Man Handled for taking a photograph

Mmm, he may have had a point if he'd said to try and put your dedicated crop sensor lens [EF-S] on your FF camera, as that won't work. Pithy comeback failure I'm afraid.
 
AdamPearcey said:
They can't force you to delete it and nobody else is allowed to detele it either, I'd love to see he pic even if it isn't all that good.
Click to expand...

See post #54

AdamPearcey said:
Wow what a cheap shot... I see canon below nikon, but everyone has their own view.

You go ahead and try put your ff lens on a cropped sensor camera... Oh wait you can't.
BURNED!

Both nikon and canon have ups and downs.
Click to expand...

It was clearly tongue in cheek, let's not start that debate please.
 
Lets face it, security guards like this aren't chosen for their IQ, they're chosen because they're huge and intimidating which to be fair is their job.

Where it all falls down is that type of person thinks that position gives them the right to behave as they wish and act the bully as in this case.

My action would be report them to the SIA, I wouldn't go down the prosecution route as you'll probably find most of the witnesses happened to be looking the other way or at the floor if asked to testify.

The reason the SIA was set up was to stop people like this getting employment in the security industry so I'd just report them and leave it at that.
 
I find it strange that the OP (who has just been mand-handled big time and nearly had his arms broken, hurt) had a copper right in front of him and instead of pressing charges or complaint, he decides to have a laugh/shake hands and part ways...............
 
The Northern contingent need not feel left out of this Hollywood shenanigans.
The new Captain America is being filmed on Dale St in Manchester right now! :)

Really.
 
Better put up the hide then because in October they are parking here for filming - can't say what yet :nono:
 
AdamPearcey said:
You go ahead and try put your ff lens on a cropped sensor camera... Oh wait you can't.
BURNED!

Both nikon and canon have ups and downs.
Click to expand...

eh? put my full frame lens on a cropped sensor camera .... you're telling me I can't, but look I can.

Burned back :lol:
 
AdamPearcey said:
Wow what a cheap shot... I see canon below nikon, but everyone has their own view.
Click to expand...

Lol - there's a sometime amusing undercurrent of Nikon/Canon rivalry that I think no-one takes seriously.

AdamPearcey said:
You go ahead and try put your ff lens on a cropped sensor camera... Oh wait you can't.
BURNED!
Click to expand...

Gosh - I wish you'd told me before I wasted my money on all those L lenses I have for my 50D/400D. God knows how I manage to use them.

I generally don't comment about other makes of kit that I don't know about. It stops me looking foolish ;)
 
As to the OP, no pictures of the bullying guards? It's the first thing I'd have taken even if just their backs.
 
AdamPearcey said:
Wow what a cheap shot... I see canon below nikon, but everyone has their own view.
Click to expand...

WHOOOOSH!!!!! :bonk:

AdamPearcey said:
You go ahead and try put your ff lens on a cropped sensor camera... Oh wait you can't.
BURNED!
Click to expand...

Oh wait, yes I can! BURNED!!!!

I fear it might take you a while longer to get used to the humour on these forums.....my comment was purely tongue in cheek! Also, you need to read your posts back to yourself before you hit the "Submit Reply" button, as this might help you stop looking like a bit of a div, when you're trying to be clever....! Not to worry though.....chin-up!! :thumbs:
 
back on topic...

to the OP i probably would have done the same and shouted at them too in your position.. i would be lodging a formal complaint.. maybe you might get free premiere tickets if oyu shout loud enough ;)
 
Well, sounds like you have had a bad experience.
Personally there is no right or wrong way to handle a situation like this, IMO i think you did perfectly well and responded in a correct manner to how you was being treated.

Im a security guard/doorman/events protection man myself, I have also walked into situations like this with other guards and as bad as it sounds we as security have to back each other up BUT not to the point of bullying some one.
 
Didn't know TP was full of Rambo's, Ninja's and Jackie Chan's. I'm probably the only one that would have filled my pants and the security guards and ran, well, waddled off and cried.
 
Lynton said:
sorry, lost me with the spelling and Grammar..........

Whilst the "goons" were (from this side of the story) obviously over the top (and it sounds like a bit overly physical), if you were on private property (need to check with Greenwich Uni as to statutes of public access and private land) then you have no rights to do x, y or z, including photography.
Click to expand...

