Had my first anti-photographers 'run-in'....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bernie174 said:
And before the usual suspects start their ranting, yep, happened to me a couple of years ago in Bournemouth.

Pier attendant asked me what I was taking photos of
Me. Why?
PA. Its against the law
Me. really, what law's that then?
PA. I don't know it was passed last year though.
Me. In which case you'd better tootle off and call the Police then.
At which point I snapped him smiled and carried on doing what I was doing, and he went away never to be heard of again.
Click to expand...

Maybe he got confused and thought he was a few miles away in Poole? :)

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...an_infringes_civil_liberties_news_290065.html
 
Hypothetical question for the police members here.
I am taking photographs in a public place and someone becomes confrontational about it, this courses me alarm and distress, am entitled to call the police (as the victim of a public order offence)
 
Paul

Like a lot of things it depends. It could be said that pointing a camera at someone who doesn't want their photo taken, is causing them alarm and distress.
I've dealt with cases where its the photographer who is the root cause, and if he went away calm would be restored. Yes, they have the 'right' to take photos, but then again, the people in it have as much 'right' to ask that their photos are not taken. The photographer has the right to ignore that request, but then he would been seen as the cause of the problem.
In terms of Mr busybody, being fair about it, everyone in the UK has a duty to prevent crime and assist police, in fact we only have Police because the great British public abdicated that duty in the 1800's. So, it can be said that asking what a photographer is doing is in a way an attempt to do just that, in that they are establishing, or trying to establish is a crime is being committed.
 
How could a crime be being committed by taking photographs?
 
specialman said:
Him: "Yes you do. Anyway, we're all police checked but you're not and I just can't let you take photographs."
Click to expand...

This is the point - I'm special - I've been checked and you haven't. It's just a form of Jobsworth .

I had the same attitude from our welfare officer, so went straight to the RFC and got CRB checked by them covering every ground/event.
 
Last edited:
ste1010 said:
I have just had a similar issue shooting my son's football match (U13).

I have been involved with the football club since my son was 5, and have managed the team from U8, standing down last year as my son had started playing for a different side to the one I managed. I have my FA Level 1 (for whats its worth, but thats a different story) and am CRB checked.

At an away friendly I wanted to take a few pics so I approached the opposition manager's/coaches and they said no problem, and they quickly told the parents, again no problem.

I took my camera out and was just about to start shooting and an angry small man came over and the following exchange took place.

Small Man - What the hell do you think your doing
Me - Taking a couple of photo's
S.M - Put your camera away
Me - Why?
S.M - Because I Said so
Me - Can I ask who you are
S.M - No, who are you
Me - I am a parent of one of the children, I have checked with both teams managers and parents and I have permission.
S.M - I am involved with XX Football Club, and it is illegal to photograph kids
Me - Really, thats news to me, at the last FA Child Protection workshop I went to providing that I have permission from coaches and parents, and I am happy to disclose the pictures I take if asked, then the FA have no issues.
S.M - It's illegal, put your camera away.
Me - OK, I will, but your wrong, and I suggest if you are an official of the footbal club, you speak to your welfare officer, or contact the County FA to discuss.

The man was an idiot, but not wanting a confrontation, and also wanting to get rid of him so I could watch the game I agreed.
Click to expand...

I've had this before with youth football. I started to hold my ground but this parent was quite aggressive and the friend I was with to photograph her son started getting upset and suggested I put my camera away. I pointed out the only one breaking the law was the chap for being aggressive.

He then got the referee to stop the game and come to talk to me, at which point I then had several parents starting to gather. I pulled out my CRB certificates for Rugby, schools and scouts, pointed out I wasn't breaking any rules. Ref said ok and we carried on with the game.

After the match I downloaded the pics onto my iPad as usual (I shoot small jpeg & raw) and started showing parents and having out cards. They were very happy to have shots of little johnny and I made some sales. Gobby bloke was nowhere to be seen.
 
Byker28i said:
This is the point - I'm special - I've been checked and you haven't. It's just a form of Jobsworth .

