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

[Phil V]

I think you're overestimating the powers that a hi-vis jacket gives you.

I think you should change your medication, as your replies here don't add anything and just make you look...


Doesn't matter, carry on as you were.

 

[Phil V]

Lets break this down

If you want to tell a security guard your inside leg measurements go right ahead.

No-one mentioned inside leg measurements, they'd hardly be relevant

If you expect me to tell someone my business who has no right to know and do so ...

The security guard does have a 'right to' ask the question.

... because of the underlying threat of 'escalating' the situation then I'll have to decline.

Then you are taking responsibility for escalating the situation

It's really straightforward, I'm well aware of my rights, but I'm also very much aware of my responsibilities, and I know that good manners and a pleasant attitude to other human beings are what makes the world go round.

Don't get me wrong - if some obnoxious security guard started behaving completely inappropriately, I'd not stand for it - I know my rights remember. How is this so complicated Be nice to people unless it's not getting you anywhere...

 

[Rob 80386]

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.

Nail on the head, similar to my situation in the O/P
Just tell them what they need to know, i,e what you're doing, the security/police ascertain that you are not a threat, you get the shot you want and everyone is happy, not only that, but it makes there job easier and it puts photographers in a good light... as I said good communication is the key, not arguing about what you're entitled to / rights ect.

 

[Krisstiffer]

I'd add into the mix that the security guard is more than likely just doing his job according to policies that his management have told him to follow - and these don't have to be founded in law. Even if you give him some wonderfully eloquent speech about your rights and he turns on his heels and leaves then this won't have some miraculous change for the next photographer - the management policy will still be in place.

If you're really concerned about "rights" then maybe the thing to do is write to the PR department at the firm concerned about their policy and the way it is being acted upon - far more likely to be effective than arguing the rights and wrongs with the "feet on the street" - they probably have little power to effect change.

I am aware and protective of my rights - I also try to THINK how best to preserve them - knee jerk reactions are seldom the best way.

 

[Bassit]

Can i ask what is everyone's problem with the "rights" thing, from what i can see (i may be wrong) there is only one person out of 164 posts that has said that they would rather say nothing than answer whomever has asked what are they doing.

I am not asking why do you think its right to answer simple questions when questioned, you have all made that very clear, what i am asking is why has every other person felt the need to state that it is wrong to stand up for your rights, like there's something wrong with you if you feel strongly about your rights as a human being, it seems to me that most don't want these rights and would happily give them up. :shrug:

 

[Phil V]

Can i ask what is everyone's problem with the "rights" thing, from what i can see (i may be wrong) there is only one person out of 164 posts that has said that they would rather say nothing than answer whomever has asked what are they doing.

I am not asking why do you think its right to answer simple questions when questioned, you have all made that very clear, what i am asking is why has every other person felt the need to state that it is wrong to stand up for your rights, like there's something wrong with you if you feel strongly about your rights as a human being, it seems to me that most don't want these rights and would happily give them up. :shrug:

That's the most arse about face view of the situation.
You have a perfect right to be a k n o b, as does the security guard, the rest of us are saying we'd rather exercise our right to be friendly.

We've found out throughout our lives that although you can go along sticking to your guns and knowing that you're right, it makes just as much sense to be friendly and cooperative, in fact, if you want your own way sometimes, being nice and polite will get you further than stamping your feet and demanding your rights.

Just an observation.

It might be a Northern thing, but striking up a conversation with a total stranger who's shown an interest in my camera is a perfectly ordinary thing to do, whether that person is a policeman, security guard, stranger in the street, fellow passenger on a bus, guest at a wedding, just anyone.

Of course, if someone speaks to me in public - I have a perfect right to be an obnoxious a r s e and completely ignore them.

Your rights - your choice. My rights, they're perfectly intact, and waiting for a time it makes sense to exercise them.

