had my collar felt for the first time by a security gaurd today (happy ending)

if you are doing nothing other than taking some photographs then why should it be viewed as being suspicious in the first place,
Click to expand...

Don't you think that on the odd occasion people film or photograph places they intend to commit crime?

Tell you what, I'll answer that for you myself. Yes they do. Therefore something that might be perfectly natural for you to be doing (and legal before you get all uppity) is likely to raise an eyebrow somewhere.

All this 'its my human right' drivel that gets spouted manages to do is alienate real world workers. Is the security guard about to take your details and put them on some kind of register so that some spy satellite will monitor your movements whilst MI's 5 & 6 then intercept all your phone calls and personal mail?

This has nothing to do with human rights and everything to do with the paranoid ramblings of trolls and conspiricy theorists.
 
Nope, this has to do with our fundamental human rights for those of us that have an understanding of what they are and what they are there for, its your paranoid mind that came up with that drivel you just posted, not mine.

You are the one sounding like a (disrespectful) troll, not me..
Is that not conspiracy that you just posted. :cuckoo:
 
Last edited:
Not at all, I've dealt with numerous photographers in my job role over the years, and had to lock a couple of them up when they have been found to be taking innapropriate photos of the type I'm sure you wouldn't want taking of your daughter. They were in public, and also on the camera were numerous 'normal' photos which were initially shown to me to 'prove' that they wre doing nothing wrong.

The vast majority of photographers though have been pleasant resulting in a quick chat about photography followed by a 'see you around'.

I take it these human rights you refer to also apply to anyone who wants to photograph your house, family, car etc at any time they see fit? After all, its a free country isn't it?

I suggest you look up what human rights really are - they're about far far more serious things than being a hobbyist photographer
 
Last edited:
pooley said:
Don't you think that on the odd occasion people film or photograph places they intend to commit crime?

Tell you what, I'll answer that for you myself. Yes they do. Therefore something that might be perfectly natural for you to be doing (and legal before you get all uppity) is likely to raise an eyebrow somewhere.

All this 'its my human right' drivel that gets spouted manages to do is alienate real world workers. Is the security guard about to take your details and put them on some kind of register so that some spy satellite will monitor your movements whilst MI's 5 & 6 then intercept all your phone calls and personal mail?

This has nothing to do with human rights and everything to do with the paranoid ramblings of trolls and conspiricy theorists.
Click to expand...

I'm sure criminals may use cameras to aid in criminal activity. Does that mean every photographer is suspicious.

I imagine criminals also use mobile phones far more than cameras in connection with crimes, so why not view anyone on a mobile as suspicious?

Photographers are an easy target and if the best the authorities can do to prevent crime is to assume anyone taking photos is suspicious, then heaven help us.
 
As i said, i have an understanding of my human rights and what they encompass, other than that i have no intention of having an argument with you and wont be responding to your posts after this last one. :)
 
pooley said:
Not at all, I've dealt with numerous photographers in my job role over the years, and had to lock a couple of them up when they have been found to be taking innapropriate photos of the type I'm sure you wouldn't want taking of your daughter. They were in public, and also on the camera were numerous 'normal' photos which were initially shown to me to 'prove' that they wre doing nothing wrong.

The vast majority of photographers though have been pleasant resulting in a quick chat about photography followed by a 'see you around'.

I take it these human rights you refer to also apply to anyone who wants to photograph your house, family, car etc at any time they see fit? After all, its a free country isn't it?

I suggest you look up what human rights really are - they're about far far more serious things than being a hobbyist photographer
Click to expand...

You suggest that by locking people up you are in some form of authority?

If so, your disregard for human rights as enshrined in law is simply shocking. Doesn't matter if in your opinion they are trifling...it's the law.
 
Jeez, this is paranoia gone crazy.

People acting suspicious with their phone get stopped. Sometimes photographers get stopped.

Sometimes (I would hazard a guess of well in excess of (99%) of the time the photographer gets left alone.

