My turn to get stopped in London

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dal
  • Start date Start date
Dal

Dal

Is always right
Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,636
Name
Darren
Edit My Images
Yes
Went out for a bit with the other half on saturday night and I took the camera & tripod, no bag, nothing else.

I parked on the brigde near to the London Eye (can't remember the name) and took some shots down the river then crossed the bridge onto the London Eye side of the water. Took some more photo's along the river bank before walking past the london eye and decided to retake a photo I took a while ago.

This is the photo I took before and I wanted to try and recreate a similar shot.
DSC_0054competitionentry.jpg


I put the tripod down on the floor and as soon as it touched the floor 2 security guards approached me telling me I couldn't take photo's here. I must admit I wasn't in the mood and was pretty stern with my response.

Security Gaurd (SG) - "You can't take photo's here"
Me - why not?
SG - "You can take photo's but you can't use the tripod"
Me - "why can't I use the tripod? I have done before."
SG - "It's the rules"
Me - "where are these rules"
SG - "It's just the rules, this is private property"
Me - "Private property, where abouts does this private property end"
SG - "from that bridge (points to westminster bridge) to the other side of the london eye".
Me - "right, so I can take photo's there then?
SG - "You can take them here but not with the tripod"
Me - "Is that some stupid health and safety issue then?"
SG - "er, yeah, its health and safety"
Me - "So I have to place the tripod next to me while I take the shot instead of infront of me?"
SG - "yeah"
Me - "ok fine"
SG - "thank you"

Is it really private property there? If not then I'm going back for my photo that I missed. The security guard didn't really seem to have a clue about what he was saying to be honest, lots of Um's and er's.

Just seemed really daft that I could put the tripod down next to me where someone could trip over it instead of in front of me where knowone could trip over it.

:)
 
b****r, was hopping it would of just been some stupid security guards with nothing else to do lol.

Ohwell.
 
What I can't understand is why people have to get stroppy (or stern) with the security Guards? If it was in my job description to turn customers away who wore white socks I would do it, because its what I am paid to do, if I didn't do it then I would risk losing my job.

Why oh why do folk get stroppy or in this case "pretty stern" with a bloke doing his job? Write a letter to the Security Guards employer and ask him/her the reason why you can't use a tripod.
 
or use a monopod :P
 
You also have to take into account that the security guards are probably not given a copy of the rules but told to inform people that it's private property and no tripods are allowed.
They're only doing their job and are probably only paid minimum wage.

Also it does get very very busy around the Eye and a tripod would cause problems.
 
Quaker said:
What I can't understand is why people have to get stroppy (or stern) with the security Guards? If it was in my job description to turn customers away who wore white socks I would do it, because its what I am paid to do, if I didn't do it then I would risk losing my job.

Why oh why do folk get stroppy or in this case "pretty stern" with a bloke doing his job? Write a letter to the Security Guards employer and ask him/her the reason why you can't use a tripod.
Click to expand...

Quite right.

Though it might help if the Security Guards at the London Eye - having had this conversation many many times previously - would get something printed that they could hand out to photogrphers saying where the property restrictions were and why those restrictions were in place.

IMO it's a licensing agreement with the firm that does the publicity images of the eye itself...I know I wouldn't want every damn amatuer 'tog taking images that rivalled or were better than my company images that I was trying to make a living from...
 
security people in general - airports in particular - seem to be trained to be obnoxious to the public who are the people who pay their wages. My view is that they know they are low-paid peons who will never have a better job, so they choose to take it out of the public who have little or no redress.
 
sitemaster said:
security people in general - airports in particular - seem to be trained to be obnoxious to the public who are the people who pay their wages. My view is that they know they are low-paid peons who will never have a better job, so they choose to take it out of the public who have little or no redress.
Click to expand...
What absolute tosh! And should there be any members who are in fact Security Guards then I apologise on his/her behalf for the arrogance.

