An explanation from a security guard on why "you can't take photos here"....

chimper said:
Oh well if you spotted a break in the footage that's convinced me then.:cuckoo:
The guards actually swore at him & made up the law to suit their argument (not effectively) if anything I would say it's you who seem unable to accept this. And let me get this right are you saying you suspect I was the man outside the GW factory? I'm looking for a smiley using 1 hand doing something beginning with "W" to describe you but can't find one.
Click to expand...

That's nice and mature :clap: and if you want to come out a call me what you want :thumbs: it will only make you look worse :shrug: if you want to make these boards into the playground go on try, you will not be sucessful I'm sure :lol: :lol: anyway if you have anything sensible to say go for it :thumbs:

Matt
 
This thread is going on too long. If he just wanted a shot he could of got it in a couple of seconds and gone long before the Lady "cough" in question embarrassed herself. Yes she couldn't have done a worse job if she practiced in front of the mirror, but he new what he was doing. He set the bait and caught a whopper and took his time reeling it in.
 
chimper said:
I think the only one who's mentioned Tianneman Square here is you.:)
Click to expand...

I do understand that, I was trying to put the situation into perspective with something serious, like the state sponsored murder of people protesting, rather than being hassled for taking a picture of a savory snack preparation unit.
 
Last edited:
chimper said:
I think the only one who's mentioned Tianneman Square here is you.:)
Click to expand...

But he isnt the one displaying a severe loss of proportion which was his point - yes the guards were in the wrong, no one here is disputing that their conduct left a lot to be desired , but that photographer went looking for trouble and found it, which doesnt really cover him in glory either

if someone came here with the sole objective of provoking the mods so that he could complain about their actions later he'd rightly be villified as a troll of the worst sort - not held up as some kind of forumers hero
 
big soft moose said:
if someone came here with the sole objective of provoking the mods so that he could complain about their actions later he'd rightly be villified as a troll of the worst sort - not held up as some kind of forumers hero
Click to expand...

:lol: that has made my day :naughty:
 
This has been a very entertaining thread and as per usual on here it ends up with people throwing insults about. Some people could start an argument in an empty room. :) :) :)
 
PSILVERMAN said:
This has been a very entertaining thread and as per usual on here it ends up with people throwing insults about. Some people could start an argument in an empty room. :) :) :)
Click to expand...

Agreed, no reason to be throwing around insults or slanderous comments. Immature, pointless and does not contribute to the thread.

The guards werent shining examples of their profession, and the photographer wasnt a shining example of a pleasant, good natured member of the public, at least I wouldnt want to go to a pub and have a drink with him with an attitude like that. Simple.

If on the other hand, I saw a video of a photographer who was co-operating with police or security guards and not being confrontational and was arrested as a result of it despite their full co-operation, then they would have my sympathies.
 
faddius said:
If on the other hand, I saw a video of a photographer who was co-operating with police or security guards and not being confrontational and was arrested as a result of it despite their full co-operation, then they would have my sympathies.
Click to expand...

Had the photographer been photographing on their premises, then I would wholeheartedly agree with you.
However, in this particular case (having watched the video over again), it was the security guards who decided to start off behaving in an antagonistic, challenging manner, outside of the place which they were employed to keep secure.
 
and the photographer just happened to be videoing it ? :shake: - there's not much doubt in my mind that he went there looking for the reaction he got - which while it doesnt make the reaction acceptable does speak volumes on his motivation.

as matt pointed out the video has also been edited , so who knows what happened in the deleted scenes
 
big soft moose said:
and the photographer just happened to be videoing it ? :shake: - there's not much doubt in my mind that he went there looking for the reaction he got - which while it doesnt make the reaction acceptable does speak volumes on his motivation.

as matt pointed out the video has also been edited , so who knows what happened in the deleted scenes
Click to expand...

He explains what he was doing/what he has been doing here:

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

Seems pretty reasonable to me.
 
phil8139 said:
And that M'Lord, is why euthanasia should be available. :)
Click to expand...

If it were me I'd approach the company's Human Resources Department about the possibility of putting a selective breeding program in effect for their security people.
 
Kinda sorta - but it depends if you believe him - but I can't be bothered to argue the toss any further
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
Kinda sorta - but it depends if you believe him - but I can't be bothered to argue the toss any further
Click to expand...


Yeah.

Speaking as a security guard, though, I'm disgusted at the behaviour of those guards (whether he baited them or not). As I've said elsewhere tonight, if I even approached someone like that, I'd be out on my ear.
Luckily the site management are reasonable enough to not only listen when it comes to the rights of photographers, they've actually amended their rules to allow more flexibility.
I will admit that, aside from my supervisor, noone else in the security team realised what you can and cant do, which has been rectified recently.
 
cdiver2 said:
Of course if you set out to bait some one you are going to keep your calm and do your best to provoke them, one would be wise to rehearse before doing it.


