FYI it IS a public place cause it's open to the public and used by the public. Still can't get your head round that very simple fact eh?
A permit LOL that is LAUGHABLE!!
Photos in a swimming pool?
- Thread starter jonoooo125
- Start date
FYI it IS a public place cause it's open to the public and used by the public. Still can't get your head round that very simple fact eh?
A permit LOL that is LAUGHABLE!!
Bernie174
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Jamey
You really are Mr angry aren't you.
Oh, and although it'll get you all excited again, it is not a public place in law. Yes, they can sue you, or just throw you out. If they did sue you, and if I were a betting man, I'd be looking at a dead cert for it NOT being thrown out as farcical.
You see, you say they can 'stick' their rules, and it's very brave of you from behind your keyboard to say so. But the reality is, they don't have to stick them and legally they have every right to do what they do.
In exactly the same way as you do in your home.
Anyway, go and make yourself a nice cup of tea and calm those negative waves. It's not good for you, all that stress...
You really are Mr angry aren't you.
Oh, and although it'll get you all excited again, it is not a public place in law. Yes, they can sue you, or just throw you out. If they did sue you, and if I were a betting man, I'd be looking at a dead cert for it NOT being thrown out as farcical.
You see, you say they can 'stick' their rules, and it's very brave of you from behind your keyboard to say so. But the reality is, they don't have to stick them and legally they have every right to do what they do.
In exactly the same way as you do in your home.
Anyway, go and make yourself a nice cup of tea and calm those negative waves. It's not good for you, all that stress...
OP
jonoooo125
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,373
- Name
- Jon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As it turns out, metrodome weren't happy about any pictures being taken but butlins and centre parcs never said anything if anyone was interested, no permits needed
SpikeK6
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,543
- Name
- Spike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The only thing laughable is your attitude towards rules and regulations.
I think you need to do a search of this site regarding rules at shopping malls and any other privately owned place. This has been discussed many times and it all boils down to the same solution, its their place its their rules.
With the attitude you have the only thing you will do is give other photographers a bad name
I think you need to do a search of this site regarding rules at shopping malls and any other privately owned place. This has been discussed many times and it all boils down to the same solution, its their place its their rules.
With the attitude you have the only thing you will do is give other photographers a bad name
tracybradbury
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 908
- Name
- Tracy
- Edit My Images
- No
I went swimming a little while ago and my kids were the ONLY ones there at the time, I asked if I could take some photos and was directed to a sign telling me I couldn't 
I pointed out that we were the only people there and was told no, no exceptions - madness!
I pointed out that we were the only people there and was told no, no exceptions - madness!
Julie1979
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,411
- Name
- Julie
- Edit My Images
- No
Since this thread, which was ageeees ago, we have also been to Centre Parcs and saw several people with cameras. I was kicking myself for not having my underwater kit with me but it wasn't even a consideration when we packed. I'll take it next year to get some photos in the pool without risking my phone or anything else getting wet.
steveo_mcg
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,319
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
When we took my youngest swimming there were no signs up so I went for the get told off rather than get permission. The manager came over with pretty apologetic body language and asked me to avoid getting any one else in the picture and to put the camera away once I was done. There was the look of a man who had worked in the council too long but had managed to keep some common sense despite Edinburgh Council's zero tolerance approach to application of intelligence...
Oh my god! I took some photos of my son playing football on Sunday and I've just realised that the other kids in the match were also in shot. I must be a pervert so I'll hand myself into the police for punishment immediately.
And before anyone picks up on it ... yes! I know there wasn't a swimming pool involved.
And before anyone picks up on it ... yes! I know there wasn't a swimming pool involved.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 21,370
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
guess what.. swimming pics you dont see much more than there head.. maybe the odd shoulder... loads of schools swimming shots on my website for sale 
last one I did here.. http://www.kipax.com/gallery/index.php?album=SCHOOLS_BD/3137
last one I did here.. http://www.kipax.com/gallery/index.php?album=SCHOOLS_BD/3137
Last edited:
ChrisHeathcote
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,717
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hhhmmm, an angry rant from somebody who has just joined, resurrecting a thread that's 18 months old. I smell a troll 
Guess well have to wait and see
Guess well have to wait and see
Not quite. A citizen can make an arrest for an indictable offence - one which would get you up in front of a Crown Court rather than a Magistrate.
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Completely OT, but how would your average citizen know? Can I arrest someone during a fight if I think it's attempted murder, but then I'd have acted illegally if the police charge the suspect with affray?
Would the suspect then have grounds to have me arrested and charged? Kidnapping? Assault*? Impersonating a police officer?
*what would be considered 'reasonable force' to stop someone escaping becomes assault if I've got no right to hold them.
Yes. You're liable to a charge of illegal arrest, assault and false imprisonment if you get it wrong.
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
That's comforting.
- Messages
- 9,754
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Is that why Batman and Robin aren't on the telly anymore?
