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

Forbiddenbiker said:
What would that be Mark? I always think if the tarmac and yellow lines are council, then so is the road. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Street signage and type of furniture are the usual giveaways.
 
That would make most of the roads round our way private then :thinking: :lol:
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Thats because the Canary Wharf campus is a public highway. ;)
Click to expand...

Really? I thought the whole shabbang was owned by Canary Wharf Estates. They certainly own all the buildings (bar 1). But I'll take your word for it!
 
Llamaman said:
Have checked and it IS private property
It would be a bit odd to have a public road with security barriers manned by private security.
Click to expand...

I think thatd be funny. Can you imagine how depressed the guard would be?
'scuse me, guv, you can carry on'
 
They make crisps on Canary Wharf ?? :thinking: Must be for M&S then ;)
 
Flash In The Pan said:
You mean like starting a sentence with "and"?
Click to expand...

Starting a sentence with the word 'and' is not, contrary to popular belief and primary school classes, in violation of any grammatical rule. No such rule has ever existed. It's perfectly acceptable to begin a sentence with a coordinating conjunction provided it's succeeded by an independent clause. In this case it's appropriate for stylistic emphasis.

Believe it or not, not everything you learned in school was correct, because neither teachers nor school textbooks are infallible. The amount of misinformation we were fed in school is really quite astonishing, especially in English and history lessons.
 
Llamaman said:
Have checked and it IS private property;
http://www.wharf.co.uk/2011/04/photo-flash-mob-against-privat.html
It would be a bit odd to have a public road with security barriers manned by private security.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it wasn't.

But it is also a public highway. ... photography can be carried out their just like any public area.

Some private BS going on for supposed security reasons like a few other places in London, but over all the security are now aware and will ask politely instead about stuff like tripod hazards, (under the cover of commercial licencing fulfilments, insurance coverage etc)...However that's the same for any commercial use of a public-highway, a film licence is needed! ..they just use it as a BS way to enforce something legal ish, when in effect there's nothing illegal in everyday tourist type photography.
 
onona said:
Starting a sentence with the word 'and' is not, contrary to popular belief and primary school classes, in violation of any grammatical rule. No such rule has ever existed. It's perfectly acceptable to begin a sentence with a coordinating conjunction provided it's succeeded by an independent clause. In this case it's appropriate for stylistic emphasis.

Believe it or not, not everything you learned in school was correct, because neither teachers nor school textbooks are infallible. The amount of misinformation we were fed in school is really quite astonishing, especially in English and history lessons.
Click to expand...

I bet you took ages writing that and re-read it again and again, making sure every spelling was right and all the punctuation was put in the right places, and double checked your thesaurus to ensure you used every big word you could find .... then by the end of it didn't even realise you'd just missed a little bit of friendly banter from graham.:lol:
 
Last edited:
Forbiddenbiker said:
I didn't say it wasn't.

But it is also a public highway. ... photography can be carried out their just like any public area.

Some private BS going on for supposed security reasons like a few other places in London, but over all the security are now aware and will ask politely instead about stuff like tripod hazards, (under the cover of commercial licencing fulfilments, insurance coverage etc)...However that's the same for any commercial use of a public-highway, a film licence is needed! ..they just use it as a BS way to enforce something legal ish, when in effect there's nothing illegal in everyday tourist type photography.
Click to expand...

If its a public right of way across private land then photography isnt necessarily a given - it isnt covered in the right to freely pass and repass, nor is it covered by the usual accompanyment rule.

In fact the right to freely pass and repass doesnt really given any provision for standing still at all

That said actions on a right of way that arent covered by the rights of way legislation arent illegal per se - they just become an act of trespass against the landowner and are a civil matter uinless they are agravated in some way (the most common occurence of this is cycling on a footpath - but the same could apply to photography from a right of way if the landowner wanted to try and enforce it

Bottom line is that you can't have a public highway which is also private property - you can however have a public right of way for pedestrians and up to motoroised vehcles on private land (in essence a byway with the tarmacced surface maintained by the landowner) but the latter does not give the same rights to photography etc as does public land
 
joescrivens said:
I bet you took ages writing that and re-read it again and again, making sure every spelling was right and all the punctuation was put in the right places, and double checked your thesaurus to ensure you used every big word you could find .... then by the end of it didn't even realise you'd just missed a little bit of friendly banter from graham.:lol:
Click to expand...

Actually no, I didn't. If you take a look through my posts, you'll find I always speak like this. I'm sorry you feel so threatened by someone who has a good command of their language. How do you know I don't have a degree in English? Get over yourself.
 
It's quite obvious Joe was joking. Correct use of English doesn't obviate rudeness.
 
Last edited:
onona said:
Actually no, I didn't. If you take a look through my posts, you'll find I always speak like this. I'm sorry you feel so threatened by someone who has a good command of their language. How do you know I don't have a degree in English? Get over yourself.
Click to expand...

oops, looks like you overlooked the friendly banter once again. Twice in one page!!!!! :eek::eek::eek:
 
Jobsworths! My small experience of them is thus.
In my capacity as a freelance press photog I attempted to take photos of Trafford centre car park during heavy snow Xmas 2010 and got the police called to me! Whilst it is private property certainly OTT.
Yet during ash crisis I walked around deserted Manchester airport unchallenged!
A point to note, you can photograph into a private property from a public place if it is a place of work.I've locked horns with a top legal firm over this in the past.
 
