Photographing your kids in a shopping centre

Status
Not open for further replies.
JSER said:
A question, is it legal to stand outside of a shopping centre, on a public footpath and take photographs pointing the camera in the shopping centre.....

If to then the law is a ass.
Click to expand...

AFAIK as long as you're not behaving in such a way as to cause a breach of the peace and you not in contravention of section 43 then you can do exactly that.
 
footman said:
AFAIK as long as you're not behaving in such a way as to cause a breach of the peace and you not in contravention of section 43 then you can do exactly that.
Click to expand...

I am not being funny, I really don't know, what is afaik


OK

As far as I know
 
The Greek said:
Would you want to take your camera to the local swimming pool? You've almost proven my point about common sense.

.
Click to expand...

I have pictures of my children learning to walk, ride a bike, and yes... Learning to swim. It was no big thing 30 years ago.

Your the one that said nothing has changed, I'm saying plenty has, no section 44 back then.[/QUOTE]

--------------------------

Sec 44 (of the terrorism act) hasn't taken away any "photographer rights".

If you think it has can you tell us which section deals with changing "photographers rights" or anyones rights for that matter?
 
Last edited:
andy700 said:
One thing which all of these incidents highlight, is inconsistency in application of the law and rules for any given situation, whether it be the police or security personnel. Furthermore, NONE of this has anything to do with preventing terrorism or preventing any kind of abuse.

Example:
Famous racing driver visits shopping centre to celebrate winning F1 championship, and the place is full of people toting cameras/lenses of all shapes and sizes - security men do nothing.
Celebrity visits to bookshops to meet and greet are commonplace in this shopping centre, again masses of people taking images - nothing said.
People trying out cameras in the shopping centre (outside photographic retailers) - nothing said.

One photographer taking shots of the roof/architecture in the same shopping centre - security personnel turn up, ask him to stop, saying that photography is not allowed in the shopping centre.

For those people on here, who say that the security staff are well within their rights, can you not see how stupid and pointless their behaviour is?
Click to expand...

Good points well made but this is private property and nothing to do with the rights if the land. Whether you can take photographs is down to the discretion of the landowner, as it always has been so yes, nothings changed!
 
Last edited:
jon ryan said:
If you have a beautiful garden, say, and you find a bunch of photographers wandering around shooting the roses, how would you react? And if the local camera club secretary called to ask if some members could come and photograph your lovely garden, what would you say?

See if you can work out the difference between the two scenarios. :bang::bang::bang:
Click to expand...

I think that you have shot yourself in the foot here because:

Let us say that I own a beautiful garden - we shall for arguments sake call it Kew Gardens, I would naturally expect large numbers of people wandering around admiring the flowers, and it would not matter to me whether or not they belonged to a camera club.
If it was my own garden at my present house, then I would be alarmed to find people wandering around it without permission, because my house/garden is not open to the public.
The prime goal of a shopping centre is to attract as many people as possible, in order that they may spend as much money as possible. It does not take a businessman of the stature of Alan Sugar to work out, that less people will visit that shopping centre, if the staff appear overbearing, officious or aggressive.
I totally understand what the "rules" in this case are, so no need for you to bang your head against the wall, you will simply get a headache over nothing.;)
My problem is with the inconsistent application of those "rules", and more to the point the fact that the "rules" are pretty ridiculous by any stretch of the imagination.
 
andy700 said:
I think that you have shot yourself in the foot here because:

Let us say that I own a beautiful garden - we shall for arguments sake call it Kew Gardens, I would naturally expect large numbers of people wandering around admiring the flowers, and it would not matter to me whether or not they belonged to a camera club.
If it was my own garden at my present house, then I would be alarmed to find people wandering around it without permission, because my house/garden is not open to the public.
The prime goal of a shopping centre is to attract as many people as possible, in order that they may spend as much money as possible. It does not take a businessman of the stature of Alan Sugar to work out, that less people will visit that shopping centre, if the staff appear overbearing, officious or aggressive.
I totally understand what the "rules" in this case are, so no need for you to bang your head against the wall, you will simply get a headache over nothing.;)
My problem is with the inconsistent application of those "rules", and more to the point the fact that the "rules" are pretty ridiculous by any stretch of the imagination.
Click to expand...

Can you spot the important bit, boys and girls?

:bang::bonk::bang::bonk::bang::bonk::rules::bang:
 
Last edited:
JSER said:
A question, is it legal to stand outside of a shopping centre, on a public footpath and take photographs pointing the camera in the shopping centre.....

If to then the law is a ass.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the law is frequently a ass. You can generally take photographs of anything you like, if you are on public property and you can see it. I think there are some exceptions for MOD property, and the 'rules' for photographing people are slightly different.
 
MartynK said:
Yes, and the law is frequently a ass. You can generally take photographs of anything you like, if you are on public property and you can see it. I think there are some exceptions for MOD property, and the 'rules' for photographing people are slightly different.
Click to expand...

