Olympics security guards

The NUJ blog entry is worth a read - it is less sensationalist than the OP's link.
http://londonphotographers.org/2012/04/hostile-olympic-security/

There's a video of the encounter over on the Guardian website.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/201...urity-guards-journalists-photos?newsfeed=true

Seems entirely reasonable for the NUJ to test what they had been assured about Olympic security training by walking around the site perimeter on public land.
Seems their fears were 100% justified.

However, once confronted, the journalists weren't exactly acting meek and mild.
Their first response was to quote law at the security guard.
Poor sod was almost certainly one of the minimum wage minimal training guards they were concerned about in the first place.
IMHO they should have asked him to get his boss instead of having a go at him.
And the image in the OP's link was classed as 'assault'; which seems a tad OTT given it's the same minimal training hired help just doing what he believes he has been told to do.
 
Last edited:
Whether he is a minimum wage guard or not they should know what they can and can't do, there has been enough about these issues recently that any security company should make sure it's employees have a basic understanding of their's and the public's rights.
 
I do think, even though he was right, that one of the guys in the reporter's team was a little to fast to jump in with accusations of assault. He did that immediately and quite aggressively, as if he was looking for trouble, before the guard had really done much, in a way that was quite likely to aggravate the situation.

It's one thing to be in the right, but common courtesy is still required in my opinion.

The BSIA leaflet mentioned in one of the linked articles is very good, and might make a handy addition to any camera bag belonging to someone likely to find themselves in this situation.
 
Last edited:
Southdowns said:
I do think, even though he was right, that one of the guys in the reporter's team was a little to fast to jump in with accusations of assault. He did that immediately and quite aggressively, as if he was looking for trouble, before the guard had really done much, in a way that was quite likely to aggravate the situation.

It's one thing to be in the right, but common courtesy is still required in my opinion.

The BSIA leaflet mentioned in one of the linked articles is very good, and might make a handy addition to any camera bag belonging to someone likely to find themselves in this situation.
Click to expand...

Reading the article it looks as if they went looking for trouble anyway. The security guards were in the wrong but photographers whom go looking for trouble in these situations are quite frankly idiots.
 
menthel said:
Reading the article it looks as if they went looking for trouble anyway. The security guards were in the wrong but photographers whom go looking for trouble in these situations are quite frankly idiots.
Click to expand...

I think more to the point, they do the rest of us no favours. It paints photographers as trouble makers.

Yes yes yes, I get the need to test these things and to report on the things that are wrong, but looking for a fight and then complaining because you found one just dilutes the message in my opinion. It encourages the argument; "oh come on, it's not a real issue; it's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other from what I've seen".
 
Last edited:
menthel said:
The security guards were in the wrong but photographers whom go looking for trouble in these situations are quite frankly idiots.
Click to expand...
Seems entirely reasonable for the NUJ to test what they had been assured about Olympic security training by walking around the site perimeter on public land.
Click to expand...

The latter quote is what this was....

By no means 'idiots'. Good to test this and bring up issues so that if training in this area hasn't properly been communicated down to security staff, there is scope for messages to be passed down -before- uninformed security staff go causing problems for journalists during the Olympics.
 
Last edited:
menthel said:
Reading the article it looks as if they went looking for trouble anyway. The security guards were in the wrong but photographers whom go looking for trouble in these situations are quite frankly idiots.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I don't agree with this, they went to test the assurances that had been given and found them sadly lacking ... rather than being "idiots", in this instance I think that they provided a valuable service.
 
gramps said:
Sorry but I don't agree with this, they went to test the assurances that had been given and found them sadly lacking ... rather than being "idiots", in this instance I think that they provided a valuable service.
Click to expand...

Watched the video? They jump to conclusions very quickly. Looks like they were looking for trouble to me AND made sure they found it. As others have said in this thread, they could have dealt with the guards in a different fashion but that wouldn't have given them the headline they wanted. We are seeing this more often now, people claiming to be photographers but actually just going out in the hope of a run in. Its a shame really.
 
menthel said:
Watched the video? They jump to conclusions very quickly. Looks like they were looking for trouble to me AND made sure they found it. As others have said in this thread, they could have dealt with the guards in a different fashion but that wouldn't have given them the headline they wanted. We are seeing this more often now, people claiming to be photographers but actually just going out in the hope of a run in. Its a shame really.
Click to expand...

