Got stopped by security at More London yesterday...

I

idkb

Suspended / Banned
Messages
142
Name
Iain
Edit My Images
Yes
I was out yesterday trying out my new wide angle lens, and was at More London (where the Mayor of London's office is, next to Tower Bridge) and got asked to stop taking photos by the security guards. They informed me it was private property and wasn't allowed to continue! I pointed out the hundreds of tourists snapping away, but apparently because I was using a tripod I needed to obtain a permit!

I pointed out how ridiculous that sounded, and to be fair the security guard he did agree with me. Luckily I got quite a few shots before they stopped me :lol:

Anyone else experienced something similar, either at More London or elsewhere?

Iain
 
What would he have said if you had packed the tripod away and continued taking photographs? It looks like the only offending item was the tripod, not you!
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that area a public space and the mayors office is a public building?
If this is the case, I'd have asked to see his boss and get an explanation.
 
Yep - it was almost certainly the tripod that caused the issue due to "elf and sayftee" probably.

Even getting a permit can be a nightmare, they impose these rules and then make you get a permit, but then don't tell anyone how you get one or where to apply.
 
Chappers said:
What would he have said if you had packed the tripod away and continued taking photographs? It looks like the only offending item was the tripod, not you!
Click to expand...

Yep - I could have carried on hand-held if i'd wanted. Since I already had quite a few shots I just packed up and moved to my next location.
 
Just googled 'London City Hall photography permit' got nothing of any relevance.
 
Dom said:
Just googled 'London City Hall photography permit' got nothing of any relevance.
Click to expand...

I've e-mailed the estates management to ask how one would go about obtaining the required permit/permission. Will let you know if they come back with anything.
 
They quite simply called your bluff there is no law that can stop you so you should have ignored them, I would not have budged one inch, infact I would have stayed there for at least an hour or till i got really bored.
Steve
 
aerialshot said:
They quite simply called your bluff there is no law that can stop you so you should have ignored them, I would not have budged one inch, infact I would have stayed there for at least an hour or till i got really bored.
Steve
Click to expand...

using a tripod on a pavement or right of way is against the law if you are hindering anyones passage. thats not to say the OP was
 
Exact same thing happened to myself, Foggy and Woodsy last year in the same place.

I just walked away, came back, carried on as before. Foggy took an alternative tact and removed one of the legs from his broken tripod, declaring that his bipod wasn't a problem at all.

Anyway, publicly accessible doesn't mean it's not private ground and that you can't set up a camera there. Not saying I agree and that I'm 100% sure that's the case at More London. More research is required.
 
POAH said:
using a tripod on a pavement or right of way is against the law if you are hindering anyones passage. thats not to say the OP was
Click to expand...

That's interesting, didn't know that. I can assure you that I wasn't though - I was tucked away in a corner out of the way to get the viewpoint I wanted :)
 
is this the relevent bit:

It is an offence under section 137 of the highways Act 1980 wilfully to obstruct the free passage along a highway, without lawful authority or excuse.
Click to expand...

that may be the one relevant to highways, rather than footpaths but I'm sure they come under the same thing
 
A footway is part of the highway, and is covered by this legslation.
 
It is an offence to obstruct the public road, including footways, core paths and rights of way. This includes keeping pavements clear for use by people who are disabled.

People wanting to do something that will obstruct a road or pavement (for example using a skip or erecting scaffolding) must apply for a licence.

the very first line in the link i posted
 
daftbugga said:
It is an offence to obstruct the public road, including footways, core paths and rights of way. This includes keeping pavements clear for use by people who are disabled.

People wanting to do something that will obstruct a road or pavement (for example using a skip or erecting scaffolding) must apply for a licence.

the very first line in the link i posted
Click to expand...

As part of the application for such a licence, public liability insurance is required.
 
It is an offence under section 137 of the highways Act 1980 wilfully to obstruct the free passage along a highway, without lawful authority or excuse.
Click to expand...

That states that obstruction is an offence. Which it is. It does not mean using tripods in a public place is an offence. That is only the case when an obstruction occurs as well.

On a similar note, some people think that parking with two wheels on the pavement is illegal. It isn't. However, if your car parked like that causes an obstruction then that obstruction is an offence.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
That states that obstruction is an offence. Which it is. It does not mean using tripods in a public place is an offence.
Click to expand...

Correct.

The legally powerless civilian in a 'security' uniform who interfered with the person going lawfully about their business would have to prove an obstruction was actually taking place, not 'might take place, which in its self is akin to future crime.