 

[Krisstiffer]

I am not asking why do you think its right to answer simple questions when questioned, you have all made that very clear, what i am asking is why has every other person felt the need to state that it is wrong to stand up for your rights, like there's something wrong with you if you feel strongly about your rights as a human being, it seems to me that most don't want these rights and would happily give them up. :shrug:

It isn't wrong to stand up for your rights - but if you want to bring about change then I don't think that arguing the toss with someone who has no power to effect change is a worthwhile use of my time....

 

[Tigger.ufo]

That's the most arse about face view of the situation.
You have a perfect right to be a k n o b, as does the security guard, the rest of us are saying we'd rather exercise our right to be friendly.

We've found out throughout our lives that although you can go along sticking to your guns and knowing that you're right, it makes just as much sense to be friendly and cooperative, in fact, if you want your own way sometimes, being nice and polite will get you further than stamping your feet and demanding your rights.

Just an observation.

It might be a Northern thing, but striking up a conversation with a total stranger who's shown an interest in my camera is a perfectly ordinary thing to do, whether that person is a policeman, security guard, stranger in the street, fellow passenger on a bus, guest at a wedding, just anyone.

Of course, if someone speaks to me in public - I have a perfect right to be an obnoxious a r s e and completely ignore them.

Your rights - your choice. My rights, they're perfectly intact, and waiting for a time it makes sense to exercise them.

Excellent post Phil

p.s. you have more patience than I have!


Heather

 

[Bassit]

That's the most arse about face view of the situation.
You have a perfect right to be a k n o b, as does the security guard, the rest of us are saying we'd rather exercise our right to be friendly.

We've found out throughout our lives that although you can go along sticking to your guns and knowing that you're right, it makes just as much sense to be friendly and cooperative, in fact, if you want your own way sometimes, being nice and polite will get you further than stamping your feet and demanding your rights.

Just an observation.

It might be a Northern thing, but striking up a conversation with a total stranger who's shown an interest in my camera is a perfectly ordinary thing to do, whether that person is a policeman, security guard, stranger in the street, fellow passenger on a bus, guest at a wedding, just anyone.

Of course, if someone speaks to me in public - I have a perfect right to be an obnoxious a r s e and completely ignore them.

Your rights - your choice. My rights, they're perfectly intact, and waiting for a time it makes sense to exercise them.

I'd say read my post again, until you understand it maybe, but in the mean time Ill treat your reply with the respect it deserves.
EDIT: I just read the last line of your post again and there is the answer i was looking for..

It isn't wrong to stand up for your rights - but if you want to bring about change then I don't think that arguing the toss with someone who has no power to effect change is a worthwhile use of my time....

Again, i understand this, maybe i didn't word my post very well, but i thought i had :shrug:, i'm not talking about arguing with any security guards or anything of the kind, i am asking why the general attitude that if you feel strongly about "rights" then you must be a knob (in phils words).

 

[Laudrup]

Lets break this down

No-one mentioned inside leg measurements, they'd hardly be relevant


The security guard does have a 'right to' ask the question.


Then you are taking responsibility for escalating the situation

It's really straightforward, I'm well aware of my rights, but I'm also very much aware of my responsibilities, and I know that good manners and a pleasant attitude to other human beings are what makes the world go round.

Don't get me wrong - if some obnoxious security guard started behaving completely inappropriately, I'd not stand for it - I know my rights remember. How is this so complicated Be nice to people unless it's not getting you anywhere...

They can ask what they like, but they won't get an answer they'll like. If they don't like it what concern is that of mine?

 

[Krisstiffer]

Don't think anyone has said that someone is a knob for standing up for their rights.......

It's just that being friendly and co-operative - even when you have the right not to be - can stop other people regarding you as a knob.

If I want to act in a non-confrontational way in any given situation then that is my right - and I will bloody well exercise it if I want to. I am choosing which right I exercise - not giving any of them away.

That right of choice is just as important to me as any other right I may or may not have.

 

[Rob 80386]

Don't think anyone has said that someone is a knob for standing up for their rights.......

