The terrorism act?

true_one_picture

true_one_picture

Suspended / Banned
Messages
397
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,
At the moment im living away from home (Hull) and I have just got back from visiting my folks.
I was shocked when my dad said he was approached and warned by a security officer in a new shopping centre in hull for taking pictures.

Now at the moment I work as a high risk security officer and as far as I know the only way someone can be stopped from photographing somewhere is if its for commercial use of its of private land/property.

I laughed it off until after speaking to a few more friends they said that Hull council have been stopping people photographing due to the terrorism act!!!

Well in Sheffield where i am now I have woundered around photographing loads of stuff including the police on mach day and nothing said!

Is there anyone with simular happenings? or could someone shed any light on this???

Phil
 
It depends on whether the shopping centre is private property or not. Basically if it is private property (in England and Wales) then the owners can have a no photography rule and they can enforce it. Enforcement means simply asking you to leave. You cannot be told to delete images and any threatened confiscation of either camera or cards is illegal.

The terrorism act does not change any of that. I've read the web pages from the Met (who are about the best clued up) for info and basically they can ask for ID and ask what is the nature of your photography. Only if they are suspicious that you are on some kind of terrorist recce can they invoke the powers under the terrorism legislation. i.e. you can be carted off searched and questioned.

For security to be quoting it is a bit silly since they don't have any authority to do anything about it anyway!

I find the best policy is to remain polite, make sure that you are on solid ground with the private property issue. If you continue to have a problem with security and they are stopping you from going about your lawful business, then call the Police if you have to.

There is loads of stuff on this issue and a parliament early day motion. I'm sure you can find lots of detail out there. :)
 
I'm from Hull and I know the centre you're talking about. It is private property so the management can impose the rules they want. Call it paranoid if you like, but if they've chosen a ban, we have to accept it. That said, I know people who've asked the managment in advance and been granted permission to take pictures.
 
Is this the centre.



Shoppers face picture-taking ban

Shoppers and visitors to Hull's newest retail centre could be asked to leave the premises for taking pictures or videoing the site.

The manager of the St Stephen's "under cover high street" has said counter terrorism advice includes being wary of people taking pictures.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/7278996.stm


Maybe they should read this.

Clearly any terrorist is going to first photograph his target, so vigilance is required.

Except that it's nonsense. The 9/11 terrorists didn't photograph anything. Nor did the London transport bombers, the Madrid bombers, or the liquid bombers arrested in 2006. Timothy McVeigh didn't photograph the Oklahoma City Federal Building. The Unabomber didn't photograph anything; neither did shoe-bomber Richard Reid. Photographs aren't being found amongst the papers of Palestinian suicide bombers. The IRA wasn't known for its photography. Even those manufactured terrorist plots that the US government likes to talk about -- the Ft. Dix terrorists, the JFK airport bombers, the Miami 7, the Lackawanna 6 -- no photography.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jun/05/news.terrorism
 
The whole thing is a nonsense dreamt up by people who have far too long watching Die Hard, Mission Impossible and drivel like that.

These rules may seem sensible when proposed by eductated, intelligent individuals, but what the forget is that these self-same rules will generally be enforced by people with little or no intelligence, many of whom see the chance to inconvenience or impede another person as justification of their being, something to make them feel good about themselves.

One point that I find amusing, and this may come across as racist, but it is not intended that way at all, is that whilst the majority of these security guards etc would challenge a white person and escort them off the premises using the flimsy excuse of "counterterrorism", they would not do the same to someone of asian appearance for fear of being accused of racial stereotyping :shrug:
 
I had a similar experience last year at The Oracle shopping centre in Reading. Happily togging away with my friend Chris (Catdaddy on here) when we approached by security. We were told in no un-certain terms that we could not take photos in the shopping centre as it was private property! We courteously moved outside to take photos instead but were approached again and asked to leave the centre and not return that day or the police would be called! When we countered that we were no long in the shopping centre so what was the problem, we were told that the because the buildings would still be in our shots and the buildings were copyright we could not continue to take photos :cuckoo:
 
Grendel said:
I had a similar experience last year at The Oracle shopping centre in Reading. Happily togging away with my friend Chris (Catdaddy on here) when we approached by security. We were told in no un-certain terms that we could not take photos in the shopping centre as it was private property! We courteously moved outside to take photos instead but were approached again and asked to leave the centre and not return that day or the police would be called! When we countered that we were no long in the shopping centre so what was the problem, we were told that the because the buildings would still be in our shots and the buildings were copyright we could not continue to take photos :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

All but that last part is fair enough, but the copyright stuff is a load of bull. Did you leave anyway, or contest it?
 
Grendel said:
I had a similar experience last year at The Oracle shopping centre in Reading. Happily togging away with my friend Chris (Catdaddy on here) when we approached by security. We were told in no un-certain terms that we could not take photos in the shopping centre as it was private property! We courteously moved outside to take photos instead but were approached again and asked to leave the centre and not return that day or the police would be called! When we countered that we were no long in the shopping centre so what was the problem, we were told that the because the buildings would still be in our shots and the buildings were copyright we could not continue to take photos :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

There's a "no photography" sign outside by the riverside, which I only saw after taking photographs :) It's such a nice place for photographs though!
 