The public do not pay their wages.
 
sitemaster said:
My view is that they know they are low-paid peons who will never have a better job
Click to expand...
I have a friend in the security industry. He earns circa £250-£350 per day, not to mention being as polite & professional as they come.

How much do you earn out of interest?
 
wetwork in iraq or CP work in bond street doesn't count :p

this isn't down to security really.
Moron trips on something -> looks to blame -> private property or leased privately -> idiot files a complaint -> pain to the private company and money -> company looks to keep everything safer -> that includes your tripod that you want to put up -> security guards are told what to do

personally they seemed pretty straight with you, they didn't accuse you of being a terrorist and they didn't say DELETE YOUR PHOTOS and DO YOU HAVE A BOMB
from your report of the conversation they seemed pretty nice tbh



I read somewhere that the london eye is perhaps one of the most photographed landmarks in the world

wrt tripods. the same is true in museums...
the way forward is a monopod...and if they don't like that...get one that looks like a walking stick :)
 
I never understand the argument about tripods, I mean they are no more a hazard than a zimmer frame or a wheelchair or a pushchair and you wouldn't ever see anyone telling you that you weren't allowed those in open spaces to which the public have access to!!

Has anyone ever thought of attaching a tripod mechanism to a zimmer frame? :D
 
desantnik said:
I never understand the argument about tripods, I mean they are no more a hazard than a zimmer frame or a wheelchair or a pushchair and you wouldn't ever see anyone telling you that you weren't allowed those in open spaces to which the public have access to!!

Has anyone ever thought of attaching a tripod mechanism to a zimmer frame? :D
Click to expand...

Maybe because a tripod is an ADDITIONAL hazard and, in non photographers' eyes at least, an unnecessary one. :shrug:
 
desantnik said:
I never understand the argument about tripods, I mean they are no more a hazard than a zimmer frame or a wheelchair or a pushchair and you wouldn't ever see anyone telling you that you weren't allowed those in open spaces to which the public have access to!!

Has anyone ever thought of attaching a tripod mechanism to a zimmer frame? :D
Click to expand...

some people may argue that a wheelchair is slightly more required than a photographers tripod.

it could also step from the thought that tripods are pyramid shaped. it's harder to miss someone, and their baby in a pram!
 
sitemaster said:
security people in general - airports in particular - seem to be trained to be obnoxious to the public who are the people who pay their wages. My view is that they know they are low-paid peons who will never have a better job, so they choose to take it out of the public who have little or no redress.
Click to expand...

:suspect: You don't perhaps think its the training [or lack thereof] that is the issue, not the security staff themselves? As Arkady has said, it would help if the guards were given printed information both for their own benefit and to hand to the public explaining why things like tripods can be an issue, rather than leaving the poor sods to make it up as they go along and bear the brunt of the publics wrath when they don't see a valid reason for being stopped, especially in places like the Eye, Canary Wharf, shopping centres, etc, all the sorts of places people want to take pics and for one reason of another get stopped or questioned.
 
desantnik said:
I never understand the argument about tripods, I mean they are no more a hazard than a zimmer frame or a wheelchair or a pushchair and you wouldn't ever see anyone telling you that you weren't allowed those in open spaces to which the public have access to!!

Has anyone ever thought of attaching a tripod mechanism to a zimmer frame? :D
Click to expand...

Wheelchairs, pushchairs and zimmer frames are pretty much essential tools for people who can't walk. So you would be happy for a wheelchair bound person to be told to get up and walk because "its only fair, I can't use my tripod"

A photographer can still take photographs with or without a tripod.
 
This thread surely has to be another wind up?

People can't be so arrogant can they?
 
Quaker said:
Wheelchairs, pushchairs and zimmer frames are pretty much essential tools for people who can't walk. So you would be happy for a wheelchair bound person to be told to get up and walk because "its only fair, I can't use my tripod"

A photographer can still take photographs with or without a tripod.
Click to expand...

You've turned my argument all the way around there, I wasn't suggesting anything like that if you read what I said...