It's just that being friendly and co-operative - even when you have the right not to be - can stop other people regarding you as a knob.

If I want to act in a non-confrontational way in any given situation then that is my right - and I will bloody well exercise it if I want to. I am choosing which right I exercise - not giving any of them away.

That right of choice is just as important to me as any other right I may or may not have.

This summed up,

You can make choices but you cannot choose the consequences.

 

[Phil V]

Now who's completely misquoting, we couldn't stop at deliberate misinterpretation

... i am asking why the general attitude that if you feel strongly about "rights" then you must be a knob (in phils words).

My rights, they're perfectly intact, and waiting for a time it makes sense to exercise them.

I've witnessed rights withdrawn, Police brutality used for political ends, I have no intention of giving up my rights and nothing but respect for those who have dedicated their lives to affording me those rights.

I have absolutely no time whatsoever, for anyone who puts their 'rights' to be ignorant or badly behaved before their responsibility to be pleasant and co-operative.

I'm happy to discuss mounted police charging at innocent people defending their 'rights' to withdraw their labour and to mount a picket line all night. Please lets not pretend that we're discussing anything more in this thread than the right to have bad manners:shake:.

 

[Bassit]

Ok Chris, i agree with all that you have written in your last post and have said pretty much the same thing all the way through this thread, maybe not as eloquently put..

 

[Phil V]

Ok Chris, i agree with all that you have written in your last post and have said pretty much the same thing all the way through this thread, maybe not as eloquently put..

Odd that you agreed with this...

... I am choosing which right I exercise - not giving any of them away.

That right of choice is just as important to me as any other right I may or may not have.

But had a problem with this...

...
Your rights - your choice. My rights, they're perfectly intact, and waiting for a time it makes sense to exercise them.

Just funny :shrug:
Because to Chris and me, they appear to be the same thing

 

[Bassit]

Phil, i wasn't deliberately doing anything, it was my interpretation of what i was reading, if i am wrong then so be it, i was wrong.

See my edit in the post you quoted, i did see your answer on the second time of reading.

Your not exactly the most tactful person on the forum yourself, and as i have said numerous times throughout this thread the best way to handle this is by answering the simple questions asked, but that isnt the question i asked in post 165.

 

[Phil V]

Phil, i wasn't deliberately doing anything, it was my interpretation of what i was reading, if i am wrong then so be it, i was wrong.

See my edit in the post you quoted, i did see your answer on the second time of reading.

Your not exactly the most tactful person on the forum yourself, and as i have said numerous times throughout this thread the best way to handle this is by answering the simple questions asked, but that isnt the question i asked in post 165.

I am tactful, but that doesn't remove the need to be blunt sometimes. My understanding of your question is that you believed that people were giving up their rights by being cooperative. That's a complete nonsense, but if it's not what you meant, then I apologise wholeheartedly.

 

[Phil V]

Don't think anyone has said that someone is a knob for standing up for their rights.......

...

But some people have proved that it's an easy line to cross.

They can ask what they like, but they won't get an answer they'll like. If they don't like it what concern is that of mine?

 

[Laudrup]

Please lets not pretend that we're discussing anything more in this thread than the right to have bad manners:shake:.

In what way is telling someone 'no' bad manners?

 

[Bassit]

Looks like i wasn't misquoting you after all eh!!

 

[Phil V]

In what way is telling someone 'no' bad manners?

It'd be really easy from someone who with this amount of respect for the person asking the question.

They can ask what they like, but they won't get an answer they'll like. If they don't like it what concern is that of mine?

... It's mainly specious reasoning.

... 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.

What a ridiculous statement.

I think you're overestimating the powers that a hi-vis jacket gives you.

... If they were trained properly they'd be on their way and leave the person in peace.

With an attitude like that - a No could easily be very bad manners.

 

[Phil V]

Looks like i wasn't misquoting you after all eh!!