All the powerless civilian in a 'security' uniform could do if he suspected an obstruction was taking place is call the police who would also have to prove an obstruction was taking place. If the powerless civilian in a 'security' uniform touched the photographer he would be committing a technical assault, at which point the photographer should call the police and make a complaint. Then the powerless civilian in a 'security' uniform would be arrested and subjected to a DNA test and detention/questioning. ;)

It could be successfully argued that one or two powerless civilians in 'security' uniforms and a couple of coppers interfering with a person going lawfully about their business, would be causing more of an obstruction than 1 photographer + tripod.

Personally, I'd have taken option b and told the 'security and the police to b****r off.
 
Reminds me of last year when I visited City Hall on an open day.

As I came out of the building it was raining heavily so I stopped outside the building to unzip the protective cover for the camera bag. Before I could count to 10 I became aware of a security guard inside the building watching what I was doing!
 
There is a lot of misunderstanding about 'public places'. Just because the public are permitted to enter/cross/use land does not mean that they can do whatever they want on that land. Nor is it the case that land which is publicly owned, ie owned by a council or similar body, must be available for the use of the public without restriction.
It is not generally 'public' in the sense that you can do what you want. Yes, in general the landowners have not made any effort to ban photography. However, if that land belongs to the council and the council has ruled that the use of tripods is not permitted, then you have to abide by that.

If you want to challenge it, you might try finding out who instituted that rule and if that person actually had the authority to do so. Probably cost you £10 for a FOI request.

As for Tyrone, the civilian security officer probably has the authority to enforce the rules and order you to leave, if you don't then you are trespassing. Generally a civil matter but I'd bet that in London there are some suitable laws that allow the police to remove you.
 
who? said:
As for Tyrone, the civilian security officer probably has the authority to enforce the rules and order you to leave, if you don't then you are trespassing. Generally a civil matter but I'd bet that in London there are some suitable laws that allow the police to remove you.
Click to expand...

A fair point, I'd also bet that some twonk somewhere has dreamed up a suitable bylaw.

The best thing to do in situation like this is to ask the security bod to direct you to the person responsible for giving permission to do whatever it is you're trying to do.

They have a duty to direct a person thus and 99% of the time the people they direct you to have a bit more common sense than the security bod and usually let you get on with it, much to the chagrin of the security bod.

And don't forget to take a pic of the security bod...
 
Yep. Myself, Woodsy, Foggy and Shutterman in exactly the same place last year. Apparently it is private property, even though the public has access to it, so they were within their rights. In our case, we were told it was OK to photograph using tripods as long as we weren't photographing "Their" buildings. They were quite happy for us to use tripods to photograph the river and Tower Bridge.
 
Tyrone Shoelaces said:
Correct.

The legally powerless civilian in a 'security' uniform who interfered with the person going lawfully about their business would have to prove an obstruction was actually taking place, not 'might take place, which in its self is akin to future crime.

All the could do if he suspected an obstruction was taking place is call the police who would also have to prove an obstruction was taking place. If the powerless civilian in a 'security' uniform touched the photographer he would be committing a technical assault, at which point the photographer should call the police and make a complaint. Then the powerless civilian in a 'security' uniform would be arrested and subjected to a DNA test and detention/questioning. ;)

It could be successfully argued that one or two powerless civilians in 'security' uniforms and a couple of coppers interfering with a person going lawfully about their business, would be causing more of an obstruction than 1 photographer + tripod.

Personally, I'd have taken option b and told the 'security and the police to b****r off.
Click to expand...

To further complicate matters if the powerless civilian in a 'security' uniform is preventing you from doing your job i.e. you are a photographer. Then the powerless civilian in a 'security' uniform is committing the offence of trespass to the person.
 
One day I'll get round to knocking up a very authentic looking but totally fake permit to keep them occupied for a long time. If they can make it up as they go along I don't see why we can't.
 
fabs said:
Apparently it is private property, even though the public has access to it
Click to expand...

Confusingly, that can work the other way round, too.

Some landowner a while back held an event on his land and was driving his range rover from somewhere on his property to the gate house or wherever, after having had a few. He was breathalysed and found to be over the limit. His barrister put the point that as it was on private land the rules of the road didn't apply. The beak saw otherwise and he got a guilty because if the public have access to private property then it's classed as a public place.
 
Look there is NOT legislation, law stopping you from setting up your tripod, the more you doubt yourself and others the more you play in to there hands, common sense is what you should apply, if you start holding up masses of traffic without allowing them to pass that is not fair, but if your tripod is a normal one that can be moved and is not some permanent structure then you are in the clear, and should pay no heed to them, you should ask them to prove it first, and as they cannot then click away, I feel you always should remain polite but firm, and state clearly they are infringing your rights, by there behaviour, and that they are acting outside the law.