;)

Back on track please people
 
onona said:
Actually no, I didn't. If you take a look through my posts, you'll find I always speak like this. I'm sorry you feel so threatened by someone who has a good command of their language. How do you know I don't have a degree in English? Get over yourself.
Click to expand...

Because you've neglected the proper use of a demonstrative adjective in at least two of the above sentences.
 
big soft moose said:
If its a public right of way across private land then photography isnt necessarily a given - it isnt covered in the right to freely pass and repass, nor is it covered by the usual accompanyment rule.

In fact the right to freely pass and repass doesnt really given any provision for standing still at all

That said actions on a right of way that arent covered by the rights of way legislation arent illegal per se - they just become an act of trespass against the landowner and are a civil matter uinless they are agravated in some way (the most common occurence of this is cycling on a footpath - but the same could apply to photography from a right of way if the landowner wanted to try and enforce it

Bottom line is that you can't have a public highway which is also private property - you can however have a public right of way for pedestrians and up to motoroised vehcles on private land (in essence a byway with the tarmacced surface maintained by the landowner) but the latter does not give the same rights to photography etc as does public land
Click to expand...

You may be right from one perspective Im sure. But, :D The definition of a highway is : A highway is any public road. In American English, the term is common and almost always designates major roads. In British English, the term (which is not particularly common) designates any road open to the public.

The whole area is open to the public, hence it is a public highway.
 
Last edited:
It's public access (which means traffic rules apply) but private land (which means they can stop you taking photos).

I hadn't expected such a big debate!
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Whether they can or cannot has been the debate over the years ... But Id gess no one has actually been procecuted for the offence?

I think its important for readers to know that you can photograph the docklands with as much freedom as any other part of London. :)
Click to expand...

Adam, they do allow photography at Canary Wharf but you need a permit to do so. We have had to get them when we've had meets there.
 
No, you don't need a permit mate. ..we got one because we where taking a group and being all polite by asking and therefore responding thus by their request... A good idea with a group I agree, but for less than that its fine to just wander through or whatever, I do it all the time.
 
Last edited:
LMAO!!! Well there it is folks, if you'd like a job with authority but aren't smart enough for the police, there will always be this....

Tog = 1
Dumb and dumber= 0
 
Last edited:
Forbiddenbiker said:
No, you don't need a permit mate. ..we got one because we where taking a group and being all polite by asking and therefore responding thus by their request... A good idea with a group I agree, but for less than that its fine to just wander through or whatever, I do it all the time.
Click to expand...

That's as maybe but, at the end of the day, it's still private property (albeit public right of way) so there is no automatic right to photograph.
 
A quick google will give numerous stories of togs being asked to leave the wharf. That said, I also see lots of togs (including SLRs) a lot. I guess it's luck of the draw whether the security think you look like a pro or not!
 
fabs said:
That's as maybe but, at the end of the day, it's still private property (albeit public right of way) so there is no automatic right to photograph.
Click to expand...

Then again could you not write that like this.

...at the end of the day, it's still public right of way (albeit private property) so there is an automatic right to photograph.
Click to expand...

Given that the law says something like.

If you're on a public right of way, such as a public pavement, footpath or public highway, you're free to take photographs for personal and commercial use so long as you're not causing an obstruction to other users or falling foul of anti-Terrorism laws or even the Official Secrets Act.


Llamaman said:
A quick google will give numerous stories of togs being asked to leave the wharf. That said, I also see lots of togs (including SLRs) a lot. I guess it's luck of the draw whether the security think you look like a pro or not!
Click to expand...

Most of them from a few years ago Id imagine, or last year when the getting caught as a journalist became the trend, just like the GW togger.
Nowadays I find the Canary security are up to date with what they can and cannot ask of us, they're polite and ask general questions about what your doing under the cover of pointing out the need for commercial insurance if your using a tripod. .. I've even had a few apologetically remind me that I'm allowed to take photos. ..but then I've also had a few run out of buildings shouting no no. but to me thats a similar misunderstanding to the GW guy.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Then again could you not write that like this.

Given that the law says something like.

If you're on a public right of way, such as a public pavement, footpath or public highway, you're free to take photographs for personal and commercial use so long as you're not causing an obstruction to other users or falling foul of anti-Terrorism laws or even the Official Secrets Act.
Click to expand...
I think you may be confusing public right of way with public access - they are NOT the same thing.

Public right of way means that you have a legal right of access, which the land owner cannot legally refuse or obstruct. This would also allow you to take photographs.

Public access purely means that the owner permits general access to the public. The landowner DOES have the right to refuse access, which would also include the right to refuse photography.

Note though, that if land is public access, normal traffic rules apply - even though it is NOT a public right of way. This means that if you drive like Nicki Lauder round the car park of Tesco, the police can still give you a ticket.

As I said before, Canary Wharf is public access, NOT public right of way. The landowners can, and do, restrict access (hence the security gates) and can, and do, ask people to leave. You have no legal right of access to the estate, and the owners can impose restrictions or limitations as the see fit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top