pay £3 an hour, that's $1.50 in your money, so what did anyone expect? A job however is a job and working 60 hour weeks to try to earn a living when I expect she'd be better off on the dole has to say something about her willingness to work in these dark days. There's ignorance everywhere and there's more than her in that video, winding someone up just because you can is as ignorant as you can get, winding someone up who 'can't help it' as we say here and inviting people to laugh at her is a sad thing to do. I think it says more about the photographer than the security guard to be honest. It's not about 'rights' it's watching someone making a fool of themselves and inviting others to mock her ignorance. The bigger person would have walked away and taken up the issue in a civilised manner.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jan 23, 2012)

Gnarlie said:


> ...
> 
> exploiting it and waving the loophole in someone's face when they are only doing their job.
> ..
> ...



I think your choice of words, saying "loophole" was a poor one sir. Not violating a non-existant law is not exploiting a loophole.  Why would a person not want to defend their right under the law, assuming UK laws are similar to US law?

I can't say whether or not the photographer was intentionally trying to make a scene as you and Tez3 suggest. But since he appears to be perfectly within the law, and those who are trying to get him to stop, would then be in violation of law, it is difficult for me to be sympathetic towards them. 

jks9199 - If you were called to the scene, and the security guards had told you they feared he *might* be taking photos if furtherance of industrial or state espionage, what would you do? Without proof, or reasonable suspicion, and you can identify no law the photographer is breaking, you can't do anything either, other than at most, identifying him and making out a contact report. And you would probably be wise to do the same with the security guards, as they are the ones causing a disturbance. All this from what we can see of the video. We don't know what if anything happened before or after the video.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 23, 2012)

What we can't see is where the photographer is in relation to the building. He states he was on the public highway taking photos but looking at the video it seems as if he's moved to the property of the company.
 Here there is the law and the spirit of the law both of which are taken into consideration by judges and magistrates. The law says he can take photographs but if he's breaking the spirit of the law by deliberately baiting the security guard by his actions they will both be seen to be guilty. Industrial espionage is a _civil _offence, nothing to do with the police,the most you can call them out for is distrubing the peace or threatening behaviour if it were starting to get nasty. Nobody would see taking photos of a crisp manufacturer's building as state espionage. If it were a 'secret' defence building they'd call us, if it were a 'secret' government building it would be Special Branch. 

I wonder how people would feel if a photographer insisted on standing outside their house photographing it and everyone coming in and out? Perfectly legal but how would people feel if their family were being photographed in this way? 

I don't feel sorry for anyone in the video, I think they are all a bunch of numpties, no one is 'right' just because the law allows something. Spitting in the street isn't illegal here but would you want everyone doing it? This isn't a matter of photographers rights, it's an idiot picking on someone who doesn't know any better just to make a silly video and invite people to laugh at her while saying look how daring I am. If the photographer wanted to make a point about photographer's freedoms let him pick a subject which would have real concern rather than some hapless security guard who has no idea, it's totally lame.


----------



## Gnarlie (Jan 23, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> I think your choice of words, saying "loophole" was a poor one sir. Not violating a non-existant law is not exploiting a loophole.  Why would a person not want to defend their right under the law, assuming UK laws are similar to US law?



OK, you're right, maybe not a loophole, but I was struggling to find the right words - what he's doing, standing on the public property and photographing the private property, is the legal equivalent of dancing around someone, waving your hands near their face and singing 'not touching, can't get mad' over and over again.  Yes he's within his rights, but he's behaving like a bit of a tool really.  OK, I'm all for defending our civil rights and freedoms, but not if it impinges on the freedoms of others.  Each person's freedom ends where someone elses begins.  That's respect, and the mark of a civilised society.  He could have gotten his photos without ruining anyones day.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 23, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Lincolnshire is a very strange place, the residents are called Lincolnshire Yellowbellies.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/lincolnshire/asop/people/what_is_a_yellowbelly.shtml
> 
> _"If there's one thing you can say about true yellowbellies it's that they're an argumentative lot. The easiest way to prove this is to ask them where the name 'yellowbelly' came from. Chances are every single person you ask will have a slightly different version of events. So here for your enlightenment and delight are a few of the most common stories."
> ...



