Another misinformed council hiding behind human rights legislation

A

Andybert

Suspended / Banned
Messages
65
Edit My Images
No
Spotted an article in this mornings METRO about a disabled photographer who has been told he can't take pictures of flowers in public parks as the council could be sued by members of the public if they were to appear in pictures without their consent. The link to the Rutherglen Reformer below gives a bit more detail

http://www.rutherglenreformer.co.uk...ght-to-take-pictures-in-parks-63227-27128504/

Time for a letter to South Lanakrshire Council and my local counsellor asking which bit of Human Right legislation applies.
 
Last edited:
Permission is difficult, forgiveness is easier.

I am just going to keep on taking pictures of what I want, when I want and how I want.
 
Wonderful :(

And to think I regularly wander around Pollock Estate with my camera :(
 
Thats classic that is.

I seem to remember someone somewhere promising to deal with the "litigation fear culture" that is the root cause of all of these problems if they got elected...
 
The Sun (and the Daily Record) are running the story too

http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/hom...ned-from-taking-pictures-of-park-flowers.html

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/w...ctures-in-the-park-of-flowers-86908-22515072/

The Sun said:
Last night a South Lanarkshire Council spokesman said: "If a photographer takes a photograph of an individual they must give consent to its use.

"It opens the council to complaints and possible litigation. It is potentially an infringement of other people's human rights."
Click to expand...

though the council seem to be backtracking a little when the nationals get involved

The Sun said:
But they said Alister's request to snap "flora and fauna" COULD be met. The spokesman added: "Taking pictures for personal family use is not a problem."
Click to expand...
 
It's just getting ridiculous now.:eek::eek:
 
This is getting even more rediculous every day. Unless you have or are going to do something wrong, what harm can it cause if you are in the pictures, in a park, when the pictures are of flowers. C'mon people do something more worthwhile, life is far too short.

If thats the case then everyone needs to be chased up about it.
Google street map.
CCTV
Police footage of mass crowds
So on and so on....
 
We had a meeting on this ferry to photograph the renfrew ferry before it was stopped. I emailed STP to ask if a vist to the wheel house would have been possable.

I has told that I would need permisson to take photographs while on board the ferry and she didn't know who in the orginistion was able to give permission!

We went and took photos anyway and we where not challanged.

Stuart
 
Strange one happened to me last week at a shopping centre, I had my camera with me just in case, when I went outside I spotted a few people feeding pigeons took a couple of shots and hung about incase there was anything else to snap. I never took any inside the centre at all.
I got a tap on the shoulder off a security guard who told me I couldnt take photos on their property - even though I wasnt photographing their property (I was shooting away from and over the road!).He said I was allowed to go over the road and take photos but not from under the canopy. he had been told to "watch me" when I was spotted with my camera earlier. I must look really dodgy with a camera, My wife, Mother in law and 3 year old daughter with me.
Walking back through there were a couple of young mothers with a small compact photographing each other and their kids while walking about, wonder if anything was said?
I wonder if they check on everyone who gets a mobile phone or compact camera out and takes pictures too or is it just us terrorists oops I mean toggers!
 
What do you expect? The state of our public services and finances are down to the morons who work at councils. Too busy spending £190k on a bridge for mice to cross a road (yes, really), or stopping hanging baskets in case they fall on someone and loads of other mindless & petty rules. Makes 'em feel important!
 
i took my camera to Xscape in castleford a few weeks ago with the intention of getting some P&S snaps with the 1000d in a bar, ohhhhhh no, security came bounding in and asked if i had permission to take pictures inside the building, obviously i didnt, and nope no one with a compact got questioned... what damage can i do with an SLR that i couldnt with a compact, other than taking a swing at someone with it......
 
Centenary Square in Bradford regularly hosts events, displays and so on.

I saw this notice preceding one of them:

74201531523087405387037.jpg


It says, effectively, "we took a photograph in a public space. If you're in it & don't want anyone to know you were skiving work/school/forgot to fake the injury for which you're claiming invalidity benefit or like to go into hysterical rants at the drop of a hat about paedophiles, then write to us, and we'll destroy the evidence of your stupidity.

I wonder if you can claim that organisations are restricting your human rights by stopping you taking photographs freely.
 
Give a bloke a security uniform and they think they are the Sweeney!

James Bond doesnt go around with a D3, he has a small micro camera, or one in a button etc... Any self respecting terrorist will be doing things discreetly and not wave a 70-200 f/2.8 lens around!

In the case of a shopping centre a hard one though. It is private property so its their right to do that, although why cant they just say that, rather than try to justify with data protection/terrorism/health & safety...
 
Lunaticsamurai said:
I worked security many years ago at a shopping centre and photographing was not allowed without permission from the centre manager due to terrorism and being public property,
Click to expand...

Surely "private property"?

With regard to the original article, the next door authority, Glasgow City Council, have a similar policy and also cite the Data Protection Act as the reason when trying to prevent photographers from taking pictures in it's parks.
 
Musicman said:
Originally Posted by The Sun
Last night a South Lanarkshire Council spokesman said: "If a photographer takes a photograph of an individual they must give consent to its use.
Click to expand...


Hang on. Do we all get to make up laws like that? How about the new "I'm allowed to slap people with a baseball bat if they quote laws that don't exist" law?
 
"A spokesperson for South Lanarkshire Council said: “If a photographer takes a photograph of an individual that is the individual’s personal information and they must give consent to its use.

“It would be very difficult for the council to ensure that consent has been given therefore it opens the council to complaints and possible litigation.

“It is potentially an infringement of other people’s human rights as they have a right to privacy in their daily life and it is also a breach of the data protection act.”"

That is just so wrong I am speachless :nono:

I can understand how Joe Public getting his info from the tabloids and anyone else they like to listen too could be miss informed but someone who represents an organisation wielding as much power as a local authority really ought to be better informed.

Did they not do a bit of research before "speaking"?

Be interesting to see how this one pans out.

D
 
Am I the only person who would just take photographs, not bother asking and then tell any busy body to F off if they interfered?

Stand up for your right!

People need to grow some testicles!
 
slippery42 said:
Am I the only person who would just take photographs, not bother asking and then tell any busy body to F off if they interfered?

Stand up for your right!

People need to grow some testicles!
Click to expand...

Your not alone, I know the park the guy wanted to photograph. If he had went along without asking permission nobody wouldve given a toss tbh.
 
Willid1 said:
"A spokesperson for South Lanarkshire Council said: “If a photographer takes a photograph of an individual that is the individual’s personal information and they must give consent to its use.

“It would be very difficult for the council to ensure that consent has been given therefore it opens the council to complaints and possible litigation.

“It is potentially an infringement of other people’s human rights as they have a right to privacy in their daily life and it is also a breach of the data protection act.”"

That is just so wrong I am speachless :nono:

I can understand how Joe Public getting his info from the tabloids and anyone else they like to listen too could be miss informed but someone who represents an organisation wielding as much power as a local authority really ought to be better informed.

Did they not do a bit of research before "speaking"?

Be interesting to see how this one pans out.

D
Click to expand...

I've worked for a couple of LAs and if any numpty from those had spouted off this much rubbish, the Service Director would have pulled them in for an interview without coffee. Stuff like this really undermines all the hard working sensible council officers through out the country.

It's great how Data Protection, human rights and Health and Safety are being taken to extremes by both sides of the argument without anyone bothering to check what the legislation actually says.
 
I have written to the council and the media who published the story. Interesting to see what they say - if anything. Why don't you ALL write to South Lanarkshire Council? http://www.southlanarkshire.gov.uk/
 
Last edited:
Bhoy_Whunder said:
Your not alone, I know the park the guy wanted to photograph. If he had went along without asking permission nobody wouldve given a toss tbh.
Click to expand...


I just think too many off us are getting too touch about things so if you know its legal go do it!

Mind you I'm always up for a good argument with jobs worths!
 
