Olympics security guards

[TheCrow]

SIA website:

no comment

That's quite offensive. Your judging every security employee the same. I have a sia licence and can tell you there is people from all walks of life with all sorts of attitude and back ground. Not everyone is your typical bully.

I think the blame lies with G4S, there has clearly not been proper instructions to the staff as to what is acceptable and what is not. If you were told to secure something and then a group of people came along taking photos what would you do having had no instruction?

Yes I agree common sense should be prevail, but with all the sensationalist journalism it's not hard for someone to jump to the wrong conclusion. Just by reading some news articles it's not hard for someone misinformed to think someone with a camera is a terrorist.

 

[Bernie174]

Gramps
While your thoughts on the continuations of assault are along the right lines, the fact remains there was no intentional application of force to the person of another.
Nor was then any threat by act or gesture, which would cause a reasonable person to believe that he was likely to be assaulted.
Yes, the photographers could try to take it further, but as there was no intentional contact, its not going anywhere. I certainly wouldn't have tried to get a summons on that, it simply isn't a going concern.
There was right and wrong on both sides, and if you start looking at it like a reasonable human, you'd see it too. Defending a photographer simply because he's a photog isn't helpful to your point.
Yes, the security guard has no power to prevent, but are you sure he knew that? Of course you aren't. Should he know? Probably yes. But has he been told? I doubt it. The vitriol is aimed at the wrong place, it should be aimed at his company.

 

[gramps]

If you were told to secure something and then a group of people came along taking photos what would you do having had no instruction?

Honestly? ... Nothing!
Where would photography present a threat?
Now if they attempted to enter the site you were guarding that would be a different thing.
You are quite right, the failure appears to rest firmly with G4S in not providing the proper training and supervision of their staff.

 

[gramps]

Gramps
While your thoughts on the continuations of assault are along the right lines, the fact remains there was no intentional application of force to the person of another.
Nor was then any threat by act or gesture, which would cause a reasonable person to believe that he was likely to be assaulted.
Yes, the photographers could try to take it further, but as there was no intentional contact, its not going anywhere. I certainly wouldn't have tried to get a summons on that, it simply isn't a going concern.
There was right and wrong on both sides, and if you start looking at it like a reasonable human, you'd see it too. Defending a photographer simply because he's a photog isn't helpful to your point.
Yes, the security guard has no power to prevent, but are you sure he knew that? Of course you aren't. Should he know? Probably yes. But has he been told? I doubt it. The vitriol is aimed at the wrong place, it should be aimed at his company.

No "vitriol" here, just fact ... look at the video again, the fact that "its not going anywhere" doesn't alter what happened.
I do agree that the likelihood was that the guard was inadequately trained and inadequately supervised - generally the case sadly.

 

[TheCrow]

Honestly? ... Nothing!
Where would photography present a threat?
Now if they attempted to enter the site you were guarding that would be a different thing.
You are quite right, the failure appears to rest firmly with G4S in not providing the proper training and supervision of their staff.

The photography itself does not prevent a threat, it's what the photos are used for after they have been taken. Are they being used by a terrorist organisation to make plans, etc.

Even though 99% of the time it's harmless, i'd not want to be the guy who ignored something only for it to come back and bite me in the ass.

The way the world is nowadays everyone is a potential nut job out to cause trouble and I can't see it changing for a long time.

 

[gramps]

The photography itself does not prevent a threat, it's what the photos are used for after they have been taken. Are they being used by a terrorist organisation to make plans, etc.

Even though 99% of the time it's harmless, i'd not want to be the guy who ignored something only for it to come back and bite me in the ass.

The way the world is nowadays everyone is a potential nut job out to cause trouble and I can't see it changing for a long time.

Come on, are you serious?
You can probably see everything you need on Google Streetview!
I had the exact same situation in Bristol (though no unpleasantness on either side) where security personnel raised the 'terrorist' card ... every possible view already freely available on the Internet

 

[asphotographymk]

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.