I had the same attitude from our welfare officer, so went straight to the RFC and got CRB checked by them covering every ground/event.
Click to expand...

I got checked for the clap and passed ok :lol:

Have you? ..... let me see :D
 
gm43uk said:
I had a run in with a pompous idiot the other weekend. It was half past six in the morning and I was at my local beach when Mr Pompous appears and demands "What's going on here then?"

Me: Sorry, what do you mean?
Him: That's a camera!"
Me: Yes it is.
Him: So what are you doing with it?
Me: Taking photographs.
Him: Oh are you! Well, I'll have to check.
Me: Check what?
Him: The photographs. There's a school near here.
Me: It's half past six on a Sunday morning.
Him: I don't care. I need to check to see what you are up to.
Me: Okay, but can I see some identification officer.
Him: What do you mean?
Me: I assume as you want me to hand over my property you are a police officer.
Him: er.. No of course I'm not.
Me: Well in that case **** off.
He then threated to call the police so I took out my phone and said that's exactly what I was doing. Before I pressed the first button he stormed off after muttering something about "don't let it happen again!"

I'm a regular at that beach but it's the first time I've met him - hope it's not the last :)
Click to expand...

this guy sounds like a complete moron. early sunday morning on a beach because there is a school nearby?

however, when working on site as with the original poster, which is privately booked and an organised event, then the security guards are only doing their jobs
it's not fun but paranoid parents are their customers
and then it's not always about 'P****-watch'
it's about child protection. things like kids who are under identity protection being identified by wayward parents who are denied access. things like that as far as I know.
I've been taking photos in shopping malls recently for an advertising auditing company
that's on private land, so I always (after the first time) go to security/management with my letter of authority, sign in, get a badge or high vis vest and then try not to get kids in the shots. once I got eyed up by security 3-4 times in 30 mins after this. and they all checked in. one of them I came over to him with my permission form, just to be polite

on an event, esp with kids, I would always find the site manager to introduce yourself, get his name, check in with the head of security so that any questions are only a CB radio conversation away from being resolved.
also a high vis vest will help you with your public insurance liability
as daft and annoying as they are to wear.
I was taking photos at a kids martial arts event once, and of course I got permission, parents attending were informed. but even there I had to wear my martial arts gear so that people would know I wasn't a random interloper. thankfully nothing his vis required!

when you're taking photos of your own kids though...then these wannabee 'protectors' can sling their hook; but of course, one of the posters applied for permission from the organisers. very wise I feel. the rules regarding photography change dramatically depending upon where you're standing; something we all know!
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
Paul

Like a lot of things it depends. It could be said that pointing a camera at someone who doesn't want their photo taken, is causing them alarm and distress.
I've dealt with cases where its the photographer who is the root cause, and if he went away calm would be restored. Yes, they have the 'right' to take photos, but then again, the people in it have as much 'right' to ask that their photos are not taken. The photographer has the right to ignore that request, but then he would been seen as the cause of the problem.
In terms of Mr busybody, being fair about it, everyone in the UK has a duty to prevent crime and assist police, in fact we only have Police because the great British public abdicated that duty in the 1800's. So, it can be said that asking what a photographer is doing is in a way an attempt to do just that, in that they are establishing, or trying to establish is a crime is being committed.
Click to expand...
The salient point to my question was Mr busybody/jobsworth being confrontational.
I have no wish to take photographs of people who do not wish to be photographed however if a building (not subject to a legal restriction) takes my fancy why not.
The terror /casing for crime argument is total testacies, the one to look for is the grey man using a high end P&S possibly with a pretty girl standing next to what he/she needs images of.
 
Paul
I'm afraid its not total testicles. I accept that you've got a vested interest in it being in your mind, but as your knowledge of the evidence in every terrorist act is zero, you aren't in a position to make the claims you are. Lets just say you are wrong.