The photographers and videographers in the video are full time professional news photographers and journalists.
 
Last edited:
If you're going to test someone else's behaviour, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do in many cases, you damn well better make sure your own is impeccable. One of the guys in the video was very aggressive verbally in the way he jumped down the guard's throat at the first opportunity, which antagonised the situation.
 
menthel said:
Watched the video? They jump to conclusions very quickly. Looks like they were looking for trouble to me AND made sure they found it. As others have said in this thread, they could have dealt with the guards in a different fashion but that wouldn't have given them the headline they wanted. We are seeing this more often now, people claiming to be photographers but actually just going out in the hope of a run in. Its a shame really.
Click to expand...

Without watching the full video I can see that the G4S security guard assaulted the photographer.
 
itsdavedotnet said:
The photographers and videographers in the video are full time professional news photographers and journalists.
Click to expand...

Then their behaviour should have been better. As has been said they amplified the situation as soon as they could. Looking for a story. ;)

gramps said:
Without watching the full video I can see that the G4S security guard assaulted the photographer.
Click to expand...

I didn't say the guard was in the right, in fact I said he was in the wrong. The journalist's behaviour should have been better if all they wanted to do was test the situation. You go, they challenge you incorrectly and you report back. Instead they went to get a story and acted up so that things went further.

Both were in the wrong, one group poorly trained and unaware of the law, the other in full knowledge of what they were doing and what they went for.
 
gramps said:
Sorry but I don't agree with this, they went to test the assurances that had been given and found them sadly lacking ... rather than being "idiots", in this instance I think that they provided a valuable service.
Click to expand...

In full adgreedment :)
 
Yep, the guards were in the wrong, but is that where the problem lays?
I suspect not. The training given to security guards is woeful, and G4S are employing anyone who can spell their name to support their very lucrative contract for event.
They will make a huge amount from it, and you can bet the poor sod involved in this got next to no training let alone on things like photography and paid the absolute minimum.
If you pay peanuts, I'm afraid you don't get the cream of the crop.
 
Bernie174 said:
Yep, the guards were in the wrong, but is that where the problem lays?
I suspect not. The training given to security guards is woeful, and G4S are employing anyone who can spell their name to support their very lucrative contract for event.
They will make a huge amount from it, and you can bet the poor sod involved in this got next to no training let alone on things like photography and paid the absolute minimum.
If you pay peanuts, I'm afraid you don't get the cream of the crop.
Click to expand...

Exactly, in the main private security guarding is a joke.
 
menthel said:
Then their behaviour should have been better. As has been said they amplified the situation as soon as they could. Looking for a story. ;)



I didn't say the guard was in the right, in fact I said he was in the wrong. The journalist's behaviour should have been better if all they wanted to do was test the situation. You go, they challenge you incorrectly and you report back. Instead they went to get a story and acted up so that things went further.

Both were in the wrong, one group poorly trained and unaware of the law, the other in full knowledge of what they were doing and what they went for.
Click to expand...


What you seem to forget,this will be one of the biggest events in the world,this year.
With people coming from all over the world,with cameras.
Great let show them,how poorly trained s/g are going to handle it,its about time GS4,got their act together.

:(
 
Gramps
Yep, and bad news follows, G4S are getting a lot of the contracts to do what are currently policing functions. Stand by for it to get a great deal worse!!!
Private security only exist because it's financially worth it for a company to employ a security company to provide guards. The discount on their insurance is more than the cost of security guards. But the down side is they are paid appallingly, so they attract those who are almost unemployable elsewhere.
 
gramps said:
Without watching the full video I can see that the G4S security guard assaulted the photographer.
Click to expand...

Not sure if serious...

It's like the cyclists who cycle with helmetcams looking for trouble from motorists. These guys were displaying utmost provocation for some poor sod of a security guard who (as mentioned) is probably getting minimum wage with no training. Good way to highlight the issue, but the photographers in that vid are still ***holes.
 
simonblue said:
What you seem to forget,this will be one of the biggest events in the world,this year.
With people coming from all over the world,with cameras.
Great let show them,how poorly trained s/g are going to handle it,its about time GS4,got their act together.

:(
Click to expand...

The Olympics will happen and hopefully mostly pass me by. Once the hordes arrive and the games begin they won't have time to worry about these things. Also the situation is very different pre games, with people worried about terrorist planning and the such like. Also those attending the games won't be journalists out with an agenda.