Buts its not assult. The definition of the word assault is A physical attack. As no physical contact was made it was not assault. Maybe it would be threatening behavior or breach of the peace but no assault was made. The only time a non physical attack may be seen as assult is if there is a real possibility of the threat being carried out but no thret was made and no visible actions to suggest anything was going to happen.

 

[asphotographymk]

CPS

So your quote backs up what i have said. No force was made, not even the threat of force.

 

[Splog]

The photography itself does not prevent a threat, it's what the photos are used for after they have been taken. Are they being used by a terrorist organisation to make plans, etc.

Even though 99% of the time it's harmless, i'd not want to be the guy who ignored something only for it to come back and bite me in the ass.

The way the world is nowadays everyone is a potential nut job out to cause trouble and I can't see it changing for a long time.

Really? I'm fairly sure that any serious terrorist organisation has far more intelligence than you give them credit for! Even the less serious ones could find a way to gather their info without drawing attention to themselves..

 

[DemiLion]

Buts its not assult. The definition of the word assault is A physical attack. As no physical contact was made it was not assault. Maybe it would be threatening behavior or breach of the peace but no assault was made. The only time a non physical attack may be seen as assult is if there is a real possibility of the threat being carried out but no thret was made and no visible actions to suggest anything was going to happen.

Actually it's not Andy, that's a common misconception. Assault is any action that causes the victim to believe that they are about to be subject to force, whether that threat be verbal or physical. The measure of that threat has to be assessed from the victim's viewpoint, and no one else's .

 

[gramps]

So your quote backs up what i have said. No force was made, not even the threat of force.

You are obviously not watching the same video as me, I can see a security guard physically forcing a photographer backwards for a number of yards.

 

[DemiLion]

That's quite offensive. Your judging every security employee the same. I have a sia licence and can tell you there is people from all walks of life with all sorts of attitude and back ground. Not everyone is your typical bully.

I think the blame lies with G4S, there has clearly not been proper instructions to the staff as to what is acceptable and what is not. If you were told to secure something and then a group of people came along taking photos what would you do having had no instruction?

Yes I agree common sense should be prevail, but with all the sensationalist journalism it's not hard for someone to jump to the wrong conclusion. Just by reading some news articles it's not hard for someone misinformed to think someone with a camera is a terrorist.

How is it offensive? Dave quoted the guidelines on screening from the SIA, which everyone knows are a joke. It's one of the reasons that the Agency is still facing the axe.

 

[artyman]

Perhaps a more worrying fact is that inadequately trained staff are entrusted with security at all. Making judgements on perceived threats for real may need to be made 'on the day' and I have to wonder at the intelligence of the recruits to be able to make a reasoned judgements that will be important, not just follow a set of tick box rules.

 

[TheCrow]

How is it offensive? Dave quoted the guidelines on screening from the SIA, which everyone knows are a joke. It's one of the reasons that the Agency is still facing the axe.

He quoted I simple guideline they use, not all of them.

Your implying that all sia badge holders are not properly vetted. Which isn't the case. This I find offensive as it was quite a lot of training to get the badge in the first place.

What part of what they do are yo. Finding a joke exactly?

 

[TheCrow]

Come on, are you serious?
You can probably see everything you need on Google Streetview!
I had the exact same situation in Bristol (though no unpleasantness on either side) where security personnel raised the 'terrorist' card ... every possible view already freely available on the Internet

While I totally agree with you it's just the way the world works nowadays.

Even more so with it being a huge event in a country that a lot of people have a lot of reasons to dislike.

Also when did Google street view start producing live images?

 

[TheCrow]

Really? I'm fairly sure that any serious terrorist organisation has far more intelligence than you give them credit for! Even the less serious ones could find a way to gather their info without drawing attention to themselves..

Although I see what your saying let's keep our fingers crossed your wrong.

 

[gramps]

Also when did Google street view start producing live images?

It doesn't but in most instances it shows images much the same as the photographer is recording, ie streets, buildings etc.
It amazes me that we have people in society who believe that we have got all these buildings behind invisible screens that nobody can see through unless they've got a pro-camera!