Awp
Ok, I'll try...
Example 1.
Moi big hat nice day walking round Clapham common trying to avoid the usual grief and aggro that comes with said big hat and blue suit.
The calm is shattered by Mr Chav MOP shouting for me to come over. Not being able to run for the hills, I wandered over and listened to 10 minutes of F, W and C about the 'filthy perv' photographer standing a few 100 yards away.
So in order to return the world to peacefulness, I speak to photog. Long and the short, is he gets arrested, on shall we say dubious grounds, mostly consisting of I was really not happy with Mr Respectable. Ah, who says the Days of Dixon of Dock Green were best!
Anyway, on searching his house, and having had his film developed, he was in possession of several 1000 photos of kids in shall we say, position which shall we say were not the way you'd want your kids photographed. Anyway, the Judge and Jury at Kingston Crown Court weren't impressed either.
So, theres an example.
Example 2
Some interesting photos taken at a big international airport somewhere near west London in the early 90's. All taken a few weeks before an event we called '9 flew over the perimeter fence'.

Do you want me to go on? Photographers as a rule are reasonably innocent, but that does not make everyone taking photos is. Just as most drivers are innocent ish, if you ignore speed, failing to comply with traffic signs, careless driving....Ok, drivers is a bad analogy!
The important point being that until someone invents ESP that works, there's usually only one way to find out if its innocent or otherwise. I grant you Jobs worths are not the best way of that happening, but they do have as much 'right' to ask you as you have a 'right' to take photos. In both cases, there is no 'right' written into law, its just there's no law preventing either case.
 
Bernie174 said:
Paul
I'm afraid its not total testicles. I accept that you've got a vested interest in it being in your mind, but as your knowledge of the evidence in every terrorist act is zero, you aren't in a position to make the claims you are. Lets just say you are wrong.

Awp
Ok, I'll try...
Example 1.
Moi big hat nice day walking round Clapham common trying to avoid the usual grief and aggro that comes with said big hat and blue suit.
The calm is shattered by Mr Chav MOP shouting for me to come over. Not being able to run for the hills, I wandered over and listened to 10 minutes of F, W and C about the 'filthy perv' photographer standing a few 100 yards away.
So in order to return the world to peacefulness, I speak to photog. Long and the short, is he gets arrested, on shall we say dubious grounds, mostly consisting of I was really not happy with Mr Respectable. Ah, who says the Days of Dixon of Dock Green were best!
Anyway, on searching his house, and having had his film developed, he was in possession of several 1000 photos of kids in shall we say, position which shall we say were not the way you'd want your kids photographed. Anyway, the Judge and Jury at Kingston Crown Court weren't impressed either.
So, theres an example.
Example 2
Some interesting photos taken at a big international airport somewhere near west London in the early 90's. All taken a few weeks before an event we called '9 flew over the perimeter fence'.

Do you want me to go on? Photographers as a rule are reasonably innocent, but that does not make everyone taking photos is. Just as most drivers are innocent ish, if you ignore speed, failing to comply with traffic signs, careless driving....Ok, drivers is a bad analogy!
The important point being that until someone invents ESP that works, there's usually only one way to find out if its innocent or otherwise. I grant you Jobs worths are not the best way of that happening, but they do have as much 'right' to ask you as you have a 'right' to take photos. In both cases, there is no 'right' written into law, its just there's no law preventing either case.
Click to expand...

Great points well made, I never have an issue with a security guard/police officer or to that matter anyone asking what I'm doing, and I'll always give a nice polite answer, only when I get someone who is deliberately rude/confrontational after I have stated my intentions will I dig my heals in and become awkward and stubborn, my biggest pet peeve is someone trying to assert a knowledge when they clearly have non

Matt
 
Neil
Not sure how you come to that conclusion, perhaps you'd like to explain?
If you think thats the point I'm making then you need to get yourself on an adult education course in comprehension.
What I was actually saying is that you see photography as a right, but others have as much right to question what you're doing as you have to take photos.
The assertion that photography isn't used in crime is I'm afraid rubbish, it is.
Nothing in that implies or says that photographers are guilty until proven otherwise, its the way it is, simples.
 
Last edited:
It's like someone said in another thread in years to come there will be no photos of children being innocent like swimming/playing in the nuddy on holiday or having fun.