I know I see it differently from others here but quite frankly I believe that journalists should report the news and not make/be the news.
 
menthel said:
The Olympics will happen and hopefully mostly pass me by. Once the hordes arrive and the games begin they won't have time to worry about these things. Also the situation is very different pre games, with people worried about terrorist planning and the such like. Also those attending the games won't be journalists out with an agenda.

I know I see it differently from others here but quite frankly I believe that journalists should report the news and not make/be the news.
Click to expand...

I do see where you're coming from, however the story here is that the security haven't been properly trained / have been told to attempt to enforce flawed policy. What these journalists were doing was investigating that story.
 
joxang said:
Not sure if serious...

It's like the cyclists who cycle with helmetcams looking for trouble from motorists. These guys were displaying utmost provocation for some poor sod of a security guard who (as mentioned) is probably getting minimum wage with no training. Good way to highlight the issue, but the photographers in that vid are still ***holes.
Click to expand...

Hang on, these guys were taking photos on the public thoroughfare, the guard left his position of responsibility on private land to confront them, if he hadn't left his position of responsibility nothing would have occurred!
Minimum wage has nothing to do with it, (well it has but that's a whole new issue), he left his post and committed an assault ... in fact as he actually physically applied force to the tog, he committed legal assault and battery.
 
itsdavedotnet said:
I do see where you're coming from, however the story here is that the security haven't been properly trained / have been told to attempt to enforce flawed policy. What these journalists were doing was investigating that story.
Click to expand...

Not going to argue that. However this was recorded after the first approach. The cries of assault (which are legally correct but wouldn't go anywhere in court) and the attitude of the journalists inflamed the situation to their benefit. Stopping at the first interaction and reporting back would have highlighted the problem but not have given a good a story. We probably wouldn't be talking about it now! ;)
 
G4S have been given short-term control of the security for the active portion of the Games. Other security companies that have been working on-site for the last four+ years during the construction phase have been side-lined whilst G4S gets the glamour phase. They've been recruiting like mad and are getting desperate for staff (despite TUPEing in guards from the construction phase security companies). They ran a full-page advert for short-term security staff in New Scientist for about 12 months!

It's been obvious since the security staffing level concerns were highlighted in the national media last year that the competence and training levels of security officers could be a problem in the lower priority roles (I think the shortfall was about 10,000 security officers and that's why the government offered 6,000+ army personnel). This is a bit of a cheap shot for the NUJ as noone was really expecting any different.

After a well publicised and rather embarassing security breach by members of 28DL whilst the main stadium was being constructed (in, out and lots of mucking about - all completely undetected), it's hardly surprising that perimeter guards are going to err on being over-cautious.
 
menthel said:
The cries of assault (which are legally correct but wouldn't go anywhere in court)
Click to expand...

Maybe not criminal, but civil could well proceed with the video evidence available - an offence was committed by the guard, anything that the togs did was by implication caused by the guard, who had no authority to act in a public place.
 
Alastair said:
it's hardly surprising that perimeter guards are going to err on being over-cautious.
Click to expand...

He wasn't being over-cautious, he was over-stepping his authority.
 
gramps said:
Maybe not criminal, but civil could well proceed with the video evidence available - an offence was committed by the guard, anything that the togs did was by implication caused by the guard, who had no authority to act in a public place.
Click to expand...

Still no excuse for the journalists behaviour, designed to inflame the situation. As I have said all along the security guard was in the wrong but the journalists went there with an aim to get the most sensational story they could.
 
These people need to get a grip. Assault...? There was assault at all. Not once did they get touched. I dont think a hand even came in contact with the camera let alone there body. Yes the security were very much misinformed but the lady security guard was very polite and calm despite the photographers acting like total idiots. And yes a couple of the other guards got there backs up but with the attitude of the photographers i am not surprised. As i said the security are wrong with regards to the law but why not just polity correct them and ask to contact there management rather than right away making BS claims of assault. The guards are just doing a job and while they may be mistaken accusing them of assault does nothing for anyone.
 
gramps said:
He wasn't being over-cautious, he was over-stepping his authority.
Click to expand...

I'm having to watch it with the sound-off for now. But watching the body language, the attitude of the four? five? journalists is clearly aggravating the situation. The second security guard is clearly uncomfortable, you can see that in the way he turns/removes his SIA card and then keeps turning away from the continued filming.