Yet I saw no provocation from the photographer. Just had to be there taking photo's to bait these security guards.

If everybody new everything about the law then there would be no need for lawyers would there.

I don't expect everyone to know the law, but expect people in their field of work to know how to handle situations when they confront members of the public

I would bet that each one of us breaks some law every day without knowing it, things we just take for granted...jay walking. I was recently stopped by a police officer, my offense I had driven across a nearly empty parking lot in a shopping center and not used the lanes in between where cars park. He explained yes it is a driving offense and let me go yet I see this every day.
A friend recently got a ticket. He was pulling up to a intersection and the light was red. So he pulls into a garage on the corner drives across the forecourt and exits the other side, made his turn on a red light.....illegal

Not sure where you going here. :thinking:
Click to expand...
 
MWHCVT said:
Well I spotted at least 1 break in the footage, so clearly this is not SOOC footage, if the guy wanted to shot exactly what happened he would put up SOOC footage, I've checked up on previous stuff relating to the video and it's producer, he has a previous record of this kind of thing, that makes me suspicious, it makes me think that he goes out looking for a confrontation, he effectively called the guard thick part way through this video...
Click to expand...
If this was the case, then Kingdom could release the CCTV footage - unedited - to show what really happened. They could even do some fancy split screen thing, so we know exactly when he started and stopped his camera, and what happened in between.

I doubt they will though, because both lots of footage will show the "if you take one more photo", the "it's against the law", the "you're p***ing me off now" and the bit where Mrs security appears to have to restrain Mr Security.
 
HMansfield said:
If this was the case, then Kingdom could release the CCTV footage - unedited - to show what really happened. They could even do some fancy split screen thing, so we know exactly when he started and stopped his camera, and what happened in between.

I doubt they will though, because both lots of footage will show the "if you take one more photo", the "it's against the law", the "you're p***ing me off now" and the bit where Mrs security appears to have to restrain Mr Security.
Click to expand...

Given that CCTV doesn't have sound, I doubt it will show anything.
 
Some does.

It will show for certain how long he was there before security approached him, and whether these claims of him spending 20 minutes beforehand goading the security are true.
 
HMansfield said:
If this was the case, then Kingdom could release the CCTV footage - unedited - to show what really happened. They could even do some fancy split screen thing, so we know exactly when he started and stopped his camera, and what happened in between.

I doubt they will though, because both lots of footage will show the "if you take one more photo", the "it's against the law", the "you're p***ing me off now" and the bit where Mrs security appears to have to restrain Mr Security.
Click to expand...

I've not set that the security staff are without blame in this incident in fact I believe I've said quite the opposite, but equally I think that the photographer went out with the sole intention of getting a reaction from the security, and IMO that's just pathetic beyond reason :shrug:

With that I think this will be my last post in this thread as it's getting boring, this is the main reason I stay in the C&S sections :shrug:

Matt
 
HMansfield said:
Some does.

It will show for certain how long he was there before security approached him, and whether these claims of him spending 20 minutes beforehand goading the security are true.
Click to expand...

I've never seen CCTV with sound and I'm pretty sure a Crisp Factory wouldn't have it. And without sound, it wouldn't prove anything about goading or not unless he was dancing around waving 2 fingers at them. This is all about what was said to who.
 
fabs said:
I've never seen CCTV with sound and I'm pretty sure a Crisp Factory wouldn't have it. And without sound, it wouldn't prove anything about goading or not unless he was dancing around waving 2 fingers at them. This is all about what was said to who.
Click to expand...

So then, who is in the wrong?
 
Other than dealing with the situation differently to how posters in this thread would have done, what did the photographer do or say that was incorrect and did he make any demands (not requests) that he was not legally entitled to? Did he break any law or misrepresent his legal rights (given that both parties agreed he was not on private land)? Did the security guards break any law, say anything that was legally incorrect or make any demands they were not legally entitled to? Did they misrepresent their or the company's legal rights?

Whether anyone thinks the photographer or the security guard was acting like a pranny or not really is irrelevant to the facts of what is legally right or wrong. Any argument based on facts or events not contained in the video are speculation and any argument based on value judgements of style does not alter the facts of what is categorically correct and not correct within the law. Ignorance of the law does not turn a wrong into a right.