The Matt said:
All but that last part is fair enough, but the copyright stuff is a load of bull. Did you leave anyway, or contest it?
Click to expand...

We did argue the point on the copyright issue but soon realised we were banging our heads against a brick wall so we left, rather than risk escalating the situation :(
 
adamadam said:
There's a "no photography" sign outside by the riverside, which I only saw after taking photographs :) It's such a nice place for photographs though!
Click to expand...

Yeah i've seen that, long after that incident though :D
 
Grendel said:
I had a similar experience last year at The Oracle shopping centre in Reading. Happily togging away with my friend Chris (Catdaddy on here) when we approached by security. We were told in no un-certain terms that we could not take photos in the shopping centre as it was private property! We courteously moved outside to take photos instead but were approached again and asked to leave the centre and not return that day or the police would be called! When we countered that we were no long in the shopping centre so what was the problem, we were told that the because the buildings would still be in our shots and the buildings were copyright we could not continue to take photos :cuckoo:
Click to expand...


Found this, it may help.....a lot of scrolling is involved..........Faq 38

#
Specialist copyright questions
# Can you copyright/trademark buildings? What if the architect is not dead - can you photograph the buildings? Can you design another building to look like another building?

Answer
Architects drawings are copyright. The building itself is not, so you can photograph it. If you used the architect's own drawings and amended them, then that is infringement. If you started from scratch but deliberately chose to mimic a design, then you are probably okay. It would be advisable to consult a copyright lawyer at this point in time!

http://ahds.ac.uk/copyrightfaq.htm#faq38
 
Interesting article here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7351252.stm

Guidelines agreed between senior police and the media were adopted by all forces in England and Wales last year. They state that police have no power to prevent the media taking photos.

They state that "once images are recorded, [the police] have no power to delete or confiscate them without a court order, even if [the police] think they contain damaging or useful evidence."
Click to expand...
 
You'd still have trouble stopping them taking your camera off you and deleting any pics. If you argued or resisted then you'd simply be arrested for Breach of the Peace and when you finally got your camera back the images would have vanished anyway......
 
If you where found taking pictures @ any Military base, including the perimeter and the outlining land, or on any land owned by the MOD, including Taking snap shots at Fairford and RAF valley, and they had reason to believe it's for active use, you would find out soon enough what will happen, i was over at hawk eye near york one of the government's many facilities, and they take a dim view of picture taking, it's a sad world .


just off topic when the farmers had all the foot and mouth to contend with the farmers leader Ben Gill was tackling the government about compensation for the farmers, guess who's farm is on the road in to Hawk Eye and guess who rents his land off the MOD yes it's Ben Gill, isn't life full of funny twist and turns.


Regards Mark.
 
Mark, photographing at or near MOD property is understandably not allowed as it is a genuine case for using the "National security" reason.

Everyone here should write to/e-mail their MP asking him/her to support Austin Mitchell's Early Day Motion about the right to photograph in public places.

You can find out who your MP is if you don't know here and there is an e-mail link on the results page. I've just e-mailed mine (Dr. Andrew Murrison, Con, Westbury) as he hasn't signed the EDM.

I've got a photo somewhere of me and Mrs.P stood in front of the border gates between Israel and Lebanon (actually, Israel and the UN Buffer Zone) and the sign on the gates says something along the lines of "Anyone coming within 25m of these gates risks being shot" :eek: - IIRC, you had to get closer than that to read the warning :thinking: - entrapment? :D
 
parish said:
Mark, photographing at or near MOD property is understandably not allowed as it is a genuine case for using the "National security" reason.

Everyone here should write to/e-mail their MP asking him/her to support Austin Mitchell's Early Day Motion about the right to photograph in public places.

You can find out who your MP is if you don't know here and there is an e-mail link on the results page. I've just e-mailed mine (Dr. Andrew Murrison, Con, Westbury) as he hasn't signed the EDM.

I've got a photo somewhere of me and Mrs.P stood in front of the border gates between Israel and Lebanon (actually, Israel and the UN Buffer Zone) and the sign on the gates says something along the lines of "Anyone coming within 25m of these gates risks being shot" :eek: 0 IIRC, you had to get closer than that to read the warning :thinking: - entrapment? :D
Click to expand...

Things have tightened up a lot since then and a whole raft of restrictions that aren't actually restrictions in there own right, but can be determined as such "AS WHEN and IF required", i have PM'd the thread starter about who i worked for it's no big secret , we came under the umbrella of the Security Emergency Measures and Mutual Aid of a rather large organisation which if targeted would bring the area to a complete halt and if it was multi-targeted then holy baloney, so i know only to well about freedom of choice and how fast it's being eroded, :lol: yes they are very fond of entrapment in the Lebanon no sense of fair play an all that. i will be e-mailing my useless MP and make him aware of this and ask for his support, mine is Mr J Dobbin ...at right Dobbin at that.

Kind regards Mark.
 
I've been approached and asked to delete photos by uniformed chimps (sorry, security guards). Quite happy to do it there and then, and let them see. I simply swap memory cards, and recover the deleted pics when I get home ;)

Silly bar-stewards. