Funniest s*** I heard so far

Pete B

Pete B

Suspended / Banned
Messages
724
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
Yes
At local photography meet, and I mentioned about wannabe objecting to cameras.
Well says a member, here's an example:-

Strolling round the Birmingham Christmas market taking photos, council wannabe cop says, "Hey you can't take photos here"
Hmm, on public land why not? "There's children that may be in the picture!"
Ok, so what about all these other people taking photos? "They're using phones not a camera"

:grumpy::facepalm::crying::banghead::asshat:
 
Pete B said:
At local photography meet, and I mentioned about wannabe objecting to cameras.
Well says a member, here's an example:-

Strolling round the Birmingham Christmas market taking photos, council wannabe cop says, "Hey you can't take photos here"
Hmm, on public land why not? "There's children that may be in the picture!"
Ok, so what about all these other people taking photos? "They're using phones not a camera"

:grumpy::facepalm::crying::banghead::asshat:
Click to expand...
Sounds very much like the Hillary Duff posting to Instagram story doing the rounds at the moment.
 
I visited the Bullring on one cold Sunday morning, around 8am - I took a shot of the bull, whilst lying on the floor to get a good angle

this
OMBZtZz.jpg


A security guard wandered up and demanded I give him my camera- I refused point blank, he called the office on his radio and the Manager apperared, he
informed me I was not allowed to shoot there as I could be a terrorist planning something :) Plus there were members of the public around with CJILDREN , most of which were using mobile phones to photograph the very same Bull

I told him I'd just served 22 years as a British Paratrooper and basically told him to sod off - he called the Police, whilst the security guard prevented me from leaving

Needles to say, the police arrived and told them to NOT prevent me from taking photographs as I was clearly in a public space -also he could be charged if he prevented me from leaving as no crime had been committed

so to P*ss off the security I took photo's of both of them ( like ya do)

Just goes to show- some people have no idea

Les :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Bullring is privately owned and although the public do have access to it, it's possible that the security guard was within his rights to stop you taking photographs.
 
Nod said:
The Bullring is privately owned and although the public do have access to it, it's possible that the security guard was within his rights to stop you taking photographs.
Click to expand...

so, the Police were wrong then? and I should have handed over my £2,500 camera not on my watch sorry
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, the policeman very possibly was wrong - they often are. No, you shouldn't have handed over your equipment or deleted any shots unless compelled to do so by a court.
 
Nod said:
Yes, the policeman very possibly was wrong - they often are. No, you shouldn't have handed over your equipment or deleted any shots unless compelled to do so by a court.
Click to expand...

Just what I thought - all ended well though - no one died :LOL::LOL::LOL:
 
Its not funny though because it keeps getting worse and worse.

Before long this will be more and more common I think.
 
Its my understanding that the landowner can make the rules for photos on his land. I don't think that the fact that the land/building is open to the public affects that rule.

Try taking a photograph in a supermarket. If spotted you will be shown the door. But the landowner does not have any right to confiscate your camera...
 
Johnny1024 said:
If spotted you will be shown the door. But the landowner does not have any right to confiscate your camera...
Click to expand...
That's pretty much it. If on private land you can be told to leave at any time by the landowner's representatives. They may use reasonable force to remove you if you refuse to leave but they commit an offense if they try to take away any of your property.

I think it's too simple for managers and "security" people to understand. :naughty:
 
It's sad that paranoid concerns about both safeguarding and terrorism have led to these situations but it's what it is, and all that we can do is to understand exactly what our legal rights and restrictions are - I wonder whether there have been any test cases on this issue, or whether we have any specialist barristers on here?

My own belief is that, firstly, we need to make the distinction between criminal and civil law. As I understand it, criminal law allows photography in a public place, and a public place is defined in the Prevention of Crime Act as a place to which the public may reasonably have access - nothing there about who owns the place, or whether the person carrying out the activity (photography in this case) has a right to take photos there, it's just about whether or not the place is public.

And then there's civil law, which as I understand it, allows the owner of the property to make the rules about what is or is not allowed to happen on their property. And, as just about all land and buildings are owned by someone (individuals, local authorities, companies or the crown) then there's always an owner involved. It seems to me that many of these owners confuse civil and criminal law, which is why I think it would help if an expert could advise on this.
 
Garry Edwards said:
and a public place is defined in the Prevention of Crime Act as a place to which the public may reasonably have access
Click to expand...
You've missed out the words 'In this section “ public place ” includes' which implies that the definition only applies to the act in which it appears.

It's misunderstandings of that kind which keep the Rumpoles of this world in "Chateau Thames Embankment". :naughty:
 
Nod said:
The Bullring is privately owned and although the public do have access to it, it's possible that the security guard was within his rights to stop you taking photographs.
Click to expand...

No he wasn't. The only 'powers' he has is to ask to to leave the property, and to carry out a citizens arrest in accordance with the law. But you'd have to be proper kicking off for that to be valid, and even then, nobody is allowed to use force beyond 'reasonable'. Even if you refuse to leave a place, nobody other than police can physically touch you. Certainly, nobody other than police can touch your camera, and even then, only if it's considered to be 'evidence' in a criminal matter. We've got some pretty liberal laws in the UK regarding al this, although I suspect things will change.

For the moment though, you can tell any 'security' personnel to jog on, if they demand your camera. I have done, many times. And carried on taking photographs. I've only had to leave a place a couple of times, ever. Most security guards just shrug and wander off, if you give even the vaguest indication you have knowledge of the actual law. Most of what they do is just macho bluster and bullying; it's all about the whole theatre of 'security'. About imposing 'their' rules. Testicles to that.

AndrewFlannigan said:
That's pretty much it. If on private land you can be told to leave at any time by the landowner's representatives. They may use reasonable force to remove you if you refuse to leave but they commit an offence if they try to take away any of your property.

I think it's too simple for managers and "security" people to understand. :naughty:
Click to expand...

This, basically.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
You've missed out the words 'In this section “ public place ” includes' which implies that the definition only applies to the act in which it appears.

It's misunderstandings of that kind which keep the Rumpoles of this world in "Chateau Thames Embankment". :naughty:
Click to expand...
Well, as my signature makes clear, I'm just a photographer - and a retired one at that:)
Which is why we need experts to advise us.
 
I wouldn't give my camera to a security guard in a shopping complex, or any where else for that matter, but I would leave if asked, I guess not to would be trespassing. Then again, knowing that most of these areas do not allow photography then I likely wouldn't use my camera anyway, without first asking permission.
 
This is what is quite dangerous, the OP believed he was entitled to take photos because other members of the public have free access when due to it being private land any expectation of privacy regulations do not apply and also thought they could not prevent him from taking photos.

The rules for the bullring are published on their web site

Bullring & Grand Central is home to some of the most popular and photographed landmarks in the UK. Members of the public are allowed to take photographs in and around the centre with a small digital camera/mobile phone for personal use only. To take photographs of shop interiors and exteriors, permission must be sought from the individual retailer.

Please note that photography/filming/sketching of the building’s infrastructure or Bullring & Grand Central staff is not permitted. Please note that Bullring & Grand Central does retain the right to refuse photography, filming and sketching at any time. Should you wish to use any other equipment, including tripods, please see the below guide lines.

If you wish to take photographs or film within and around the centre you will need prior permission from the management team. Please contact 0121 632 1526 or visit the Management Suite located on level 3 opposite Victoria Secret for further details.

So retort to the security with a holier than thou approach trying to cite legislation that doesn't hold true doesn't paint you in a good light or help future photographers who wish to take photographs around the Bull Ring.
 
The law everywhere seems to be designed to cause maximum hassle for example I read this on the internet recently

>>Take a photo during daytime and no one will bat an eyelid, but problems arise at dusk when the Eiffel Tower lights are switched on. ... This means that anyone who wants to photograph it after dark must get permission from them. European copyright law says that it is illegal to distribute pictures of copyrighted works. <<<
 
The Eiffel Tower is not the only structure that’s copyright there are others. Actually I believe that the tower itself isn’t protected, copyright on that ran out over twenty years ago, but the lights are protected under copyright law.
 
The Eiffel Tower is likely protected by French law, so applying UK sensibilities is probably a bad idea.

Also, it often helps to keep the act of making the photograph and the usage of said photograph separate, as there are separate laws covering them. You might be able to freely take a picture of someone or something whilst in a public place, but if you try and make commercial gain from it, you'd better be careful (i.e. have a signed contract, or signed consent).
 
As I said earlier maximum hassle as not everybody is aware of rules and regulations. Here in North Devon we have a certain large statue in a prominent position, and local shopkeepers discovered they were only allowed to sell items licensed by the designer of it. Going back to the Eiffel Tower if you search Ebay under its name and by night, you will see lots of items being sold - makes you wonder if these people ever get prosecuted
 
Last edited:
It seems that a security guard can only "get physical" if they are making a citizens arrest. For this to happen the individual has to be reasonably suspected of having committed or be in the act of committing or maybe even deemed likely to commit an offence.

Being peaceably in contravention of a landowners rules is not committing an offence against the law so I'm not sure what measures a security guard could take if the photographer continues to take pictures other than calling the police complaining that the photographer is causing or is likely to cause a disturbance. I should imagine that any attending police officer would likely view the photographer as being a complete arse and take appropriate action.
I found this interesting:
https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/what-security-guards-can-cant-870449
 
KIPAX said:
Exatly what gives us all a bad name and I daresay the next photogrpaher will get it in the neck... wouldnt it be better to just educate and leave with a shake of hands ?
Click to expand...
you can't shake hands - GOOD GOD MAN have you not heard the only acceptable greeting now is the Wuhan Shake (foot contact) or Fist Bumps…..
 
KIPAX said:
Exatly what gives us all a bad name and I daresay the next photogrpaher will get it in the neck... wouldnt it be better to just educate and leave with a shake of hands ?
Click to expand...

You are quite right, Under normal circumstances I would have- however the Security guard was indicating vocally and quite loudly to all the people around the Bull , about me photographing an area where children were. I took exception to that as I'm sure most people would ?

He was fixated on that fact, Insinuating I was some kind of pervert or terrorist - The attending Police officer told him to shut up and none to kindly either...

The Security guard nor the Police prevented people taking Photograph and video's using Smart phones - seems Sony a7Riii's are a Perverts/Terrorist camera of choice :)

I hardly felt I should be shaking his hand at that point in time - needless to say I won't be returning to that area any time soon

Les
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re. Shaking hands with your oppressor.
I posted an account on a different thread about having my rights challenged, I revealed there that I shook hands with my "Oppressor".
This wasn't to show respect for him (I had nothing but contempt.) It was because there was a large crowd forming some distance away, watching and videoing my encounter. I found the whole experience embarrassing I wanted to give the impression that the discussion was cordial and that I wasn't being challenged.
 
Nod said:
The Bullring is privately owned and although the public do have access to it, it's possible that the security guard was within his rights to stop you taking photographs.
Click to expand...

There's a subtle difference to what actually happened though, while you may be right that the security guard may have been within his rights to ask the OP to stop taking pictures, he was NOT within his rights to detain him
 
Mystery57 said:
Here in North Devon we have a certain large statue in a prominent position
Click to expand...
I worked the North Devon and Somerset areas for several years in the 1970s and 1980s. At the time I thought Ilfracombe couldn't go any further down market if it tried. Then came the statue to prove me wrong. :naughty:
 
Donnie said:
There's a subtle difference to what actually happened though, while you may be right that the security guard may have been within his rights to ask the OP to stop taking pictures, he was NOT within his rights to detain him
Click to expand...
Under certain circumstances I'm pretty certain anyone can detain someone if they're executing a citizens arrest.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/aug/09/guide-to-citizens-arrest

Edit, Not that I'm implying the circumstances of this incident were applicable.
 
Last edited:
But as has already been mentioned; someone can only be detained if they are committing, or believed to be committing or about to commit a criminal offence. Taking photos even on private property is generally not, in itself at least, illegal (there are of course times when it is, but this wouldn't be the case at somewhere like the Bullring, where the public are invited to be). Trespass isn't a criminal offence*, in itself, so no security guard could lawfully detain anyone for this. Only ask them to leave. If a person refuses to leave, yet is not committing any criminal offence, then all the landowner or their agents can do, is call police, and have them deal with it.

* https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/trespass-and-nuisance-land

Regardless of this, as has also been mentioned here, there is the issue of responsible behaviour by photographers. As seen on another thread regarding photographers' 'rights', there was a lot of blethering on about 'oh but we have the legal right to take photos', but not so much consideration of behaving responsibly in such a way as to not p*** people off, or cause alarm, distress or upset. Of course, this can be entirely subjective, and surely it's for the photographer to decide. And yes, p***ing off security guards could lead to further harassment of law abiding photographers. But surely it's up to us to show that we are being responsible, and not meaningfully creating problems. In a place like the Bullring, surely the best approach would be to snap away, and then apologise to any security personnel and quickly move on, rather than stand there arguing. If someone demands your camera, refuse and state loudly that you are leaving the area. And leave. You've got some snaps, be happy with that. And maybe think about being a bit more discrete; wandering around with a big camera and lens round your neck is going to attract attention. Keeping a smaller camera in a bag which you can quickly get in and out, perhaps more effective if you want to fly under the radar.

Or just wait until some other photographer bod starts arguing with a security guard, and then fire away whilst they're all distracted. ;)
 
Donnie said:
There's a subtle difference to what actually happened though, while you may be right that the security guard may have been within his rights to ask the OP to stop taking pictures, he was NOT within his rights to detain him
Click to expand...
It depends upon what is included under the "right to refuse photography" that they state on the website. If they say that if they refuse you the right for photography and you do not comply they can ask you to leave there and then, if you refuse that you are then trespassing.
 
Last edited:
@jamesev You've completely missed my point. It doesn't matter a jot what it says on the website about pictures etc, Im talking about the security guard detaining the OP, not about asking to leave.
 
Donnie said:
There's a subtle difference to what actually happened though, while you may be right that the security guard may have been within his rights to ask the OP to stop taking pictures, he was NOT within his rights to detain him
Click to expand...
jakeblu said:
Under certain circumstances I'm pretty certain anyone can detain someone if they're executing a citizens arrest.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/aug/09/guide-to-citizens-arrest

Edit, Not that I'm implying the circumstances of this incident were applicable.
Click to expand...

Im not saying a security guard cannot execute a citizens arrest, in fact they have no more power to do so than you or I. However as you say, the OP was not causing an offence and therefore the point is completely moot.
 
Donnie said:
@jamesev You've completely missed my point. It doesn't matter a jot what it says on the website about pictures etc, Im talking about the security guard detaining the OP, not about asking to leave.
Click to expand...
Well it does, if the website says by entering the premises you agree to not take photos and give the the land owner permission to confiscate recording equipment then you have given them the rights.
 
jamesev said:
Well it does, if the website says by entering the premises you agree to not take photos and give the the land owner permission to confiscate recording equipment then you have given them the rights.
Click to expand...

Where does it say the landowner has the 'right' to confiscate equipment? Even if it did, I'm pretty sure this wouldn't be legal anyway. Anyone know the law regarding such?
 
AZ6 said:
Where does it say the landowner has the 'right' to confiscate equipment? Even if it did, I'm pretty sure this wouldn't be legal anyway. Anyone know the law regarding such?
Click to expand...
Can football grounds confiscate your gear?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top