There's a Venn diagram of people defending their rights and people being a knob, I'm sure you can see that, and I'm sure their are obvious examples of the intersection But not everyone defending their rights chooses to act like a knob, and not all knobs are interested in their rights.

 

[Steve Smith]

The security guard does have a 'right to' ask the question.

A security guard has no more rights than any other member of the public.


Steve.

 

[Phil V]

A security guard has no more rights than any other member of the public.


Steve.

And any member of the public is free to strike up a conversation with me, and unless they're being aggressive, I will be polite to them. </northern>

 

[Phil V]

A security guard has no more rights than any other member of the public.


Steve.

Just as you had the right to offer your opinion here and I answered you.


Would you in a high vis vest mean I should automatically ignore you?

 

[Steve Smith]

Would you in a high vis vest mean I should automatically ignore you?

Actually, some photographers use high visibility jackets, hard hats and sometimes even a yellow surveyor's tripod to make themselves invisible. They look like they are supposed to be there so get ignored.


Steve.

 

[Laudrup]

It'd be really easy from someone who with this amount of respect for the person asking the question.

With an attitude like that - a No could easily be very bad manners.

It's bad manners to disagree with ridiculous statements? Or to point out people can ask, but have no right to know?

Your arguments about manners or who thinks you're a knob are weak. If you say no then you are not confrontational. You are not asking the situation to be escalated.

 

[Rob 80386]

A security guard has no more rights than any other member of the public.


Steve.

Yes he does, in the course of his duty, to begin with all he saw was me taking pictures of a door on the side of a building that he was responsible for, but he didn't know why I was doing it, so in the intrests of security he asked me, which in my honest opinion was justified.

He didn't act like billy big balls and I didn't jump on the photographers rights bandwagon, I just explained the reason for the picture and all was sorted.

He did his job well, he showed dilligence not paranoia.

It's the way a question is asked that will determine the response,
anyone has a right to ask questions, within reason.

 

[Bassit]

Phil hasn't actually called anyone a knob, because that might be seen to be bad manners and phils manners are impeccable, as he shows often on these forums.

 

[Phil V]

It's bad manners to disagree with ridiculous statements? Or to point out people can ask, but have no right to know?

Like I said, saying something (or saying nothing) isn't automatically bad manners. Bad manners come from attitude and we know it when we see it

And I believe I see your posts littered with an attitude I'd take as rude in a face to face situation. Of course you are free to believe that being 'right' affords you that option.

 

[artyman]

I was just thinking if I had a pound for every post on this subject I'd be a rich man

 

[Phil V]

Phil hasn't actually called anyone a knob, because that might be seen to be bad manners and phils manners are impeccable, as he shows often on these forums.

Phil writes very carefully, to avoid any misinterpretation.

I can't even tell whether this is sarcastic or not (I suspect it may be). If you want to call me rude, just do it

 

[Marc]

Ok, it's starting to get a bit personal. Can we rein it in please.

 

[Steve Smith]

Yes he does, in the course of his duty

No. A security guard is a member of the public who happens to work as a security guard.

Any questions he has a 'right' to ask can be asked with the same right by any other member of the public.

Equally the person being asked is not obliged to answer the security guard any more than any other member of the public who asks the same question.

so in the intrests of security he asked me, which in my honest opinion was justified.

I agree that it was correct of him to ask but he has no more right to ask than anyone else. Being a security guard does not give you more rights to ask questions but probably gives more reasons why you would want to.


Steve.

 

[Rob 80386]

Ok, it's starting to get a bit personal. Can we rein it in please.

TBH I think it's run it's course.


Bottom line, it doesn't matter who's asking the questions, how one responds depends on the question asked and how it's asked, if one remains cool calm and logical most issues never normally have to be escalated.

Sometimes it's the photographer that shoots themselves in the foot by jumping onto the subject of photographers rights from the first words, when all the other person wants to know is why photograph that particular subject, a straight answer of why will suffice, problem solved.