 

[Alastair]

Perhaps a more worrying fact is that inadequately trained staff are entrusted with security at all. Making judgements on perceived threats for real may need to be made 'on the day' and I have to wonder at the intelligence of the recruits to be able to make a reasoned judgements that will be important, not just follow a set of tick box rules.

There's a hierarchy of training and competence with security officers, basic perimeter/gate SOs are at the bottom. It's a minimum wage job that puts boots on the ground as a visual deterrent. The real security at the Olympic Park is much less visible.

Two security officers and a guard dog.. sad to say, but the dog is probably better paid than the officer not holding its lead.

 

[DemiLion]

Your implying that all sia badge holders are not properly vetted. Which isn't the case. This I find offensive as it was quite a lot of training to get the badge in the first place.

In a nutshell - yes. Whether you find that offensive or not is another matter.

 

[TheCrow]

In a nutshell - yes. Whether you find that offensive or not is another matter.

Well in a nutshell your wrong.

 

[Alastair]

How is it offensive? Dave quoted the guidelines on screening from the SIA, which everyone knows are a joke. It's one of the reasons that the Agency is still facing the axe.

Your implying that all sia badge holders are not properly vetted. Which isn't the case. This I find offensive as it was quite a lot of training to get the badge in the first place.

I have to agree with TheCrow, BS7858 and the vetting of SOs is one thing that can't be said to be a weak point in the SIA process.

But the role of the SO has to have a greater value to the client (LOCOG in this instance) if standards of overall competece and training are to increase. There are some great people working as SOs, but short-term and zero hours contracts, limited opportunities for advancement and poor pay don't encourage them to stay.

 

[steve_lyt]

i was offered a chance to get fairly close to the flame on its tour of the uk.
and said no chance .

perhaps if they want no pulicity then the press , media and photographers should just ignore them , this would really upset them.

Cheers Steve

 

[itsdavedotnet]

That's quite offensive. Your judging every security employee the same. I have a sia licence and can tell you there is people from all walks of life with all sorts of attitude and back ground. Not everyone is your typical bully.

I think the blame lies with G4S, there has clearly not been proper instructions to the staff as to what is acceptable and what is not. If you were told to secure something and then a group of people came along taking photos what would you do having had no instruction?

Yes I agree common sense should be prevail, but with all the sensationalist journalism it's not hard for someone to jump to the wrong conclusion. Just by reading some news articles it's not hard for someone misinformed to think someone with a camera is a terrorist.

He quoted I simple guideline they use, not all of them.

Your implying that all sia badge holders are not properly vetted. Which isn't the case. This I find offensive as it was quite a lot of training to get the badge in the first place.

What part of what they do are yo. Finding a joke exactly?

I would never disagree that there are many members of the security industry who do a fantastic, professional and fair job. I've owed my safety to them on a regular basis.

However, there are certainly also a number of SIA holders who do not work to the same professional standards that some of their colleagues do...

 

[Pegasus2]

So your quote backs up what i have said. No force was made, not even the threat of force.

You might want to read some law books if your intrested on 'Assault' as it is offen misquoted almost everywhere.

I could ring you up now, and assult you over the telephone, depending on the wording I used. It is the threat of violence that constitutes the offence, no physical contact needs to be made.

Similarly, if I said "I'm going to smash your face in at 5pm tomorrow" I would technicaly not commit the offence, because you have time to evade it, by not answering the door or being out etc. Would I get prosicuted for it, no, but I would probably fall foul of some other law somewhere else.

Battery is what most people mean when they scream 'Assault' and that requires physical contact.

Yeah, anyway, I din't see the guards commit any of those two offences there. What I did see what the gross misconduct of one of the security guards by removing his SIA ID card from his arm, which is illegal.


G4S taking over police services, even control or calls really worries me. It's a slippery slope.

 

[faddius]

I can't help but think this video has been edited, what happened during the bits that were cut out?

To be blunt, I think this sort of behaviour (going out and baiting people into a reaction) is pathetic, done by pathetic people for pathetic reasons other than to make themselves feel high and mighty.