Muzzieman
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 568
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- No
Everybody with a camera in public is peodophile. didn't you know that? You will be very lucky to take Photographs at any council run facility, you can't even look at your phone poolside while my kids are having their swimming lessons in Sheffield! I once had an argument with an attendant when he told me i couldn't use my iPad. I was reading the newspaper, and furthermore it was a first gen iPad which doesn't even have a camera! when i demanded he told the lady a few seats down from me to stop reading her kindle he eventually got the point! I encounter this attitude to photographers on an almost daily basis for example I was shooting a campaign for a well known supermarket last week that consisted of external shots of the building and close up details, no recognisable faces or direct pictures of the public. When I finished my work and went back into the store to sign out the girl who I had been dealing with informed me that just about every single customer had come up to her to tell her a strange man was taking photographs outside!
jonbeeza
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,388
- Name
- Jon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hhhmmm, an angry rant from somebody who has just joined, resurrecting a thread that's 18 months old. I smell a troll
Guess well have to wait and see
Joined yesterday made two posts, and not been back since.
Hhhmmm, an angry rant from somebody who has just joined, resurrecting a thread that's 18 months old. I smell a troll
Guess well have to wait and see
I think you might be right
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
1 Think about the children
Do you want your children to grow up in a world where they are unable to trust any adults? Where anything 'different' is pointed out as a danger, with no thought or reasoning? What sort of world will that create - it's already started in this country. Which is why threads like this exist. You'll not find them in many other countries, where people haven't been fed 'bogeyman' stories by a media set on self destruct.
2 If it saves just one person ..
Assess the risk. Is this one person actually at risk? I'm all for child protection, but it should be that protection, not removal of all risk. Do we assume that all adults are a danger, so we leave children to create their own world and their own rules, that'll be much safer because children never did children any harm... ?
Thinking again, maybe just put them alone in a padded cell, feed them education without any human contact, that'll cut out the risk entirely, and I'm sure it'd turn out a very well balanced society. :banghead:
- Messages
- 21,370
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
eh? do you want to elaborate.. as it is it makes you look a bit silly.. like photogrpahing children harms them or somehting.. or is that what you did mean?
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sorry but this wrong - its a private place open to the public by permision , and probably for limited hours and on payment of a fee - that entitles the owner to make whatever conditions they wish (with the discrimination acts etc), and if you breach them you can be ejected an or sued - it is not a public place unless it is somewhere the public are free to come and go at any time by right (which is basically limited to most but not all streets, nearly all other land in the uk is owned by someone)
ChasG
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 606
- Name
- Charles
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Of course - IMHO virtually every thread which criticizes peoples behaviour - speeding. drinking, smoking, cannabis, cycling etc have the above 2 posts from someone.
So please people think of the children!
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hhhmmm, an angry rant from somebody who has just joined, resurrecting a thread that's 18 months old. I smell a troll
Guess well have to wait and see
I'm thinking its a dupe account - especially as he who should not be named was active in this thread when it was live before, and his other sock puppet has been rumbled
ChrisHeathcote
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,717
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Probably. Anyway I think I've learnt something, I've always wondered who the infamous "he who mustn't be named" was. I think I've finally worked it out
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
He has the initials JS , but you can only utter his name at midnight , while standing in a pentagram after sacrificing a virgin (if you live in Daventry and thus can't find a virgin, a goat is an acceptable substitute)
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
on the other hand you should have a large choice of alledged females no one would touch with a barge pole
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
NO PICTURS EVVA! YOU SOME KIND OF p*** OR WHAT?? IVE RED ABOUT PEEPLE LIKE U IN DA DAILY MAIL... SCUM!!... YOU DESERVE TO DIEEEEEE
Bernie174
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Phil.
The power to arrest is as any person may arrest without warrant any person who is in the act of committing an indictable offence; or whom the person has reasonable grounds to suspect is committing an indictable offence.
subject to certain caveats, ie that its not reasonable for a Constable to arrest, to prevent harm, further damage or injury, or that its likely they will do a runner before police arrive.
An Indictable offence is one triable at Crown Court.
What you arrest for is a matter for what you reasonably believe at the time. If someone is hitting another with a concrete block, then you have a range of options, from murder to any of the assault offences. So longer as you have reasonable grounds you would be fine.
What they get charged with is a different matter, and arrest, if there's grounds initially does not become unlawful simply because the final charge is one where there would have been no power to arrest. Although in your example, affray is an indictable offence so it wouldn't matter.
The power to arrest is as any person may arrest without warrant any person who is in the act of committing an indictable offence; or whom the person has reasonable grounds to suspect is committing an indictable offence.
subject to certain caveats, ie that its not reasonable for a Constable to arrest, to prevent harm, further damage or injury, or that its likely they will do a runner before police arrive.
An Indictable offence is one triable at Crown Court.