It's off topic -- but are you sure about the wages?  Is that actually a living wage?  Where I live & work, unarmed guards earn around $10 to $15 per hour, depending on whether their job requires a clearance (a mall rent-a-cop is paid less than the guy guarding the door of a federal contractor who needs to have a security clearance).  At the bottom end, it's tough but probably barely livable.  Health insurance and other benefits, if offered, will be deducted from that pay.  Figure a take-home loosely equivalent to about $7 to $12.  IN VA, an unarmed guard needs 24 hours of training to get a license.  (There are exemptions, but lets leave it simple.)


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 23, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> What we can't see is where the photographer is in relation to the building. He states he was on the public highway taking photos but looking at the video it seems as if he's moved to the property of the company.



Are the walkways / sidewalks along the street public or private property in the UK?  In the US it's public right of way.
A few minutes on Google Maps shows relative positions.






> Here there is the law and the spirit of the law both of which are taken into consideration by judges and magistrates. The law says he can take photographs but if he's breaking the spirit of the law by deliberately baiting the security guard by his actions they will both be seen to be guilty. Industrial espionage is a _civil _offence, nothing to do with the police,the most you can call them out for is distrubing the peace or threatening behaviour if it were starting to get nasty. Nobody would see taking photos of a crisp manufacturer's building as state espionage. If it were a 'secret' defence building they'd call us, if it were a 'secret' government building it would be Special Branch.



True, but the police are better positioned to determine that, not a low income rent-a-cop. (Anyway, how can they get away with paying so little? In the US we have a minimum wage law (which I oppose btw) that sets min-wage at at least $5/hr. In NY it's $7.25/hr)



> I wonder how people would feel if a photographer insisted on standing outside their house photographing it and everyone coming in and out? Perfectly legal but how would people feel if their family were being photographed in this way?



Happens all the time.  I've had my house photographed in fact by one of our now banned former members. Photos were sent to me as a 'suggestion' I reverse the ban.  That got forwarded to his superior and resolved.  But it's legal (the photos not the threat). Annoys me but I 'get it'.



> I don't feel sorry for anyone in the video, I think they are all a bunch of numpties, no one is 'right' just because the law allows something. Spitting in the street isn't illegal here but would you want everyone doing it? This isn't a matter of photographers rights, it's an idiot picking on someone who doesn't know any better just to make a silly video and invite people to laugh at her while saying look how daring I am. If the photographer wanted to make a point about photographer's freedoms let him pick a subject which would have real concern rather than some hapless security guard who has no idea, it's totally lame.



He didn't set out to embarrass anyone. He covered his *** based on previous encounters. You did read the accompanying articles right?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 23, 2012)

Gnarlie said:


> OK, you're right, maybe not a loophole, but I was struggling to find the right words - what he's doing, standing on the public property and photographing the private property, is the legal equivalent of dancing around someone, waving your hands near their face and singing 'not touching, can't get mad' over and over again.  Yes he's within his rights, but he's behaving like a bit of a tool really.  OK, I'm all for defending our civil rights and freedoms, but not if it impinges on the freedoms of others.  Each person's freedom ends where someone elses begins.  That's respect, and the mark of a civilised society.  He could have gotten his photos without ruining anyones day.



The guard and her supervisor could also have not made up fake laws to try to intimidate, then gotten rude when he called their bluff.  They set the confrontational tone.  When you tell me 'its against the law', you better be able to tell me which one.  I'll look it up right then and there on my new-capable phone.  This is more true of a real cop (cite the code your refer to) than a civi.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 24, 2012)

Looking at where the photographer is marked on the picture, he was on private property not the road as you look at the arrow point the pavement is to the right of it, the photographer is to the left which will make it not the pavement. Colin Road I assume is a public road though it may be unadopted which means that too belongs to those who have property along it.
Security guards here aren't 'rent a cops' they are what they say they are, security guards, no one regards them as anything other than that, they are not  connected to the police in any way and it's basic pay, minimum pay here for is just over £5 an hour, after tax and NI it will be about £3 take home. The hours are 60 at least per week to make anything decent, if you have children you may be able to get tax credits which will bump your pay up plus family allowance for each child but if you get £3 an hour out of your job you are damn lucky. Security guards also have to pay for their SIA badge currently which is over two hundred pounds for three years. You would get more in London but Scunthorpe is a long way from there, it's a job that often immigrants take rather than the Brits.

Bob I read the stuff with it, I just think they are all idiots.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 24, 2012)

I think the point is, Tez, that he was on the pavement not on the companies property.  As you say, if the road itself is private, then things become trickier.