Having sought the confrontation, once they got it they'd have been better retreating to the other side of the road until the police arrived. That's if this whole set-up was about anything other than confrontation. Confrontational journalism isn't investigative. It looks/sounds good to anyone that doesn't want to think very much, but investigative journalisim would be about getting to the Why behind it. Why the security budget was so badly underestimated in the first place (or deliberately entered at too low a value knowing that at a later date noone would quibble over rises in "security" costs).

I know just how badly the security industry is paid. It's the only industry I've come across where the client routinely sets the acceptable profit margin on the service provider. Now that's a story, and it's at the root of why there are so many problems with the poor training of security officers.

I guess it just doesn't sell as a story to photographers as well as would another "photographers are victims" story.
 
So much for SIA licensing and accreditation...

*whistles nonchalantly*
 
Asphotographymk is correct, there is no assault, no battery of any description civil or criminal.
They were asked to stop filming, and there is nothing that prevents the security guards from doing so.
Where they are wrong is that they cannot insist that filming stops.
Was this a fishing trip? yes, clearly it was, the woman towards the end says as much to the Police.
So was there any point? Well, they say they wanted to prove a point, so I guess yes there was. But have they proved it? Not really, I wonder what the reaction (if any) was when filming something that wasn't sensitive? I'd imagine they didn't go direct to the gate and start there, now would they give a balanced view? Again, I doubt it.
The solution? Well, maybe making the security search area not visible from the public highway, as well as not going on fishing expeditions.
 
Alastair said:
Confrontational journalism isn't investigative. It looks/sounds good to anyone that doesn't want to think very much, but investigative journalism would be about getting to the Why behind it.
Click to expand...

Well said.

On a separate note, I now fear I may have assaulted and battered half a dozen people when getting off the train this afternoon.
 
chromatin64 said:
So much for SIA licensing and accreditation...

*whistles nonchalantly*
Click to expand...

SIA website:

Licensing ensures that private security operatives are ‘fit and proper’ persons who are properly trained and qualified to do their job.
Click to expand...

no comment :)
 
Bernie174 said:
Asphotographymk is correct, there is no assault, no battery of any description civil or criminal.
Click to expand...

You are quite wrong, force was applied to the tog in a public place, he had no authority to take any physical action whatsoever, no power of arrest, no authority to stop photography taking place.
An assault does not even require 'the application of force', it can be the threat of force from across the street - the addition of the force used constitutes a battery.
Legal hair-splitting may be but fact nevertheless.
 
menthel said:
The Olympics will happen and hopefully mostly pass me by. Once the hordes arrive and the games begin they won't have time to worry about these things. Also the situation is very different pre games, with people worried about terrorist planning and the such like. Also those attending the games won't be journalists out with an agenda.

I know I see it differently from others here but quite frankly I believe that journalists should report the news and not make/be the news.
Click to expand...


Wheather we like the games or not, journalists from the world will be turning,let make sure GS4,know the law and respect it,not just go chargeing in :(
 
gramps said:
You are quite wrong, force was applied to the tog in a public place, he had no authority to take any physical action whatsoever, no power of arrest, no authority to stop photography taking place.
An assault does not even require 'the application of force', it can be the threat of force from across the street - the addition of the force used constitutes a battery.
Legal hair-splitting may be but fact nevertheless.
Click to expand...

I am sorry but the threat of force would not be assault at all... maybe threatening behavior but the only people i could see acting threatening was the photographers. No force was applied at all infact they did not once make contact, when the guards hand went up it did not touch the camera only obstructed it. Claiming this to be assault is simply ludicrous and i would put money on the CPS agreeing with me. These photographers just look like idiots and claiming assault made them look even worse.
 
It is assault, whatever you think and however you would bet on it.
Would the CPS proceed with it?
Very unlikely, but that wouldn't come as much of a surprise now would it, they often don't prosecute and the would be most unlikely to waste their time on this.
Prosecution is not required to prove an assault, the evidence is there clear for all to see - it conforms beyond the legal definition of assault ... see previous posts.
The togs could certainly take this further if they wished.
I have no take either way but the law is the law and it is assault.
 
Common Assault, contrary to section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988

An offence of Common Assault is committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery.

An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force.

A battery is committed when a person intentionally and recklessly applies unlawful force to another.
Click to expand...

CPS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top