But what you will have is photos of girls when there older with orange fake tans and stupidly dyed red hair with there dead hard boyfreinds wearing skull tee shirts plastered on there social networking sites.

OH WAIT!! its here already.
 
Bernie174 said:
Neil
Not sure how you come to that conclusion, perhaps you'd like to explain?
If you think thats the point I'm making then you need to get yourself on an adult education course in comprehension.
What I was actually saying is that you see photography as a right, but others have as much right to question what you're doing as you have to take photos.
The assertion that photography isn't used in crime is I'm afraid rubbish, it is.
Nothing in that implies or says that photographers are guilty until proven otherwise, its the way it is, simples.
Click to expand...

thats just the way it came across, if thats not what you mean then fair enough.

wind the attitude in a notch though mate :thumbs:
 
Bernie174 said:
Photographers as a rule are reasonably innocent,
Click to expand...

I find that remark insulting.

Remind me never to come to Southampton to take pictures - if bernies attitude is typical!
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
Paul
I'm afraid its not total testicles. I accept that you've got a vested interest in it being in your mind, but as your knowledge of the evidence in every terrorist act is zero, you aren't in a position to make the claims you are. Lets just say you are wrong.

Awp
Ok, I'll try...
Example 1.
Moi big hat nice day walking round Clapham common trying to avoid the usual grief and aggro that comes with said big hat and blue suit.
The calm is shattered by Mr Chav MOP shouting for me to come over. Not being able to run for the hills, I wandered over and listened to 10 minutes of F, W and C about the 'filthy perv' photographer standing a few 100 yards away.
So in order to return the world to peacefulness, I speak to photog. Long and the short, is he gets arrested, on shall we say dubious grounds, mostly consisting of I was really not happy with Mr Respectable. Ah, who says the Days of Dixon of Dock Green were best!
Anyway, on searching his house, and having had his film developed, he was in possession of several 1000 photos of kids in shall we say, position which shall we say were not the way you'd want your kids photographed. Anyway, the Judge and Jury at Kingston Crown Court weren't impressed either.
So, theres an example.
Example 2
Some interesting photos taken at a big international airport somewhere near west London in the early 90's. All taken a few weeks before an event we called '9 flew over the perimeter fence'.

Do you want me to go on? Photographers as a rule are reasonably innocent, but that does not make everyone taking photos is. Just as most drivers are innocent ish, if you ignore speed, failing to comply with traffic signs, careless driving....Ok, drivers is a bad analogy!
The important point being that until someone invents ESP that works, there's usually only one way to find out if its innocent or otherwise. I grant you Jobs worths are not the best way of that happening, but they do have as much 'right' to ask you as you have a 'right' to take photos. In both cases, there is no 'right' written into law, its just there's no law preventing either case.
Click to expand...

Berni e
Just a few Points
1 you danced around my first question so I put it another way, as your former colleagues frown upon people taking the law into their own hands can a photographer expect the police to protect him/her from alarm and distress (provided their action are within the law} as any other citizen.
2 I have less vested interest in my mind than you appear to have in the perception of your former colleagues
3 I do have a little more knowledge than the average person about covert recognisance and terrorism and the grey man is the biggest threat.
4 Example 1 was more about an experienced police officers instincts than the size of camera
5 Example 2 images were more likely to have been taken with a P&S or a long lens out of sight than the innocent images you have taken openly with a dslr
 
I had parents of children, who were guest at a wedding were were shooting, ask me to delete photos of their kids.
they were right in the middle of a group of guests i had just shot.
I refused and refered them very politely to the Bride and groom who had EMPLOYED us to take photographs of the wedding and guests..
I believe the groom told him to, p*** off ,as it was his wedding, and couldnt he see there were two official photographers on site.AND....
If he was that paranoid, he should NOT have brought his kids with him.