If you don't think that talking to people acting 'suspiciously', whatever they are doing, is a good thing and helps prevent crime then god help us all.

I suppose then certain people would just have to find something else to moan about...
 
As i said, i have an understanding of my human rights and what they encompass, other than that i have no intention of having an argument with you and wont be responding to your posts after this last one.
Click to expand...

Its funny how many times around here when people can't back up what they are saying they resort to walking away :wave:
 
pooley said:
Jeez, this is paranoia gone crazy.

People acting suspicious with their phone get stopped. Sometimes photographers get stopped.

Sometimes (I would hazard a guess of well in excess of (99%) of the time the photographer gets left alone.

If you don't think that talking to people acting 'suspiciously', whatever they are doing, is a good thing and helps prevent crime then god help us all.

I suppose then certain people would just have to find something else to moan about...
Click to expand...

I have not said that people acting suspiciouisly should not be questioned.

I have merely challenged the assumption that the act of taking photographs is in itself suspicious. So for someone to be acting suspiciously, they would surely have to be doing something in addition to the taking of photographs?
 
Steve said:
You suggest that by locking people up you are in some form of authority?

If so, your disregard for human rights as enshrined in law is simply shocking. Doesn't matter if in your opinion they are trifling...it's the law.
Click to expand...

:agree:
Its that kind of paranoid mentality that i personally am against, not the being asked a simple question.
 
Last edited:
pooley said:
Believe me - Everything I do at work relates to knowing the law ;)
Click to expand...

Well you don't seem to be very familiar with human rights legislation....maybe time for a refresher training course?
 
Steve said:
I'm sure criminals may use cameras to aid in criminal activity. Does that mean every photographer is suspicious.
Click to expand...

Of course not... in my job, however, I have to approach everyone that touts a camera (private site open to the public)

I imagine criminals also use mobile phones far more than cameras in connection with crimes
Click to expand...

Apologies for paraphrasing you here Steve, but I wanted to share something in relation to this...
A few weeks ago we had a sketch artist turn up in the shopping centre and start sketching one of the stores. There are specific rules regarding photography on the site, but, as you can imagine, not sketching, so I rang through to the deputy manager to ask what he wanted done.
Cue a five minute conversation how we shouldn't worry about him because he's obviously not up to any sort of terrorism because he doesn't have a camera.
Ten minutes of shouting at eachother later he grudgingly admits that they're much more likely to use something inconspicuous like, as said, a P&S or mobile phone.
It beggars belief that someone thinks not only would someone up to no good use something thats so obvious... just like it beggars belief that some people think security guards have no right to question whomever, within their remit.

Bottom line, we're not all best described by the characters along the top of a keyboard, and by we I mean photographers and security alike.

Yes, I did kinda forget where I was going as I was writing this.
 
I appreciate that as a photography forum, the incidents are related to photographers but I don't single out photographers. Scanning the cctv cameras, it's anything that catches my eye as being out of the routine. A person wandering around the building a few times, for example. That's when I take a closer look and if I can't make a judgement on what I can see on cctv, (It might be bad lighting, poor camera angle, anything that means I can't be sure), I'll take a wander over. Mostly, it's people looking for directions! Pretty sure they're glad of the help and I've yet to have them screaming that I can't ask them if they need help, they know their rights ;)
It can be a fine line between diligence and suspicion. It seems some people on here always opt to assume the latter.
 
VirtualAdept said:
Of course not... in my job, however, I have to approach everyone that touts a camera (private site open to the public)



Apologies for paraphrasing you here Steve, but I wanted to share something in relation to this...
A few weeks ago we had a sketch artist turn up in the shopping centre and start sketching one of the stores. There are specific rules regarding photography on the site, but, as you can imagine, not sketching, so I rang through to the deputy manager to ask what he wanted done.
Cue a five minute conversation how we shouldn't worry about him because he's obviously not up to any sort of terrorism because he doesn't have a camera.
Ten minutes of shouting at eachother later he grudgingly admits that they're much more likely to use something inconspicuous like, as said, a P&S or mobile phone.
It beggars belief that someone thinks not only would someone up to no good use something thats so obvious... just like it beggars belief that some people think security guards have no right to question whomever, within their remit.

Bottom line, we're not all best described by the characters along the top of a keyboard, and by we I mean photographers and security alike.

Yes, I did kinda forget where I was going as I was writing this.
Click to expand...

lol...Just had a vision of a terrorist doing an oil painting of a target.

and of course, on private land different rules apply, so I would fully expect different rules to apply and to have to adhere to a different set of standards than on public land.
 
Steve said:
and of course, on private land different rules apply, so I would fully expect different rules to apply and to have to adhere to a different set of standards than on public land.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, but I stand by the assertion that the guards on those sites also need to be polite and not balshy, to me location doesn't matter much in that respect...
 
Carter64 said:
I appreciate that as a photography forum, the incidents are related to photographers but I don't single out photographers. Scanning the cctv cameras, it's anything that catches my eye as being out of the routine. A person wandering around the building a few times, for example. That's when I take a closer look and if I can't make a judgement on what I can see on cctv, (It might be bad lighting, poor camera angle, anything that means I can't be sure), I'll take a wander over. Mostly, it's people looking for directions! Pretty sure they're glad of the help and I've yet to have them screaming that I can't ask them if they need help, they know their rights ;)
It can be a fine line between diligence and suspicion. It seems some people on here always opt to assume the latter.
Click to expand...

Mike,

That seems a perfectly reasonable approach and all that I as a civilian want...some professional judgement about what is suspicious.

What I'm questioning is the attitude of some that suggests anyone that is taking a photograph is suspicious, but as you say you are looking for more than just that.
 
pooley said:
Bassitt - have you decided yet how you'll deal with the person photographing your house yet?

Will you breach their human rights by asking them what they're doing?
Click to expand...

sigh....this makes no sense...please read and understand human rights legislation.
 
pooley said:
I'm fully conversant with human rights legislation thanks, I have to use it every day.
Click to expand...

:O

I suddenly feel light headed.... going to retreat to TFAC to recover.
 
Hi - Was out in Edinburgh on Tuesday at a nighttime course bought on living social.

So there was around 10 of us taking photos when after a police car passed by a few times, they stopped to talk with us.

Apparently someone had reported seeing a man with a black rucksack and what appears to be a gun on the street.

The policeman was polite, did not have any issues with us taking photos and was doing his duty following up the phonecall.

I think that as photographers we are becoming paranoid and often act defensive, and come off looking as bad as the security guard or policeman who we are talking to.

I agree its good to know the law, but don't act like an idiot!

Jazz
 
Come on steve, give me a reasoned reply, please!

All to often people get defensive when asked to provide some rationale.

If stopping and talking to someone who has aroused suspicion - be it rightly or wrongly - then how should it be dealt with? I'm genuinely interested to know and not being sarcastic. If I'm missing something them help me do my job better.

Doing things my current way has solved and I'm confident in saying also prevented crime. Is that not a good thing?

Im fully aware that you don't have to provide your details if no offence is being committed, and if you're clearly doing nothing wrong i'd never ask for your details What are you hoping to achieve?
 
pooley said:
Don't you think that on the odd occasion people film or photograph places they intend to commit crime?

Tell you what, I'll answer that for you myself. Yes they do. Therefore something that might be perfectly natural for you to be doing (and legal before you get all uppity) is likely to raise an eyebrow somewhere.

All this 'its my human right' drivel that gets spouted manages to do is alienate real world workers. Is the security guard about to take your details and put them on some kind of register so that some spy satellite will monitor your movements whilst MI's 5 & 6 then intercept all your phone calls and personal mail?

This has nothing to do with human rights and everything to do with the paranoid ramblings of trolls and conspiricy theorists.
Click to expand...

What a ridiculous statement.
 
Laudrup, I'm still waiting for your response from previous questions like I've posted in the last hour. You were going to enlighten me but it seemed to slip your mind.