Actually, on private land you have access to, unless you are told by agents of the landlord or by signage that you are not allowed to take photographs before you do so, you have the right to take photographs. The worst that you do when taking a photograph when restricted on private property is trespass, a civilian offence where the recourse is to remove you from the premises. Of course, that doesn't apply to things covered under the Official Secrets Act.

I think I probably would have been a little shocked after all of that and could understand why he didn't make a formal complaint there and then. Things like that don't really go through your mind when you're in fight or flight mode.
 
Last edited:
We have Daniel Radcliffe just outside Peterborough, filming a movie for the revived Hammer Horror films.
 
Personally the guys who made this ino a personal attack on the OP should be ashamed of themselves as fer the pic blurry or not you have to ask whether if you were in the states you could sue em ..... accident trip or fall etc bet that arm hurts ... I do not care if "paps" were around assault is assault
 
AdamPearcey said:
Wow what a cheap shot... I see canon below nikon, but everyone has their own view.

You go ahead and try put your ff lens on a cropped sensor camera... Oh wait you can't.
BURNED!

Both nikon and canon have ups and downs.
Click to expand...

It is better to be mute and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

To the OP, well done for standing your ground...surprisingly enough it's exactly what I'd have done as well...including the loud shouts of "help, police, assault". Sometimes the security guys will realise they're treading on some very thin ice and back off at the mere mention of the "p" word. I'd be going to the SIA and police to push for charges though. Unfortunately, the only way people learn is when it hits their wallets after they're removed from the SIA register.
 
Last edited:
jamesb84 said:
It is better to be mute and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
Click to expand...

:lol:

i like the way Adam has stayed out of the thread since that pretending he hasn't been in and seen that he got pwned, but we all know he is sitting at his computer with egg on his face :D
 
adsayer said:
Didn't know TP was full of Rambo's, Ninja's and Jackie Chan's. I'm probably the only one that would have filled my pants and the security guards and ran, well, waddled off and cried.
Click to expand...

neil_g said:
my middle name is arnold.
Click to expand...

Arnold_In_Pink.jpg


:thinking: :D


AdamPearcey said:
You go ahead and try put your ff lens on a cropped sensor camera... Oh wait you can't.
BURNED!
Click to expand...

Silly Boy!
 
It's an actor in a hat.
 
joescrivens said:
weird, can't see my signature on replies
Click to expand...

It only appears once per page (and only then if the post is long enought) unless you use the quick reply in which case it can appear again
 
cowasaki said:
I would sue them just to make the point. Common assault!
Click to expand...

Yup with you on that one!

I have SIA licence to and am sure that behaviour isn't in the training.

Also if you do take legal action and win they will have their SIA licence took off and job lost...... DO IT!
 
If you were on private land (though there are sometimes rights of way going through private land), as noted by Lynton, whatever the university says goes.

If you were on university land and assuming they do not have a general ban on photography, you could ask them if there was a clause in the contract with the film company that banned photography during the filming.

I think it is unlikely, but if there was then I think they had a responsibility to make that clear to the general public and it may be worth pointing out to them that you were assaulted due to their failure.

As I said I think this is unlikely and if you definitely were on public land then ignore the above, but it would probably do no harm to let them know they hired out part of their campus to a company who were responsible for assaulting a member of the public.

Other possibilities are contacting

the local council - while they have no direct responsibility for what happened, it does not enhance the borough if residents and visitors risk this sort of behaviour,

the local paper may be interested, they may want to publish your photo. It may get some responses from other people who were there at the time.

your MP, and as already suggested,

the police. As a policeman attended the scene it would not be simply your word against that of the security men.

If it was private land and there was no ban, or if it was public land, the initial action of the security men was unlawful. So the incident did not start with you taking a photo – that was a legal action.

It started when a big bloke came along and shouted at a law abiding member of public, tried to intimidate you to doing what he wanted and prevented you from walking away when you would not comply. To me this appears very close to a thug who demands your money/phone.

Although I'm sure the shouting was unpleasant to say the least, I do not think it is assault. For assault I think there has to be physical harm or the treat of physical harm.