I TRIED SO HARD TO SUPRESS A SMILE AT THAT POINT.
VERY UNPROFFESIONAL OF ME, BUT I FAILED.:D
 
Paul

You original question, by your own admission is hypothetical, I can't answer it directly, as you'd like because it lacks the other side. The Police Service isn't against people taking steps to prevent crime, like I said, its a public responsibility. Yes, they'd advise against tackling a man armed with a machette, which would be common sense.
In answer to your specific point, how are you proposing 'protecting' against alarm and distress? Or is this alarm and distress just convenient to save you answering questions? How does someone asking you what you're doing and why cause alarm or distress? I think you'll find to claim so fails the what a reasonable man would think test. Would a Court see the actions as harassment? I doubt it.
My only vested interest, is to try and explain to people who can't think things though, that again there are 2 sides to everything. You know, as a photographer what you are doing and why. To someone else its not as clear or obvious. I keep using the example, and if you apply it as a test, it becomes clearer. You are entitled to carry a box down a street at midnight, but would you be surprised if you were asked what you were doing? I doubt it. Why wouldn't you be surprised? Simply because it looks to others like you could be up to no good. You probably aren't, but its also probably better if it were checked rather than assuming it is.
On your point 3, clearly not, as on point 5 you're wrong, they were taken with a Nikon SLR and a long lens. The series of photos on the film, it was pre dslr, were obviously not taken anywhere concealed. But then again, at Heathrow, long lens and camera? Hardly that suspect. The point was made however to the fictional claim that cameras are never used in crime, they are.
On number 5, thanks for the compliment, but although his ultimate arrest was because I wasn't happy with him, the original call to my attention was no different to almost every other photog thats stopped by police. Yes, what he was doing was on the face of it, quite legal. The words on the face of it being the point, and again, goes back to my earlier answer, it may look wrong, or right (the box test), but how do I know that is either of those? In my mind, yes in his case, he was probably doing nothing wrong, but that changed when I asked a few questions. In actual fact even if he was doing nothing wrong I'd have asked him to go away, because if he didn't he was likely to end up with a very sore nose.
Now, as I have said, I am not convinced that Mr MOP is necessarily the best person to do the asking, but Police are not omnipresent, until they are, someone doing their public duty can't be criticised unless they step beyond whats reasonable.
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
Paul

.............................
In terms of Mr busybody, being fair about it, everyone in the UK has a duty to prevent crime and assist police, in fact we only have Police because the great British public abdicated that duty in the 1800's.
Click to expand...

Did they? There was a very limited franchise in the 1820s, and I doubt if anyone consulted the "great British public" at all. There was certainly quite a lot of opposition to Peel's proposals.
 
awp said:
He was not fined for taking the picture. Have you read the story - and the comments on it?
Click to expand...

No, didn't read all the comments but you're definitely splitting hairs if you go down the Breach of the Peace road.
 
Martyn
Its a common law responsibility, and long pre dates the 1820's. No one asked the great British public if they wanted Murder to be a crime either, but it is.
The simple fact is that by the 1820's society had largely given up/not bothered/where involved in crime anyway, so weren't going to kill the golden goose. The opposition probably was from the latter fo those, which is understandable. That coupled with previous attempts to reign in crime and public traquility by using a couple of Squadrons of Lancers. That tended to end in bloodshed and a few deaths. Its for that reason, Police in the UK, do not have Military ranks. Sergeant before you ask being an ancient office adopted by the Military.
Hence why the Peel and Mayne double act came about, and why the Met Police was formed.
 
Last edited:
So basicaly, be polite, explain what your doing then?
If your doing nowt wrong and Mr busybody gets uppety, tell him to go away or you'll call the police as he's harrassing you.
Or suggest he calls them, if he has a problem with you?
Resist the temptation to bop him on the beak, as that'll get you knicked.
 
Bernie174 said:
Paul
<snip>
The Police Service isn't against people taking steps to prevent crime, like I said, its a public responsibility. Yes, they'd advise against tackling a man armed with a machette, which would be common sense.
<snip>
My only vested interest, is to try and explain to people who can't think things though, that again there are 2 sides to everything. You know, as a photographer what you are doing and why. To someone else its not as clear or obvious. I keep using the example, and if you apply it as a test, it becomes clearer. You are entitled to carry a box down a street at midnight, but would you be surprised if you were asked what you were doing? I doubt it. Why wouldn't you be surprised? Simply because it looks to others like you could be up to no good. You probably aren't, but its also probably better if it were checked rather than assuming it is.
<snip>
Click to expand...