Indeed, certain sections of MOD property are protected by the Official Secrets Act (and believe me, they are CLEARLY signed!) and others were given designation under the relevant section of the terrorism act. But you wouldn't want to take pictures there anyway, and if you did, you'd be a complete fool to not expect a tap on the shoulder!
 
I can sum this up in one word.

Manners

I have NEVER had a problem, if I did believe me I would not back down, in a PUBLIC place, but, I have ALWAYS asked, not because I believe I have to but because at 50 I was brought up to have manners, and yes I have been told, "well thanks for asking, people so rarely do".
 
so lets get this clear then a woman innocently takes photos of her children and deserves to be treated worse than a shoplifter?

not the country i want to live in
 
straycat said:
so lets get this clear then a woman innocently takes photos of her children and deserves to be treated worse than a shoplifter?

not the country i want to live in
Click to expand...

No that's not clear, it's wrong.

It was a man not a woman for starters and he was hardly treated worse than a shop lifter because;

He wasn't arrested
He wasn't taken to custody
He wasn't held in custody for hours and interviewed
He wasn't charged with anything
He didn't have to attend court
He didn't have to pay a fine.
He wasn't handed a criminal record.

Not really treated worse than a shoplifter was he? Come on, let's please stop with the hysteria, it's pathetic.
 
Last edited:
straycat said:
so lets get this clear then a woman innocently takes photos of her children and deserves to be treated worse than a shoplifter?

not the country i want to live in
Click to expand...

OR MAN why do women and some men forget that part.... as a SINGLE Father.

I am sick of the news/TV always complaining about absent "fathers", "Wife beaters", women are far from perfect. Sorry for the rant.

100% fully agree with you that is why I said the law is a ass.

This is not off topic as I am stating the whole legal system in this country neede a complete 100% overhaul.

My disabled son, was hit by a speeding motorist last week, and he admitted that on the spot, the Police believe no prossecution will happen despite an off duty Constable seeing it AND an off duty doctor (lucky or what they were there). Thius is what 35mph does to a teenager

simon.jpg


Seven months ago my other disabled son was beaten to the ground IN COLLEGE, kicked in the head and punched, no prossecution.

Yet, you can be accosted by a jobsworth for innocently taking a photograph of your son/daughter and the police called........:cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo:
 
Last edited:
JSER said:
OR MAN why do women and some men forget that part.... as a SINGLE Father.

100% fully agree with you that is why I said the law is a ass.

My disabled son, was hit by a speeding motorist last week, and he admitted that on the spot, the Police believe no prossecution will happen despite an off duty Constable seeing it AND an off duty doctor (lucky or what).

Seven months ago my other disabled son was beaten to the ground IN COLLEGE, kicked in the head and punched, no prossecution.

Yet, you can be accosted by a jobsworth for innocently taking a photograph of your son........:cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo:
Click to expand...

Edited - too far off topic.

This has nothing to do with the law.

It's private property and owners rules. But yes, the law is an ass (but not necessarily for the above reasons as I could probably tell you why they would never be able to prove speed...)
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Your the one that said nothing has changed, I'm saying plenty has, no section 44 back then.
Click to expand...

--------------------------

Sec 44 (of the terrorism act) hasn't taken away any "photographer rights".

If you think it has can you tell us which section deals with changing "photographers rights" or anyones rights for that matter?[/QUOTE]


It has Jim, please take a look for yourself, many many examples on Youtube.
 
The Greek said:
--------------------------

Sec 44 (of the terrorism act) hasn't taken away any "photographer rights".

If you think it has can you tell us which section deals with changing "photographers rights" or anyones rights for that matter?
Click to expand...

It has Jim, please take a look for yourself, many many examples on Youtube.[/QUOTE]

----------/-

That's not what I said, the first is part of someone elses post that didn't "quote" properly.

The last bit, i think you are confusing the law and rights. We havnt lost any rights in law, that's my point. The terrorism act doesn't deal with rights.

Youtube? Since when did youtube overrule uk legislation on rights??! We have MORE rights now legally than we ever did. Look at the Human Rights Act.

When you talk about RIGHTS you are talking about legally privileged protected rights in law as a uk citizen. These rights are written in stone in law. Why can't people grasp this??? Just because new legislation comes out which is misinterpreted by some doesn't mean we have lost rights.

And photographers have no more rights than anyone else.

I give up, can't be bothered with this.
 
Last edited:
:bang:Quote oddjim

This is where you completely misunderstand the law. HOW CAN THEY PROVE
SPEEDING?? His admittance isn't enough.

How did he happen to get hit by the car?
--------------------------------------------------------

Oh he was bored so decided to walk in the middle of the road:bang: Perhaps a "sorry to hear that" from you :'(to begin with may have been nice

And this is where you have made assumptions.

The road was closed of, and everything from skid marks to the car damage was taken, I assume!!! the Police know what they are doing as they have agreed he was speeding, but I was cutting a long story short !
 
Last edited:
JSER said:
And this is where you have made assumptions.