Please note that I haven't said anything in favour of either party in the video. The issue here should not be speculation based on how the situation could have been handled differently by either party (or how we might have handled it differently) and what the outcome might have been - we can all speculate till we're blue in the face and it won't make any difference to the event. This video can only be fairly judged on what it contains and what was legally right or wrong.
 
weybourne said:
This video can only be fairly judged on what it contains and what was legally right or wrong.
Click to expand...

not even that - because a video eddited by one party is pretty much bound to favour that party's view point

if we are talking about facts rather than speculation or opinions we don't have enough to make any judgement on what happened , because we don't know what happened before the video started, we don't know what happened in the bits eddited out, and we don't know if there was any previous back story regarding prior encounters betwen the guards and photographers.

The only people who can really say what wnt down are those that were there, and as the old adage says there will be three versions - his version, their version and the truth , and the latter will sit somewhere between the other two.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Mandela and Gandhi where both trouble makers ..thank heck for them.
Click to expand...

we're are back to the loss of proportrion thing here - theres no comparrison between being slightly hassled while photographing a crisp factory, and being subject to apertheid due to your skin colour.

It would be equally easy to find examples of trouble makers who were no credit to society , but that comparrison would be equally flawed
 
malo50 said:
I don't think you're hijacking, I think it just shows that security have other things to think about than someone taking photos.
I get the impression that the guy who took the original video is sitting nekked in a bean bag somewhere watching his video and rubbing his cheesy whotsit.
Click to expand...

Kinnell Martin..............:lol::lol::lol:
 
fabs said:
Security guards were muppets, photographer didn't do himself any favours.
Click to expand...

Spot on!

And for the record the security staff haven't resigned, as was mentioned earlier; they've been summarily dismissed.
 
DemiLion said:
Spot on!

And for the record the security staff haven't resigned, as was mentioned earlier; they've been summarily dismissed.
Click to expand...

Really?

If so, I hope the buffoon with the camera is pleased with himself.
 
fracster said:
Really?

If so, I hope the buffoon with the camera is pleased with himself.
Click to expand...

The "buffoon" was very calm throughout (something which is bound to wind up someone who is trying to intimidate another person), never raised his voice and never swore.
The woman security guard swore several times at him, and at 3m 40s in the video said:
"I don't give a toss about the law"
I am not sure what the male security guard said, but by that time did it really matter?

The two security guards brought this upon themselves with their ignorant and aggressive attitude. I have had dealings with security guards and can honestly say that it has been civil and calm, but the industry will not miss these two.
 
The buffoon with the camera went out of his way to cause a situation, a senseless one involving a crisp factory. Due to his actions two people are out of work, in very tough times, he should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.

Though I doubt that very much. He will probably be bulled up for standing up for photographers rights, whatever that exactly means?
 
ohh well got to admit I haven't read further than page 2 (bit busy) but I have found buildings which I'd like to photograph, and have written to the company to ask for permission.

Even though I don't need to, it is polite, avoids encounters with security guards and might even result in an offer to have a look around - factory inspections used to be my job, I love seeing round factories :)

but then I find some people like confrontation
 
big soft moose said:
not even that - because a video eddited by one party is pretty much bound to favour that party's view point

if we are talking about facts rather than speculation or opinions we don't have enough to make any judgement on what happened , because we don't know what happened before the video started, we don't know what happened in the bits eddited out, and we don't know if there was any previous back story regarding prior encounters betwen the guards and photographers.
Click to expand...
That's speculation with the benefit of doubt removed - both on whether the edit was made to bias a party and on what else might have happened - you can still witness and identify what was legally correct or uncorrect in the video that we have available.
The only people who can really say what wnt down are those that were there, and as the old adage says there will be three versions - his version, their version and the truth , and the latter will sit somewhere between the other two.
Click to expand...
Not true - because we can see what is in the video - and unless you really think that that the photographer edited so that it appears that the security guards said things or did things that they did not say or do then you cannot deny what the security guards said or did in the video - do you think that such an edit was made?
 
There was no need for the Guards to even come out and question the photographer.
He was going about his lawful business of taking photographs, and required no permission.
If they thought he was doing something illegal on public property, they could have called the police, but they had no authority to do anything themselves.
If they have been sacked, they brought it upon themselves, however I feel that sacking was unnecessary, and some instruction was all that was required.
 
fracster said:
The buffoon with the camera went out of his way to cause a situation, a senseless one involving a crisp factory. Due to his actions two people are out of work, in very tough times, he should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.

Though I doubt that very much. He will probably be bulled up for standing up for photographers rights, whatever that exactly means?
Click to expand...

They confronted him, they swore at him, they had no reason to approach him as he was in a public place. If they had stayed withing the boundaries of the factory and kept their noses out of someone else's business, then they would still have a job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top