Olympics security guards

[asphotographymk]

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.

I have been a licensed doorman for the last 11 years and had this confirmed by both the SIA and the police. I still work as a PT doorman when i dont have weddings.

The license has to be on your person and visible to show you have one. Many security do not even have to have it on display so long as its on there person (or store detectives wouldn't be able to do a great job would they) You also have to provide the SIA and police with these details when requested. There is not need for any member of the public to have badge details. If security has done something illegal then they should contact the police who will in turn inform the SIA if convicted.

I would never give my badge details to any member of the public adn infact always have my badge facing inwards.I worked a night 3 weeks ago when we found around 8 knives and a fellow doorman and i had a gun pulled on us do you really think i would want these people to have my personal details?

As the crow said there are people with there SIA from many walks of life. As a doorman most of the guys i work with have other full time jobs. I work with a body piercer an IT tech and even a hairdresser. I also work with some guys who are real bullys. Like any job there are different personality's good and bad.

 

[Splog]

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.

Fair enough but why do you think it should be illegal to photograph it from outside? :shrug:

 

[asphotographymk]

Ignore this post i did not read things right )

 

[BeeJayEff]

Maybe G4S should issue their guys with video cameras. It would have been interesting to see it from their side.

 

[HMansfield]

Many security do not even have to have it on display so long as its on there person (or store detectives wouldn't be able to do a great job would they)

I believe only those working undercover are permitted to have it concealed. All frontline staff are required to have their card on display. If you choose to have it on a lanyard instead of the armband, then it is not to be under your clothing.

 

[itsdavedotnet]

Maybe G4S should issue their guys with video cameras. It would have been interesting to see it from their side.

cctv....

 

[asphotographymk]

cctv....

I worked a very busy weatherspoons venue about 2 years ago and we all had headcams. It was a life saver when someone kicked off and then accused us of assault. They also recorded sound so could pick up everything.

I believe only those working undercover are permitted to have it concealed. All frontline staff are required to have their card on display. If you choose to have it on a lanyard instead of the armband, then it is not to be under your clothing.

Thats my point it was on display. That does not mean you have to allow people to see or record the details. It can be on display facing in towards your body and that is fine. I have confirmed this several times with police licensing officers and the SIA. There answer has always been so long as it is on display thats fine people dont need to see the front. Actually even when he took it off his arm it was visible so no rules broken. It is also possible he was a CP badge holder which does not have to be displayed even though most do.

 

[ziggy©]

Fair enough but why do you think it should be illegal to photograph it from outside? :shrug:

The law as it stands at the moment, someone could come right up to your front door and take pictures of you in your home without breaking the law. Even though i love photography, i don't think someone should be able to do that especially in my home. The law should be changed so that it is very clear in black and white as to what you can and cant do. If that means that you cannot photograph a private property 500 yards from it even from public land then be it.

Usually i find that this issue is not really a problem for your usual average joe photographer. It is always people who are in the business of making money from all this publicity (magazines, bloggers, internet forums etc). They send people to go out and "test the waters" if you like whereas usually it is not really a big problem.

Of course there will be some security guards who are sometimes over the top with how they react but i don't feel that it is a big problem as people make it out to be.

 

[gramps]

The law as it stands at the moment, someone could come right up to your front door and take pictures of you in your home without breaking the law. Even though i love photography, i don't think someone should be able to do that especially in my home. The law should be changed so that it is very clear in black and white as to what you can and cant do. If that means that you cannot photograph a private property 500 yards from it even from public land then be it.

Apart from that being unworkable, (think about visiting National Trust/Seaside/Stately Homes etc etc, this would only apply if your home fronts onto the public pavement.

 

[big soft moose]

The law as it stands at the moment, someone could come right up to your front door and take pictures of you in your home without breaking the law. .

not so - you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your home , and thus such conduct would break the harrasment laws (hence paps getting into trouble when taking shots therough windows with long lenses and such)

 

[ziggy©]

not so - you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your home , and thus such conduct would break the harrasment laws (hence paps getting into trouble when taking shots therough windows with long lenses and such)

But they do take such pictures so i doubt that it is illegal.

 

[Alastair]

But they do take such pictures so i doubt that it is illegal.

If you're worried about Hello! magazine snapping you in dancing round in your undies singing into the hairbrush, don't. You're really not that important. And you should probably close the curtains when you have the bedroom light on anyway. Unless you want to be seen. But that's something else altogether

Or you could just Google "reasonable expectation of privacy"

The laws around photographing a building are very different to those about photographing people in their own home. Don't try and confuse the two, certainly not with people that understand the difference already. There is nothing visible from the public road at the Olympic site that anyone doesn't want you to see

 

[Musicman]

Thats my point it was on display. That does not mean you have to allow people to see or record the details. It can be on display facing in towards your body and that is fine. I have confirmed this several times with police licensing officers and the SIA. There answer has always been so long as it is on display thats fine people dont need to see the front. Actually even when he took it off his arm it was visible so no rules broken. It is also possible he was a CP badge holder which does not have to be displayed even though most do.

http://www.sia.homeoffice.gov.uk/Pages/licensing-conditions.aspx

Front Line Staff

Front line staff must:

Wear the licence where it can be seen at all times when engaging in designated licensable activity unless you have reported it lost or stolen, or it is in our possession.*

...

Covert Activity

* You do not have to wear your licence where it can be seen, if you can demonstrate that the nature of that conduct on that occasion requires that you should not be immediately identifiable as someone engaging in such conduct. On such occasions you must carry your licence on you and be able to produce it on request. This allows store detectives or close protection operatives to perform licensable activities without the need to be identifiable. This cannot apply to vehicle immobilisers.

e2a:

"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months."

"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."

"But the plans were on display ..."

"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."

"That's the display department."

"With a flashlight."

"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."

"So had the stairs."

"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"

"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."

 

[TheCrow]

I have been a licensed doorman for the last 11 years and had this confirmed by both the SIA and the police. I still work as a PT doorman when i dont have weddings.

The license has to be on your person and visible to show you have one. Many security do not even have to have it on display so long as its on there person (or store detectives wouldn't be able to do a great job would they) You also have to provide the SIA and police with these details when requested. There is not need for any member of the public to have badge details. If security has done something illegal then they should contact the police who will in turn inform the SIA if convicted.

I would never give my badge details to any member of the public adn infact always have my badge facing inwards.I worked a night 3 weeks ago when we found around 8 knives and a fellow doorman and i had a gun pulled on us do you really think i would want these people to have my personal details?

As the crow said there are people with there SIA from many walks of life. As a doorman most of the guys i work with have other full time jobs. I work with a body piercer an IT tech and even a hairdresser. I also work with some guys who are real bullys. Like any job there are different personality's good and bad.

You are absolutely correct.

I do part time door work and quite often if it's light and bright where I'm working turn my badge around. Nobody has the right to know my name without me telling them (apart from the police).

It's just not worth the risk of some idiot i've removed from the premises tracking me down.

If somebody feels i've done wrong though and has a genuine complaint then they can speak to my manager and obtain my badge details.

I can clearly see why the guard in the video turned his around. And would do exactly the same.