I was saying that a tripod is no more of a H&S issue than already permitted (and quite rightly so) items, so why single it out?
 
desantnik said:
You've turned my argument all the way around there, I wasn't suggesting anything like that if you read what I said...

I was saying that a tripod is no more of a H&S issue than already permitted (and quite rightly so) items, so why single it out?
Click to expand...

Because its not a necessity?
 
What a surprise, I had a feeling this would turn into a petty squabble but I thought the folk on here might be a bit more grown up.

I don't appreciate my words being twisted, being Stern is completely different from being stroppy.

There is no clear indication that it's private property anywhere around the london eye so how was I to realise that.

I'm sure the bitching will only get worse in this thread from here on so Mods, please feel free to delete the topic as I can't be bothered to reply to twisted comments about any of it.
 
"Stern = Severe, grim, rigid, strict, enforcing discipline or submission, not compassionate.

Stroppy = Awkward to deal with."

The Concise Oxford Dictionary

You used the words "pretty stern" I would say "stroppy" is a milder term.
 
Dal said:
Went out for a bit with the other half on saturday night and I took the camera & tripod, no bag, nothing else.

I parked on the brigde near to the London Eye (can't remember the name) and took some shots down the river then crossed the bridge onto the London Eye side of the water. Took some more photo's along the river bank before walking past the london eye and decided to retake a photo I took a while ago.

This is the photo I took before and I wanted to try and recreate a similar shot.
DSC_0054competitionentry.jpg




:)
Click to expand...

You should have asked the security guards to stand on either side of the tripod while you took the photo to insure the safety of the public.
 
Quaker said:
"Stern = Severe, grim, rigid, strict, enforcing discipline or submission, not compassionate.

Stroppy = Awkward to deal with."

The Concise Oxford Dictionary

You used the words "pretty stern" I would say "stroppy" is a milder term.
Click to expand...

Oh please.. Put that dictionary away. You don't know to what extent he was "pretty stern".

As regards to pushchairs being necessary and tripods not, that's a load of tripe. It's "necessary" to the photographer.
 
Quaker said:
"Stern = Severe, grim, rigid, strict, enforcing discipline or submission, not compassionate.

Stroppy = Awkward to deal with."

The Concise Oxford Dictionary

You used the words "pretty stern" I would say "stroppy" is a milder term.
Click to expand...

I do apologise that I didn't do well in English Lit at GCSE level as I hated it. Therefore I have not spent my time studying the English dictionary to ensure that I understand the precise meaning of each word in the English language. If you enjoy playing on 1 word out of a entire statement then might I suggest you work for a newspaper or as an MP as that is the

Let me remove the word ‘stern’ and use the a word to more appropriately reflect the scenario.

Maybe you could let me know what word would be best to describe a confident yet polite response, I would of thought Stern was the correct choice but thanks to your comment it would appear I was incorrect.

I look forward to seeing the perfect word that I should of used after I finish my day at work.
 
welly said:
As regards to pushchairs being necessary and tripods not, that's a load of tripe. It's "necessary" to the photographer.
Click to expand...
is this a :bonk::lol: or is the avatar strangely appropriate?

personally Dal I don't think that you were too hard done by with the security response.
it's not as if you were arrested and detained as that Greek chap on the train was a few weeks ago
 
During busy periods I could understand a tripod ban as people walk round with their heads in the clouds. I can also understand the OP's frustration as the area was probably devoid of life when he and the security guards had their chat. I would imagine they have misunderstood the tripod ban being banned from the eye itself but as nks says a simple phone call would sort out the problem and if cleared then dropping the name of who you chatted to would probably satisfy the security guards while you retook your photos. It almost seems that we go out expecting to be confronted by security guards or jobsworths who seem to only want to stop us from taking photos where we want, maybe some of these situations could be defused by playing along and asking "where can I go that you would be happy?" This will sometimes make them feel important enough to turn a blind eye and leave you to do exactly what you wanted to in the first place.
 