None of which excuses the security guards words - I am in full accordance with Bob's post#28 above.  If it were me, I'd've shifted when asked 'cos I'm a good little subject and do as I'm told.  But I am glad to see there are people willing to show some resilience in the face of pseudo-authority figures; that way we may stave off the day when 'Blakies' have real command over our lives.

P.S.  For our American friends, "Blakey" was a character in the sit-com "On The Buses"  He embodied the very spirit of the over-blown sense of self-importance and non-existent actual authority that we are addressing here.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 24, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> I think the point is, Tez, that he was on the pavement not on the companies property. As you say, if the road itself is private, then things become trickier.
> 
> None of which excuses the security guards words - I am in full accordance with Bob's post#28 above. If it were me, I'd've shifted when asked 'cos I'm a good little subject and do as I'm told. But I am glad to see there are people willing to show some resilience in the face of pseudo-authority figures; that way we may stave off the day when 'Blakies' have real command over our lives.
> 
> P.S. For our American friends, "Blakey" was a character in the sit-com "On The Buses" He embodied the very spirit of the over-blown sense of self-importance and non-existent actual authority that we are addressing here.



If where he stood is where the point of the arrow is he wasn't on the pavement if there were a pavement, there's also no street lights, kerbs or drains so whether he's on a public road or not is debateable. You can see a line where a pavement would be and he's to the other side of it, not the side closest to the road. If that's his white vehicle parked up to the left it's illegally parked, on the 'pavement' if it is a pavement and too near the junction.
I find it odd that people condemn the 'Occupy' movement and then applaud this chap. Yes the security guard was wrong but heyho that's life, you don't stand arguing with a moron do you? You take positive action, you contact the company that employs them and you contact the company that employs that security company. You contact the SIA, the local council anyone and everyone. Getting into an argument with someone like that proves what? That you can argue with idiots? They are all idiots, instead of doing the right thing and actually getting something done about this guard the photographer puts on the internet 'for a laugh', wow that's going to really change things. While you are all tutting over the behaviour of the guard, what's happened to her over this? Nothing! do a job properly, what's the point of standing there chuntering at each other, when you could have done something positive. It's just more whinging and hot air. Have the courage of your convictions and actually do something about the situation. 
The photographer might have had a look at his local byelaws as well before asserting he had a right to be on that piece of land, it may turn out he didn't have a right to stand anywhere there.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 24, 2012)

What the guard and her supervisor should have done was call the police.
Like they threatened.

The problem is if you give in to the little power trips, they win.

If you tell me to go, and I go, sure we avoid a confrontation.
But you won. I lost.
You got your wish, me moved along.
I didn't get what I wanted, the shot.

Sure I can come back, but then what?
Another demand to move along, with you having set the precedence that I will.

If you do not assert your rights, you lose them. 

As to this:


> The photographer might have had a look at his local byelaws as well  before asserting he had a right to be on that piece of land, it may turn  out he didn't have a right to stand anywhere there.


What makes you think he wasn't aware of the local laws?

He himself said this:


> After hours of research and reading I though I&#8217;d gained enough knowledge  and understanding to know where I stood within the law should I ever be  confronted again, although I don&#8217;t profess to be an outright expert.



When he was told to move on, he asked if he was on company property. He stated his belief that he was on public not private property. He asked if he should go across the street to ensure he was on public, not private property.
The guard wanted him to stop shooting and go away, public or private.
She finally admitted, she didn't "give a toss about the law".

Sorry, but if a guard doesn't care about the law, can't be bothered to ensure he or she is issuing a -lawful- order, I can't be bothered with complying.
I will comply with all -lawful- orders.  I've no requirement to obey unlawful ones.

As to their pay, £5 is about $7.50  so ok, she makes minimum wage by US standards.
Not. My. Problem.
She has a job. Do the job. Don't be an *** about it. Want better pay, go find a better job.
Job market is bad? Push the government to make it easier for businesses to grow and make more jobs. Start your own business. Always options. (kinda why I run 3 companies)

I don't profess to be an expert in UK rights or laws either. In the event I visit, I'll beef up my data.

UK Photographers Rights Site: http://photographernotaterrorist.org/
It's an interesting read IMO.