The road was closed of, and everything from skid marks to the car damage was taken, I assume!!! the Police know what they are doing as they have agreed he was speeding, but I was cutting a long story short !
Click to expand...

Ok but that's taking this far too much off topic... As this doesn't deal with the law of the land as the topic discussed is on Private property.

I am now retiring from this thread, phew...
 
odd jim said:
Ok but that's taking this far too much off topic... As this doesn't deal with the law of the land as the topic distaste is on Private property.

I am now retiring from this thread, phew...
Click to expand...

It is not off topic, people here are simply giving examples of the moronic laws we have here.
 
JSER said:
:bang:Quote oddjim

This is where you completely misunderstand the law. HOW CAN THEY PROVE
SPEEDING?? His admittance isn't enough.

How did he happen to get hit by the car?
--------------------------------------------------------

Oh he was bored so decided to walk in the middle of the road:bang: Perhaps a "sorry to hear that" from you :'(to begin with may have been nice

And this is where you have made assumptions.

The road was closed of, and everything from skid marks to the car damage was taken, I assume!!! the Police know what they are doing as they have agreed he was speeding, but I was cutting a long story short !
Click to expand...

As I said, I edited it out as it was a far too in depth to discuss on this thread being not (completely) on topic. I wasn't inferring he was in the wrong, I just have a professional interest in that side of things, and I apologise if this was misinterpreted as being 'cold'.

And yes I am sorry to hear he was injured and I hope he makes a full recovery, and you're right, it would have been best to start as such and I would have elaborated but as you'll see, I edited that side out completely anyway as this would have created a whole new discussion. (and the bit in caps was user error on the iPhone keypad!)
 
Last edited:
andy700 said:
One thing which all of these incidents highlight, is inconsistency in application of the law and rules for any given situation, whether it be the police or security personnel. Furthermore, NONE of this has anything to do with preventing terrorism or preventing any kind of abuse.

Example:
Famous racing driver visits shopping centre to celebrate winning F1 championship, and the place is full of people toting cameras/lenses of all shapes and sizes - security men do nothing.
Celebrity visits to bookshops to meet and greet are commonplace in this shopping centre, again masses of people taking images - nothing said.
People trying out cameras in the shopping centre (outside photographic retailers) - nothing said.

One photographer taking shots of the roof/architecture in the same shopping centre - security personnel turn up, ask him to stop, saying that photography is not allowed in the shopping centre.

For those people on here, who say that the security staff are well within their rights, can you not see how stupid and pointless their behaviour is?
Click to expand...

Well put :)

Years ago when shopping centre first starting opening,you saw tons of shots taken in them,i done quite myself no problem.
And before anyone says preventing terrorism,it was at the time of the IRA bombing.
Anyway its hit the BBC new now,with a bit of back tracking going on :)
 
jon ryan said:
Can you spot the important bit, boys and girls?

:bang::bonk::bang::bonk::bang::bonk::rules::bang:
Click to expand...



You just don't get it do you?
Do you ask permission to enter every shopping centre? I assume that you do, unlike everyone else who just walk through the doors without a second thought.
Does every (any) shopping centre post rules on its doors, which include that photography is banned, according to waht time of the year it is, who is on duty, what mood they are in?
 
It's a shame I was really looking forward to the headline "Al Qaeda attack on ice cream stand - hundreds and thousands killed" :naughty:
 
rules are rules, simple as, im not allowed to ride a skateboard, or skates or drive my car through a mall. i also cant go through topless, shirts must be worn. You break a rule expect to see a security guard. Bit i find annoying is the bloke got to keep his pictures anyway, so whats the problem?
 
DannyDMR said:
rules are rules, simple as, im not allowed to ride a skateboard, or skates or drive my car through a mall. i also cant go through topless, shirts must be worn. You break a rule expect to see a security guard. Bit i find annoying is the bloke got to keep his pictures anyway, so whats the problem?
Click to expand...

What rule did he break?
 
DannyDMR said:
rules are rules, simple as, im not allowed to ride a skateboard, or skates or drive my car through a mall. i also cant go through topless, shirts must be worn. You break a rule expect to see a security guard. Bit i find annoying is the bloke got to keep his pictures anyway, so whats the problem?
Click to expand...

I do agree with you in that this is long and short of the story. Rules are rules.

Doesn't stop some of them being ridiculous though. You can see why a shopping centre may not want you driving a car through it but banning and policing taking pictures of your kid with an ice cream? Bizarre!
 
Danny, Where are the signs saying so? Iv never seen any at my shopping mall.
 
Last edited:
yeah obviously im going to the extreme with the car, and safety for the skate boards etc, not wearing a top not much different imo. But rules are rules, rule for 1 rule for all otherwise you have no idea who's doing what. it down to discretion, have a look at the pics if all is fine, give him a telling off and be on his way. And this is what has happened. he got his photos even though be broke the rules. really cant see a problem with it tbh. would be a diffrent story if it had been on a public street
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top