Want proof?

Watch the video from the guardian, around the 2 min 45 sec mark,you only see it for a second or two, possibly edited to hide it, full screen it so it's easier to see, even then you may have to go back and rewatch it a couple of times. Both of the male photographers are grinning & smirking sadistically and look genuinely pleased with themselves when they get the male security guard to react to being filmed. They're enjoying the whole situation.

:shake:

 

[andya700]

There was no assault on any of the photographers.
The security guards were wrong and should not have tried to stop them filming.
The female security guard in particular (unlike the one in the "Golden Wonder" incident) was very patient and polite, but a couple of the male photographers were bordering on the hysterical.
I think in this instance they simply went out of their way to get a response from the security guards.

 

[Furtim]

The first interraction (at about 00:51) set the tone for the rest of the exchange in my view. "Hold it! I'll have you for assault!", accompanied with repeated finger stabbing was, I suspect, designed to elicit a response from the security guard.

I understand and support why they were they and what they were doing, but I don't think they went about it in an entirely impartial manner.

The woman from G4S was much more measured and responsive and actually did very well at diffusing the situation. She's quite correct in that no one particularly likes having a camera stuck in their face from two feet away, more so in a charged environment; it may be entirely legal to do so, but you are pretty much guaranteed to push someone into a situation where they react rather than respond (the latter implying more control).

 

[joxang]

The first interraction (at about 00:51) set the tone for the rest of the exchange in my view. "Hold it! I'll have you for assault!"

This was frankly embarassing. I'd hate to be associated with them in any way.

And lol at all the pedantics yelling that this is 'technically' an assault - yes, you could take it to a civil court. Would you win? Unless you had the most pedantic of judges, then of course not. Most people (judges included) have a modicum of common sense.

The security people did not look or sound threatening at any point in that video. What on earth is wrong with a security guard coming out of their area to talk to you?!! They're not caged dogs for crying out loud. And did he threaten to physically hurt any of the photographers?

 

[big soft moose]

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.

what happened to the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law ?

I think you will find that prosecution is indeed the required standard to prove an assault took place (or rather succesful prosecution will require incontronvertible proof )

at moment we have an alledged assault that the photographers could try to take forward, though I agree with andy that they'll be laughed out of court if they do, but nothing has yet been proven

 

[Woblee]

What were they actually trying to take photographs and video of? I couldn't see much in the background that was worthy of capturing.

Anyway, off to Thomas Cook to book my innocent beach holiday in Iraq. Hope I don't attract trouble with my Brits on Tour beach towel!

 

[asphotographymk]

You might want to read some law books if your intrested on 'Assault' as it is offen misquoted almost everywhere.

I could ring you up now, and assult you over the telephone, depending on the wording I used. It is the threat of violence that constitutes the offence, no physical contact needs to be made.

Similarly, if I said "I'm going to smash your face in at 5pm tomorrow" I would technicaly not commit the offence, because you have time to evade it, by not answering the door or being out etc. Would I get prosicuted for it, no, but I would probably fall foul of some other law somewhere else.

Again this is just what i said, you are telling me i am wrong and than saying the same thing. There was no point when a physical attack appeared imminent or when the photographers could have felt at fear from an attack which is what it would take to be assault. Also no force was used at any time. People need to get a grip, i have seen things closer to resembling assaults form 8 year old girls. They are going around trying to stir up trouble. Why not not get a life rather than trying to make themselves look special and above people. They are going to do this to the wrong person one day and really end up getting assulted by someone who simply does not care about the legal implications.

 

[asphotographymk]

what happened to the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law ?

I think you will find that prosecution is indeed the required standard to prove an assault took place (or rather succesful prosecution will require incontronvertible proof )

at moment we have an alledged assault that the photographers could try to take forward, though I agree with andy that they'll be laughed out of court if they do, but nothing has yet been proven

Spot on untill proven in court it would always be refereed to as an alledged assault. This wouldnt even go to court, i dont think this would even be taken serious from the police in the first place.