Tez, you say you haven't seen any real push on this. Are you a photographer? Do you frequent photographer communities?  If you aren't/don't you probably wouldn't hear much, no more than you'd know about a push for say, gothic lolitas organizing a convention.  I do frequent them, and I can assure you that the UK photographer community is concerned about this stuff, and active in seeking to get things changed.

We disagree on things. No big deal.  If we all agreed all the time, it'd be a boring forum.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 24, 2012)

So how has anything changed by this photgraphers actions in standing there arguing with the security guard? Nothing. If you want to change things to keep your rights you don't stand there arguing with idiots, it's not 'backing down' to walk away after telling them that you aren't going to discuss this with menials. All she would have done after the 'confrontation' with the photgrapher is go back inside and put the kettle on. However if you campaign properly she will have received reprimands and education about the law and waht she can and can't say, this would be cascaded through the security company she works for, if you go to the SIA she could lose her badge and her job, this situation would then be publicised throughout the security industry as no one wants mistakes like that. The Golden Wonder company may change contacts for security so the security company has to face the consquences if you contact the managing director, they won't won't a bad situation. Take it up with your MP, the local council, the county council,the parish council, take it up with the media don't just have confrontations with nobodies have them with somebodies. 


I lose patience to be honest with people who say they want to 'change' things etc when all they are inclined to do is preach to the converted and whinge, Bob you say it's common knowledge among the photographic community that they want to campaign, well it should be common knowledge among everyone here, they can't sit there moaning among themselves they need to get it into the public's eye, you don't do this by arguing with daftcow guards and posting it on the internet. They should have some gumption and get the message out there. 
In the military we have a saying 'don't just stand there, do something!' Arguing with an idiot is not doing something, just makes two idiots. Walking away after telling them you won't argue this point because you are right is hardly losing the argument. I can easily walk away from an argument and still 'win' it. let them bluster all they like, you will still have won, you walk away with style, confidence and an airy condescension, works every time.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 24, 2012)

Common knowledge in a niche community != common knowledge in the full community.

I know my rights as a photographer in the US.
The Miami police department has issued memos, lost lawsuits, been put on the spot by lawmakers, etc.
They still harass photographers in Miami.

Sometimes, people don't care what the law says.
All they care is that someone else "respects their authority".

I see this case as exactly that. 

And anyway, retreat with style is a French thing I thought?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 24, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Common knowledge in a niche community != common knowledge in the full community.
> 
> I know my rights as a photographer in the US.
> The Miami police department has issued memos, lost lawsuits, been put on the spot by lawmakers, etc.
> ...




Ah but there's an American way of doing things, bull china shop, and the British way, a concerted effort to use as many strings as one has. This photographer has many strings if he wants to use them, that could have been all over the media and debated nationally instead of just between us. 
when you argue with jobsworths you turn it into something personal and each tries to score points over the other, it escalates into a shouting match which is pointless. You stop it by speaking with authority and curtailing the 'discussion', it's not retreating, it;s chosing your battlefield. I suspect military and ex miliarty people know what I mean when I say you speak with the authority of an RSM, it usually shuts most people up even civvies. You take charge of the situation (I think the psycho-babble has it that you 'own' the situation), you silence them and you walk away leaving them with their mouths open, always a good result especially when they then have to dread your next actions and a call from the boss. 

Have you watched Downton Abbey yet, if so think the Dowager Duchess.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 24, 2012)

Put downs the English way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVMtffzbAwk&feature=related

Warning some involve American and 'foreigners'


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 24, 2012)

I'm a Blackadder fan. I'm used to put downs on American and 'foreigners'


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 24, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'm a Blackadder fan. I'm used to put downs on American and 'foreigners'



My favourite quote apart from the 'what is a weekend' one is the one about no Englishman would die in a stranger's bed. As with Blackadder there is a certain amount of truth in these quotes in that English people, not Brits necessarily, do consider foreigners as being like pets, you have affection for them and can pet them but all the same they need to know their place. The fact that a well spoken put down said in tones of authority will put a lot of people  in their place even these days of 'equality' and PCness. I can tell you now that security guard wouldn't have spoken to me like that even if I were in civvies.


----------



## Carol (Jan 24, 2012)

And now for something completely different.,,,,

 "A-Always, B-Be, C-Closing. _Always be closing_, _always be closing_."

Asking permission is more than polite.   Its a subtle, but absolutely golden sales opportunity.


----------