Hi Bernie

You are indeed correct that the public have every right to approach anyone and ask them anything they like........... but what they don't have is any right to an explanation or even acknowledgement of their presence and they certainly don't have any rights of search and by that I mean checking photos or looking in a box.
 
inaneredstripe said:
So basicaly, be polite, explain what your doing then?
If your doing nowt wrong and Mr busybody gets uppety, tell him to go away or you'll call the police as he's harrassing you.
Or suggest he calls them, if he has a problem with you?
Resist the temptation to bop him on the beak, as that'll get you knicked.
Click to expand...

Why explain to them what you're doing? .... Just tell them to go away - politely, of course ;)
 
gm43uk said:
I had a run in with a pompous idiot the other weekend. It was half past six in the morning and I was at my local beach when Mr Pompous appears and demands "What's going on here then?"

Me: Sorry, what do you mean?
Him: That's a camera!"
Me: Yes it is.
Him: So what are you doing with it?
Me: Taking photographs.
Him: Oh are you! Well, I'll have to check.
Click to expand...

At this point your reply should have been:

"Oh, sorry. I've just realised, that's a code isn't it. No, sorry I'm heterosexual and not interested in cottaging!"
 
Interesting conundrum.

To the earlier posters who suggested that CRB checks are a waste of time - a point I don't necessarily disagree with, what alternative would you suggest?

I have to have an 'enhanced' CRB check for the job I do which involves working children and vulnerable adults - if I didn't have the CRB I wouldn't be able to work for my employer.

While I agree this whole situation has become somewhat ridiculous due to the 'kickers and screamers' accusing all and sundry and the fact that it would be relatively easy for the determined to get a CRB - how do we overcome the issue.

I haven't been confronted when out photographing, but then neither have I strayed into a situation which might create this confrontation. I never carry my ID/CRB details outside of work but maybe I ought to. I doubt the majority of these jobsworth morons mentioned would know what it is in any event.

I wholeheartedly agree that we as photographers should be free to pursue our hobby/profession without being accosted - especially when having taken the precaution of seeking permission.

While I respect the need to verbally or even physically retaliate we will only add fuel to their fires. I'm afraid it is becoming a fact of life that we all have to take precautions when out and about with our cameras - like it or not....or someones likely to get arrested and it won't be the dick without the camera:thumbsdown:
 
Despite CRB checks actually not demonstrably reducing the amount of abuse, and the fact that it deals with the TINY percentage of cases committed by non-family members & close family friends, a CRB check isn't transferable and isn't a 'license' to prove someone is somehow generally safe. The general attitude going this way (the preposterous idea that the state legislates for people approved to interact with a child) is foolish, bloody irritating and puts kids in a greater danger as it leaves a very false sense of security.
 
hollis_f said:
At this point your reply should have been:

"Oh, sorry. I've just realised, that's a code isn't it. No, sorry I'm heterosexual and not interested in cottaging!"
Click to expand...

:) I'll have to remember that
 
ianjmatt said:
Despite CRB checks actually not demonstrably reducing the amount of abuse, and the fact that it deals with the TINY percentage of cases committed by non-family members & close family friends, a CRB check isn't transferable and isn't a 'license' to prove someone is somehow generally safe. The general attitude going this way (the preposterous idea that the state legislates for people approved to interact with a child) is foolish, bloody irritating and puts kids in a greater danger as it leaves a very false sense of security.
Click to expand...

You will get no argument from me to your point.

Not transferrable - don't understand, why would it be? Unrealistic perhaps as a new employer would need a new CRB, (if that's what you mean) - keeps someone in a job I suppose. A license - no but in some spheres a job requirement.

You are also correct in that it's the way it is going, however, how do you overcome it? Every day, it seems, a new case on the TV or in the chip papers are looking to place the blame - it's what we do increasingly in this country.

Continuous bombardment with scare/horror stories, which often prove your point of keeping it within the family where no-one is checked.