What you arrest for is a matter for what you reasonably believe at the time. If someone is hitting another with a concrete block, then you have a range of options, from murder to any of the assault offences. So longer as you have reasonable grounds you would be fine.
What they get charged with is a different matter, and arrest, if there's grounds initially does not become unlawful simply because the final charge is one where there would have been no power to arrest. Although in your example, affray is an indictable offence so it wouldn't matter.
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Thanks Bernie
That's cleared it up, I'll dust off my cape.
James83
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 201
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sorry but this is wrong! A public place is anywhere the public have access to either by right or by payment.
I used to be a constable and had the power to arrest and had to know the difference between a private and public place as for expample under section 136 of mental health act i was only able to detain someone if they were in a public place.
A swimming pool is a public place. The owner / management have the right to set rules and regulations and have the right to refuse entry to anyone.
The country and people are going mad these days and wrapping kids up too much in cotton wool and as someone said earlier we need to look at more child protection then try mitigate every single risk and kids end up growing up not knowing or aware of the risks to them and become more vulnerable in the future.
If you want to take pictures in the pool ask the manager and if they say no see if you can work to a compromise and maybe do them in a section of the pool that is quiet.
If i was the bobby that got called to a swimming pool who had someone taking pictures after a quick chat with both manager and the person taking pics if i established he had a family and only had pictures of his child on his camera i wouldnt take any action against anyone as no offence had been commited the only thing they had done is broke the rules of the establishment which isnt a criminal offence. Would be words of advice only and at most the customer would be asked to leave to prevent any future breach of the peace.
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm sorry but you are just confusing the issue now - the acts you are reffering to relate to someone being in public , that is you can't detain someone under the mental health acts in their own home, however in public means anywhere the public may be - so for example in a shop you are still in public, but that doesnt mean the shop isnt a private place to which the public have admission, as you said yourself
If it were a public place (in the meaning of the link on photographic rights posted earlier) this would not be the case - it is as i said earlier privately owned premises to which the public have entry by permission but not right
I
This is correct, no one is saying that it is a criminal offence - however if you have access only by permission and flout the conditions of that permission then you are committing the civil act of trespass (torts), and can be asked to leave by owner or his agents. You can also (but mostly won't be unless you really p*** them off) sued for trespass. (although its not directly relevant here different rules apply to licenced premises and refusing to leave licenced premises (pubs, clubs and some resteraunts) is a criminal act of it self). Of course if you are silly enough to commit a criminal act while being asked to leave (assault and or threatening behavior for example) then you could also be guilty of agravated trespass which is a crime
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Oh FFS no they arent - they do fit the definition of in public as per the restrictions on where a constable can make an arrest under sect 136 of the MH act , but they are not public places within the meaning of the met police guidance on freedom to photograph (and the very similar ACPO statement) which is what we are talking about here - in particular the bit that says
That applies only to places where the public have access by right - such as in the street on a public highway. It does not apply to anywhere where the public have access only by permission of the landowner because in those circumstances the owner can (apart from restrictions of H&S and discrimination) make any restrictions on that access they wish , including banning photography or only allowing it by permit.
Seriously if you used to be a constable you should know this stuff , it aint rocket science
Bernie174
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
James
I also used to be a police officer.
A swimming pool, is owned by (usually) the council, and is only a public place in the sense that the public have access to it. However that is not unrestricted access, and anyone can be barred, or excluded and the owners have every right to make up their own rules. For example, no spitting, bombing or farting in the shallow end.
So, it isn't a public place in the sense of say a street, where you would would have an assumed 'right' to take photos. That being an assumed right, simply because there's no legislation that stops you from doing something, in this case photography.
In the same way as a football stadium is a public place in legislation, but privately owned, and the owners can make up whatever rules they like.
Of course you're right, there's not a criminal offence, short of BofP, but in this particular case that doesn't seem to have been likely. That does not stop civil action, if there are caveats in the terms and conditions of use.
I also used to be a police officer.
A swimming pool, is owned by (usually) the council, and is only a public place in the sense that the public have access to it. However that is not unrestricted access, and anyone can be barred, or excluded and the owners have every right to make up their own rules. For example, no spitting, bombing or farting in the shallow end.
So, it isn't a public place in the sense of say a street, where you would would have an assumed 'right' to take photos. That being an assumed right, simply because there's no legislation that stops you from doing something, in this case photography.
In the same way as a football stadium is a public place in legislation, but privately owned, and the owners can make up whatever rules they like.
Of course you're right, there's not a criminal offence, short of BofP, but in this particular case that doesn't seem to have been likely. That does not stop civil action, if there are caveats in the terms and conditions of use.
ChasG
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 606
- Name
- Charles
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Apologies once again I missed this post - Clearly I do not want my children to live in fear. I would happily trade a little more safety for a lot more freedom and I hate the nanny state.
The post was meant to be humerous in view of similar 'I'll get my popcorn type comments' - perhaps I could have been more helpful if I signaled it by wrapping it in emoticons which indicate humour?