People these days just want to make a point when it comes to security. They go out looking for trouble and trying to get peoples backs up. One day they will do it to the wrong person. The problem is people have nothing better to do.

 

[Darkstar]

As people have said there was no assault the photographers were very load mouthed and the lady security seemed very polite even if she did not really know you was allowed to take photos from there

 

[Woblee]

As people have said there was no assault the photographers were very load mouthed and the lady security seemed very polite even if she did not really know you was allowed to take photos from there

Exactly. If they are so worried about assault they why did they try and not help defend their collegue/friend rather than grab their camera and fire off as many frames as possible.

If these people keep poking at the hornets nest then eventually they are going to get a reaction. Yes they are acting within the law, but are they acting with it's best interests. I can think of better ways for them to be more productive with their time than harassing security guards until they get one to bite.

 

[bbb]

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.

ORLY!

http://www.bjp-online.com/IMG/737/218737/david-hoffman-olympic-park-224.jpg?1335181595

Security guards are supposed to be trained to diffuse situations like this, no matter what the behaviour of the photographers they should be able to deal with any issues and keep everyone calm. They failed on all counts, not least as they did not even need to engage with the photographers.

 

[Pegasus2]

Again this is just what i said, you are telling me i am wrong and than saying the same thing. There was no point when a physical attack appeared imminent or when the photographers could have felt at fear from an attack which is what it would take to be assault. Also no force was used at any time. People need to get a grip, i have seen things closer to resembling assaults form 8 year old girls. They are going around trying to stir up trouble. Why not not get a life rather than trying to make themselves look special and above people. They are going to do this to the wrong person one day and really end up getting assulted by someone who simply does not care about the legal implications.

oh, sorry. Must have missed one of your posts somewhere.

I think the photography guys just said it because the security guard was about to touch the camera, which is overstepping his bounds and the pic posted by bbb proves that he did.

It's not the best tac, but then nor was the security guards at the start by going for the camera, but then he doesnt know any better I guess and for that he can be forgiven. The protographers were looking for trouble and that is the whole point of their post. At the end of the day, when the olyimpics come around they want to be able to cover them properly, so they are working out the problems now.

I'm not to fussed about that really, yes its a big no no and shouden't have happened but whats worse is the other guard thinking it is ok to remove his SIA license from his arm!

 

[HMansfield]

It's a double edged sword. The journalists went out to get this reaction, and the reason they did is because they had a strong suspicion that the security would overstep their authority, which they did.

The "Stand Your Ground" experiment showed the City of London Police are no longer worth baiting. Once private security stop making claims that they can detain you, or take your camera away and delete the images, or whine about invasion of privacy, then baity togs will have no reason to go after them.

 

[asphotographymk]

I'm not to fussed about that really, yes its a big no no and shouden't have happened but whats worse is the other guard thinking it is ok to remove his SIA license from his arm!

It actually is ok to remove the badge from him arm. The rule is to have the licence where it can be seen at all times, This does not have to be on your arm. Also the only people you have to produce the details to (badge number) are the Police or the SIA. The badge in this case was in view he simply did not want it filmed i assume as its actually very easy to get lots of personal details from the badge.

 

[HMansfield]

Can The Crow confirm that for us? I thought the reason the badge had to be seen at all times was so that details could be taken in case of an incident?

If it's perfectly acceptable to remove or conceal the details when security staff have been naughty, that somewhat makes the badge pointless.

 

[ziggy©]

I am all for freedom for photographers but not when photographers go out to look for trouble. The poor guy did not even touch the photographer and he was quick to claim assault.

To be honest, in a sensitive place like the Olympics site, i totally understand when the security guards gets a bit worried. Even though it is not illegal to photograph the site from outside, personally given the nature of the site it should probably be made illegal to photograph it even from outside.

It is scenes like this that that make me sometimes feel that maybe it should be illegal to photograph any private land/site and should include photographing from public land from a certain specified distance.

Just because you are allowed to take pictures from public land i think people should still apply common sense.