I reckon the bloke repeatedly stepping in front of you is a threat and you are allowed to defend yourself against an assault. Your response has to be proportionate and you pushing chest to chest with the bloke who was bigger than you appears well within the definition of “proportionate”. I’d suggest that the security men’s action of restraining you against a fence is a disproportionate response to you defending yourself.

BTW your conversation with the police operator will have been recorded. The security talking over the top of the conversation is hardly the action of an innocent party.

Sorry to have gone on at length and I can understand you may not want to go any further with this.

Dave
 
Well, today, and over the next few days I will have had Prince Charles, David Beckham, Colin Monty, Tiger Woods and all the Ryder cup players in my sights as I can see the Ryder Cup course from my house garden and windows.

Will I get attacked and manhandled if I take any pics of them...??

:)

In fact, I've already seen my house in some ariel TV footage!!
 
Sorry to throw cold water on this, but a few points to consider ....

Firstly it seems clear the OP was purposely provoked by security ... and fell for it admirably. Once you start getting aggressive with security, either verbally or physically (going chest to chest), you strengthened their hand.

Posters ask why the OP doesn't bring charges against the security guys. First off, the police wouldn't be interested (too hard to prove either way) as nobody was obviously hurt. Secondly if the police did follow it up any eyewitnesses would have reported that the OP (by his own admission) was being just as verbally aggressive and fronting up as the security guy.
Imagine the scenario, you are walking along, you hear a shout of "DID YOU JUST PUSH HIM ??", you turn around and see the OP going chest to chest with a security guard and so full of rage that he later can't recall what he was shouting. What are you going to tell the police you saw ?

Keeping your cool in such a situation is very hard, but knowing that it is being done to you on purpose and as part of a well rehearsed act for anyone else watching can make it easier.
 
Tringa said:
If it was private land and there was no ban, or if it was public land, the initial action of the security men was unlawful. So the incident did not start with you taking a photo – that was a legal action.

It started when a big bloke came along and shouted at a law abiding member of public, tried to intimidate you to doing what he wanted and prevented you from walking away when you would not comply. To me this appears very close to a thug who demands your money/phone.

Although I'm sure the shouting was unpleasant to say the least, I do not think it is assault. For assault I think there has to be physical harm or the treat of physical harm.

I reckon the bloke repeatedly stepping in front of you is a threat and you are allowed to defend yourself against an assault. Your response has to be proportionate and you pushing chest to chest with the bloke who was bigger than you appears well within the definition of “proportionate”. I’d suggest that the security men’s action of restraining you against a fence is a disproportionate response to you defending yourself.

Dave
Click to expand...

Can I suggest that before you start handing out such 'authoritative' advice, you actually go to some lengths to understand what 'The Law' actually says?

As just one example, the highlighted part above is complete bunkham; the rest is pretty much tosh as well.
 
Robbo said:
Yup with you on that one!

I have SIA licence to and am sure that behaviour isn't in the training.

Also if you do take legal action and win they will have their SIA licence took off and job lost...... DO IT!
Click to expand...
Not completly true. Did you see a SIA license on their arms as doorman must by law have it on show, any other type of security must have it on their person either on a holder around the neck or in a card pocket attached around the waist/belt area.

They might not actually be 'security' unless youve seen a badge that has stated they are security, did any of them say they were security?
They might act as if they are but not actual security.

What im getting at is most companies are now employing people to be 'helpers' or 'assistants' for light protection or prevention purposes, this is to get around having a SIA license.

After looking into this while i was at work today, only because i had nothing else to do.
I was told the best way for you to go about it is contact your solictor and tell him/her what has happened and who it involves, you could also go to the site or location of shooting and ask if they have security in place and who what the name of security firm is but importantly are they all fully licensed and within date.
IF it is run by a security firm i would be phoning them and asking for the site operations manager or supervisor at the time of your incident, when they ask what it is for tell them nothing more than for your solicitor.
Run it all through your solicitor.

IF none of this happens, i have a friend who works for a national paper. She has said she would be interested in this. So im sure you will get help from the local papers.
Yea it might just advertise it for the film but also the film production set is not going to want the bad publicity incase it affects their sales but also the hundreds of people that could start turning up with a camera on location which could stop people from filming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top