 

[PMN]

Bottom line, it doesn't matter who's asking the questions, how one responds depends on the question asked and how it's asked, if one remains cool calm and logical most issues never normally have to be escalated.

Sometimes it's the photographer that shoots themselves in the foot by jumping onto the subject of photographers rights from the first words, when all the other person wants to know is why photograph that particular subject, a straight answer of why will suffice, problem solved.

Bingo. How come there's been 7 pages of arguing the toss over something so beautifully simple? :shrug:

 

[Steve]

TBH I think it's run it's course.


Bottom line, it doesn't matter who's asking the questions, how one responds depends on the question asked and how it's asked, if one remains cool calm and logical most issues never normally have to be escalated.

Sometimes it's the photographer that shoots themselves in the foot by jumping onto the subject of photographers rights from the first words, when all the other person wants to know is why photograph that particular subject, a straight answer of why will suffice, problem solved.

Of course it is sensible to be polite, calm etc..

But I'm still unsure why people think it is acceptable that photographers are questioned for no reason other than they are taking photos.

Some have pointed out that if they are acting suspiciously then yes....question them....no one objects to this.

But it seems that in some circles the very nature of taking a photograph is viewed as a suspicious activity.

If taking a photo is accompanied by other suspicious behaviour, then fair enough. But it seems that in many cases there is no accompanying suspicious behaviour and that the sole cause for suspicion is the act of taking a photograph.

 

[Phil V]

Of course it is sensible to be polite, calm etc..

But I'm still unsure why people think it is acceptable that photographers are questioned for no reason other than they are taking photos.

Some have pointed out that if they are acting suspiciously then yes....question them....no one objects to this.

But it seems that in some circles the very nature of taking a photograph is viewed as a suspicious activity.

If taking a photo is accompanied by other suspicious behaviour, then fair enough. But it seems that in many cases there is no accompanying suspicious behaviour and that the sole cause for suspicion is the act of taking a photograph.

Whilst it happens, it's still a rare occurrence.

Reading threads like this, could lead you to believe you can't step out of the house with a camera without being approached. The truth is very different. Admittedly I don't shoot 'street', but as a photographer of nearly 30 years I have never had a single negative experience of this kind.

So in my experience, you're far more likely to be stopped whilst driving, or simply accosted in a pub because some bloke thinks you're 'looking at his bird'.

Out with a camera, I'm much more likely to have random strangers ask me to take their picture, than to have anyone complain about what I'm photographing.

So whilst I sympathise with anyone who meets an idiot whilst out with their camera (I've met a few myself), I don't think it's something we should steel ourselves for, we should just get out and enjoy the hobby / job.

 

[Steve]

Whilst it happens, it's still a rare occurrence.

Reading threads like this, could lead you to believe you can't step out of the house with a camera without being approached. The truth is very different. Admittedly I don't shoot 'street', but as a photographer of nearly 30 years I have never had a single negative experience of this kind.

So in my experience, you're far more likely to be stopped whilst driving, or simply accosted in a pub because some bloke thinks you're 'looking at his bird'.

Out with a camera, I'm much more likely to have random strangers ask me to take their picture, than to have anyone complain about what I'm photographing.

So whilst I sympathise with anyone who meets an idiot whilst out with their camera (I've met a few myself), I don't think it's something we should steel ourselves for, we should just get out and enjoy the hobby / job.

Wise words Phil.

I too have never been stopped or questioned.

I think I've probably been a bit influenced by some of the youtube videos of photographers being stopped for no apparent reason, but accept that this probably isn't the norm.

 

[Bassit]

So it seems that it is more down to the style of photography that you shoot as to whether you are likely to be questioned or not, yesterday was the first time i have been asked what i was doing but it was also the first time i had gone to my local town centre with my camera, i had been all around the outskirts of the town centre for a few hours taking photos of architecture and it was only when in the centre of town i decided to do a few street shots i was questioned.