If, even as has been proven, the law enforcers in this country overreact due to a certain level of ignorance - how are the over zealous to be shown the error of their ways:bonk:
 
If ever I get challenged, I just employ my charm to diffuse the situation.

Sadly this very rarely works.:shrug::)
 
Lensflare said:
Little John, you do NOT need to be CRB checked as a casual visitor! Otherwise every parent watching the game supporting would have to be checked too.

Specialman - the ADB have CRB checked their people because as wualified leel 2 coaches we have to be...but a photograher there for a day does not have to be and there is nothing to stop public photography on the entrance ticket.

I was supposed to be on the TSF stand with Barney, with my fishing kayaks, but I was in Alaska, on an expedition to kite surf across the Bering Straight. Got back today. Next year for certasin - i am at the North Wales Boat Show ths weekend though, both doing a report on it and with the kayaks doing demos etc.

If anyone gets this kind of reaction again, you simply say to the person that he/she is not permitting you to take pictures, the show organisers are. It is not in his durisdiction to say who can or cannot take photographs. I admire your stoicism in remaining cool. I am not quite so level headed, even after all these years. I tend to get a bit more forceful, verbally and stand my ground - working for Streetfighters I get a lot more confrontation than with fishing issues! People tend to take exception to burnouts and wheelies and loud exhaust pipes, even though they save lives!:lol:
Click to expand...

Lensflare - think Alaska was a better choice... what were you you there doing? Salmon, or something more exotic? Barney tried his best but aside from a few people thinking he was a burly version of the Sooty 'n ' Sweep bloke, I don't think the place was awash with sea anglers, well not on Sunday anyway.

Back on topic - I can totally understand that it's easy for people to assume the worst, as in this case, but seeing as this is my first episode of this kind, it's really thrown me a bit, and I'm not the most confident photographer out with the general public.

I suppose the saving grace was that he was trying to be apologetic to me afterwards, and I do appreciate that it probably was a case of him feeling a bit foolish. Crazy thing is, half of the shots are crap, as my flash withered an died under the atomic sun!!! :lol:


MWHCVT said:
Pat, I've respected your great work since I first came across it, it's a shame what you experienced this weekend but you handled it perfectly IMO I'm not sure I would have been quite so restrained :bat:

This kind of experience is why I have stuck to senior rugby teams even though some of those teams have requested I attend the junior matches :bang:

Matt
MWHCVT
Click to expand...

Ha-ha... cheers mate. I actually surprised myself with my measured way. Maybe being a dad myself is chilling me out beyond anything I could have hoped for? :lol:
 
Last edited:
Splog
Yes, correct and i didn't suggest they do have a right to search.
Unfortunately, playing dumb is just going to start a chain that isn't going to help you. Said Busybody/MOP goes away, phones Police, and tells them he asked you and you ignored him. The mind set when you think about it changes from yes your probably not doing something wrong, to, if thats the case, why didn't you provide a simple explanation?

Its a sad fact that around 50% of the photographers I've stopped and asked what they are doing (and I accept that the majority of those were on Heathrow airport, and therefore its not quite the same thing as we're talking about here simply because they shouldn't actually be on the airport, and I therefore could stop them doing what they were), have decided to be obnoxious and rude about it. Now if they're willing to do that to a police officer, I'd hate to think of the way they behave to a MOP. In my experience, I'm always polite to police, and unlike some here, I've never seen being asked by police what I'm doing as an issue. I'm not too worried about being asked by a MOP either, I just suggest they go phone the old bill.
 
I suspect there is a significant element here of peoples expectations becoming self-fulfilling.

There are instances of people (Public, security guards and police) asking 'dumb questions', trying to apply restrictions that don't exist, etc. - so some photographers assume when someone approaches that they are going to get hassle - and react accordingly.

This then perpetuates the myth that photographers are evasive, awkward, etc, so the next time that person approaches a photographer they are expecting hassle and behave accordingly.

Which in turn makes the photographer react...

So the narrow-mindedness of a few will, unless we take care to always be polite (while somehow also standing up for our rights), propagate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top