Got stopped by security at More London yesterday...

[sitemaster]

what we are seeing here is one of the major problems in this country: people in uniforms lording it over the citizens. We are told that there is huge pent up anger and people explode over the slightest thing - like road rage. 12 years of salami-slicing away of our rights has brought us to this.

 

[it's alive]

what we are seeing here is one of the major problems in this country: people in uniforms lording it over the citizens. We are told that there is huge pent up anger and people explode over the slightest thing - like road rage. 12 years of salami-slicing away of our rights has brought us to this.

Nonesense. There have always been requirements for permission in many places, such as council buildings, shopping centers and so on. The heightened publicity as not only increased the liklihood of being stopped but also increased the extent to which "we" (meaning togs of all persuasions in general) object to being stopped. Even if we would have been stopped 10 years ago.

10 years ago we would have grumbled about it to 5 mates later on. Now we grumble about it on here and more people hear about it. So you hear about more events. No doubt it's increased, but by how much? And how much due to the increase in the number of ill informed togs taking pictures without doing their homework first?

What is there to actually be annoyed about? Unless you're being confronted by someone in an offensive manner.

Spare a thought for the poor security guy who's calmly told 3 people that they need permission this morning and can just see a bloke setting up a tripod over there . .

Also bear in mind that some of the reason for permission being required is the "duty of care" on landowners these days. This effectively makes them responsible in the unlikely event that your tripod does cause an accident. Hence the requirement for insurance in some places. This is not the result of the erosion of rights.

 

[Voyager]

Considering the G20 meeting is happening this week it is not overly surprising that 'security' are being a bit vigilant on the build up to it is it?

 

[grumpybadger]

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

No. There is no legislation but representatives of the owner of private property have the right to mandate what can and cannot be done on its land.

Since More London is owned by More London Development Ltd, it has the right to mandate what people can or cannot do on its land. In the same why as you have a right to get upset if I set up a tripod in your front garden.

No wonder you were asking for a "press card" to hide behind with the outlook you have.

Paul

 

[Mohain]

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.

But it isn't public land. The buildings and the estate are owned by More London http://www.morelondon.com/