Aaaaaaaaah but it's the nanny state nowadays .

They know better than us how to protect us < grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrh >
 
A few days ago I was wandering around the big church in Haddington,
East Lothian with camera bag and tripod with a 300mm F2.8 lens and camera attached hoping to get some pics of the "Green Man" carvings which were pretty high up. I was approached three times by different people (attendents)
and told it was quite OK to take pictures. Took me by surprise !
Chatting with the door person, he explained the previous week some one had been there with a 500mm lens doing something similar with the roof corbels.
Quite a change from what I see on here.

C
 
Hi
It seems to me, from the outside looking in, that the English are slowly losing all there rights.

What happens when there is a parade or gathering i.e. the queen, pope, a jubilant football teams homecoming or the marathon etc.

A blind eye must be turned to photography on these occasions. Its to big to police and a does it really matter attitude is adopted.

Perhaps the only way to deal with it is to have mass snap ins up and down the country.

If there was such a thing while I was back in the country I would certainly join in.

Graham
 
Andybert said:
Spotted an article in this mornings METRO about a disabled photographer who has been told he can't take pictures of flowers in public parks as the council could be sued by members of the public.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we couild start taking photos of VEGETABLES instead of flowers and see which council employees they represent that come up with stupid legislation such as this. A demand must be made for them to put up notices saying No Photography Allowed Of Council Flowerbeds in case a Cabbage Wallflower is mistaken for the general public.
 
Come on lets put a stop to this stupid thing, we voted these idiots in so its time
to get rid of all nink an poops

walt
 
:bang:

The world has gone mad!

I thought pics were fair game when you were working on public property (or private property with permission), you dont need a persons permission to take their pic if they are in a public place?!!
 
I'm sure the data-protection argument has no validity in a public place. After all the paparazzi don't get arrested!
 
you were on their property though :nono:

madmackem said:
Strange one happened to me last week at a shopping centre, I had my camera with me just in case, when I went outside I spotted a few people feeding pigeons took a couple of shots and hung about incase there was anything else to snap. I never took any inside the centre at all.
I got a tap on the shoulder off a security guard who told me I couldnt take photos on their property - even though I wasnt photographing their property (I was shooting away from and over the road!).He said I was allowed to go over the road and take photos but not from under the canopy. he had been told to "watch me" when I was spotted with my camera earlier. I must look really dodgy with a camera, My wife, Mother in law and 3 year old daughter with me.
Walking back through there were a couple of young mothers with a small compact photographing each other and their kids while walking about, wonder if anything was said?
I wonder if they check on everyone who gets a mobile phone or compact camera out and takes pictures too or is it just us terrorists oops I mean toggers!
Click to expand...
 
Maybe we should all go to our local council offices, stand outside and snap away!
 
I wouldn't worry too much it is Lanarkshire after all, almost as backward as Fife :p
 
POAH said:
you were on their property though :nono:
Click to expand...

To the best of my knowledge, in the United States, any land owned by the Federal or State or city government is automatically deemed to be a public place in the same way that the street is in the UK. It consequently attracts the same protections under the constitution such as the First Amendment, guaranteeing freedom of expression (which would include the right to take photographs).

In the UK, conversely, land owned by central government is Crown property (i.e. private) that owned by your local council (parks, etc.) are classified as private property, and consequently they can set down what rules they like for your use of them. This despite it being your and my taxes that pay for them and their upkeep.

Somehow the US model makes a lot more sense to me. :shrug:
 
frank said:
Perhaps we couild start taking photos of VEGETABLES instead of flowers and see which council employees they represent that come up with stupid legislation such as this. A demand must be made for them to put up notices saying No Photography Allowed Of Council Flowerbeds in case a Cabbage Wallflower is mistaken for the general public.
Click to expand...

Or a council employee.......
 
Musicman said:
they can set down what rules they like for your use of them
Click to expand...

Yes they can set rules - but they are still wrong to quote Human Rights Legislation or the Data Protection Act. They were just talking rubbish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top