If a wheel chair user attaches his camera to his wheel chair is this a problem.???
 
I don't want to stir this up even more but..........

1. The OP wanted to try to re-create said photo (and it was night) ergo it was probably dark and presumably quieter (OK 'quieter' in London esp around the Eye is probably wishful thinking).

2. He wasn't trying to photograph the Eye so the comment about publicity images seems irrelevant.

3. He admitted he was not in the mood for problems with SG's.

4. If it's private property shouldn't there be signs saying so?

5. I don't really see that a tripod is really any greater hazard than if you are standing still taking photos, even if it was night. Given the subject matter, presumably he would be quite close to the wall. Given the way some people work around (with their eyes shut seemingly at times) I often think 'I hope they don't drive like that'.

6. It's been said before though - it's the tripod they object to as they don't stop everyone with cameras.

Has anyone ever had problems with SG's abroad (apart from airports) or taking photos of kids?

Seems to me it's a British thing.

Ian
 
It needs a national mass rally of togs to meet up on a said date and time all with tripods and make a stand about just how stupid this country has become about this issue, a couple of thousand would do it I reckon to start. It is my human right to plonk a tripod where I think fit on this sweet earth of ours and taking a photo of something that someone has popped up on the landscape is fair game for being photographed. The guards are only earning a living and doing a job subscribed to them by morons that think they know better. Health and safty issue is a load of old tosh. Rant over :lol:
 
Ajophotog said:
It needs a national mass rally of togs to meet up on a said date and time all with tripods and make a stand about just how stupid this country has become about this issue, a couple of thousand would do it I reckon to start. It is my human right to plonk a tripod where I think fit on this sweet earth of ours and taking a photo of something that someone has popped up on the landscape is fair game for being photographed. The guards are only earning a living and doing a job subscribed to them by morons that think they know better. Health and safty issue is a load of old tosh. Rant over :lol:
Click to expand...
I second that.
Health & safety is gone mad & here in Ireland we copy everything that the British do. Its totally out of control, At work we have to sign a paper that we have been informed that when opening a bundle of photocopy paper we might cut ourselves! How did I survive the last 49 years I will never know.
 
wasper said:
I second that.
Health & safety is gone mad & here in Ireland we copy everything that the British do. Its totally out of control, At work we have to sign a paper that we have been informed that when opening a bundle of photocopy paper we might cut ourselves! How did I survive the last 49 years I will never know.
Click to expand...

Shock, horror - a paper cut OMG - how will I survive?
 
taz said:
Has anyone ever had problems with SG's abroad (apart from airports) or taking photos of kids?

Seems to me it's a British thing.

Ian
Click to expand...

Yes it is...in other countries they simply lock you up and/or disappear your kit...

Ask any Plane-Spotter if he/she feels like photographing airports in Greece these days...

Since the London Eye restrictions are so well-known amongst photographers (this is a recurrent theme on this forum), it is perhaps not surprising that you were stopped.
It sounds like they were being quite reasonable and that you were politely trying to state your objections to being moved on...
Despite the fact that they had no in-depth explanation for the 'why' as to Tripod restrictions, the fact is that they were merely carrying out their instructions...

As I said, of more use would be a polite letter to the owners asking for an in-depth explanation with the prohibited areas of the embankment being clearly marked for future reference.

Regardless of other forms of obstruction, tripods are banned, like it or not...
Not wheelchairs, monocycles, microlite aircraft etc etc... So arguing the case here is pretty pointless and will just serve to annoy people...
 
I don't see what the problem is.
OK it's a bit petty, no tripods, but they even said you can carry on taking photos.
There's many ways of steadying a camera with no tripod.
This sounds like the most understanding security guard story yet from where I'm sitting.
The problem is the suing culture, or maybe in this case, other publishers asked for the ban.
If we keep hassling places like this, thye might not only ban tripods but cameras themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top