Can you be a bit more specific this time in explaining your last post.

Thanks
 
Phil V said:
:thinking:

So the 'correct response' for a trained security guard is:

Sees something that appears to be suspicious behaviour

Approaches individual to clarify situation

Individual ignores security guard and walks off.

Security guard happy that the situation is resolved and gets on with his day!

He wouldn't be expected to follow up a situation where a 'suspicious' subject absconds?:cuckoo:
Click to expand...

I think you're overestimating the powers that a hi-vis jacket gives you.
 
VirtualAdept said:
I think its more that you've got a massive chip on your shoulder
Click to expand...

If you want to tell a security guard your inside leg measurements go right ahead. If you expect me to tell someone my business who has no right to know and do so because of the underlying threat of 'escalating' the situation then I'll have to decline.
 
pooley said:
Laudrup, I'm still waiting for your response from previous questions like I've posted in the last hour. You were going to enlighten me but it seemed to slip your mind.

Can you be a bit more specific this time in explaining your last post.

Thanks
Click to expand...

I have more questions than answers for you. Like what does 'alienate real world workers' mean? How can you say 'human rights drivel' and in the next post tell us how serious they are? Then make vague unverifiable claims about locking people up and then guess 99%+ of people haven't been stopped.

None of this begins to explain why you should tell a security guard anything. It's mainly specious reasoning.
 
Jazz_UK said:
Hi - Was out in Edinburgh on Tuesday at a nighttime course bought on living social.

So there was around 10 of us taking photos when after a police car passed by a few times, they stopped to talk with us.

Apparently someone had reported seeing a man with a black rucksack and what appears to be a gun on the street.

The policeman was polite, did not have any issues with us taking photos and was doing his duty following up the phonecall.

I think that as photographers we are becoming paranoid and often act defensive, and come off looking as bad as the security guard or policeman who we are talking to.

I agree its good to know the law, but don't act like an idiot!
Click to expand...

Ah, a bit of sense!

I couldn't agree more. As much as I can see the point that security/police/PCSO's, etc, need to use a bit of sense and logic if they feel the need to question someone I also can't see why anyone with nothing to hide would kick off so much if they are questioned.

I do a lot of aviation photography and in this day of silly paranoia anyone at the perimeter of an airport fence in the UK is guaranteed to be spotted by the police within minutes. I've had many an encounter with the police at various airports and never once had a problem. They wander over, ask you what you're up to (and I've never, not even once known them to be anything other than polite), you let them know what they need to know, they wander off, everyone's happy. It's no big deal and I don't see why it should be a big deal in any other similar situation.

What really hacks me off is the ones who immediately kick off when anyone even comes close to approaching them, they just ruin it for everyone else.
 
Can't believe I have to explain that but here goes...

I have to deal with human rights legislation every day. The legislation was designed to protect the interests of people who could not stick up for themselves for whatever reason - far too many to list here.

It has now become the norm for criminals, offenders, cheats and the like to try and use the legislation to hide behind. These people are jokingly referred to as the Jeremy Kyle fan club.

The rights of the victims of crime are all too often disregarded in favour of offenders rights.

Like I said I should have been clearer in my distinction before.

How often do you shout about your human rights as an aviation photographer? Or do you use common decency and resolve issues like an adult?
 
pooley said:
Can't believe I have to explain that but here goes...

I have to deal with human rights legislation every day. The legislation was designed to protect the interests of people who could not stick up for themselves for whatever reason - far too many to list here.

It has now become the norm for criminals, offenders, cheats and the like to try and use the legislation to hide behind. These people are jokingly referred to as the Jeremy Kyle fan club.

The rights of the victims of crime are all too often disregarded in favour of offenders rights.

Like I said I should have been clearer in my distinction before.

How often do you shout about your human rights as an aviation photographer? Or do you use common decency and resolve issues like an adult?
Click to expand...

I made a simple comment in reply to someone other than you, where the hell did all this come from?

Didn't my post make my views on the last question in your weird random little rant perfectly clear?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top