If you state there behavour to you is offensive and not law abiding you have basically turned it on its head.
Steve
 
I guess the best thing to do with the really stubborn ones (providing you KNOW you're in the right) is to ask to see their superior or a police officer.

Of course, then you have to wait until they arrive!!
 
Where are those laminated cards that detail a photographers rights? I think we need to do a group buy!
 
I get stopped all the time. I took this at Tower Hill yesterday:

3394551849_947100aba3.jpg


and ended up having to give a rather over-enthusiastic PSCO my personal details.

It's the times we live in - fear + force = win

“…it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship … all you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.” - Hermann Goering

Grrr ... don't get me started - we're not allowed to talk politics!

Anyway - the best reaction is to be calm, polite, and pleasant. There's no point in winding up jobsworths as they can and will make it hell for you. Be aware of your rights - they cannot and should not ask you to delete any photos as that is the destruction of intellectual property. They can only ask you to stop and move on - and then only if you're actually on their property (yes I understand City Hall is private property).
 
The problem occurs when Mr Jobsworth get a little confused over grey areas.

My understanding is that if the land you are standing on is not privately owned then you may stand on it and take photographs from that land.

The difficulty occurs in built up areas, where a landowner grants a right of way for the public to cross their land, or a deed of covenant exists that allows other people the right of way across their land in order to get from point A to point B. The actual boundary between private and public areas is often not clearly marked on the ground (sometimes you will see brass studs in the pavement identifying the boundary).

From my experience is that some owners of buildings/land do not want others to make money out of their property. A tourist with a compact camera is unlikely to take a photograph of the building and sell it on to a third party. Where as a person with a high end slr is more likely to be more serious and possibly sell the images on.

I have experienced this with the National Trust and some government estates department - they are fine with tourists, but soon as they whiff any commercial element they get tough and start asking for money or written agreements.

Also you need permission to photograph in Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square.

The best thing is to ask permission first.

If you ever get stopped by the police or a PSCO be polite and say that you thought you were allowed to take photographs providing you are on public property. Also take a note of the police officer's name, rank and number, time and location and make an official complaint afterwards. Do not be cocky with them as they can arrest you for obstructing a police officer in the course of duty. If you are on private property they can do nothing as that is a civil matter between you and the landowner.
 
That area is indeed owned by More London, you would need clearance to use anything that is likely to obstruct.
I did a video job there last year, took about three weeks to get a permit which had to be presented at the security building before setting up, PL insurance is also a requirement.
 
Same thing happened to me and it is private land, apparently you only need permission to photograph the buildings for commercial purposes. I asked why I was stopped when there was loads of tourists (with some using tripods) and she said "you must have looked like a professional." She send me an email saying it was OK to photograph on this land as long as it was for private use and said I should print out and present the email to security if stopped again. I've got the email address of the estates manager, I got no reply from the general enquires address. PM me if you want it :)
 
you need the permission of the copyright holder which is probably not the actual tennent of the building. a tennent cannot stop you taking a picture of a building if you are on public land.


Mohain said:
Same thing happened to me and it is private land, apparently you only need permission to photograph the buildings for commercial purposes. I asked why I was stopped when there was loads of tourists (with some using tripods) and she said "you must have looked like a professional." She send me an email saying it was OK to photograph on this land as long as it was for private use and said I should print out and present the email to security if stopped again. I've got the email address of the estates manager, I got no reply from the general enquires address. PM me if you want it :)
Click to expand...
 
Movilla said:
I have experienced this with the National Trust and some government estates department - they are fine with tourists, but soon as they whiff any commercial element they get tough and start asking for money or written agreements.
Click to expand...

But isn't that the same with togs the other way around? As soon as a commercial organisation takes an interest in our photos, even those taken purely for fun the poound signs flash up in our eyes.

Also you need permission to photograph in Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square.
Click to expand...

Really? I wouldn't have thought that. Thanks for the information. :thumbs:

The best thing is to ask permission first.
Click to expand...

Always. Even if you think that you don't need to. The number of posts from indignant togs who have been asked to stop taking photographs on private land baffles me. Invariably they portray the security as "goons" and "jobsworths" when, in fact, it's the tog who just hasn't done their homework. :shrug:

And yet, when a security person/PC/PCSO is in the wrong and approaches someone in error they get pillaried. :lol:

I wonder if there is a forum for those people on which they continually slag off togs in an utterly one-sided fashion? :thinking::D

Also take a note of the police officer's name, rank and number, time and location and make an official complaint afterwards
Click to expand...

Absolutely, but only if they are rude. If they stop you in error and it's resolved peacefully why make a complaint? Ok, it cost you time but have you never made a mistake?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top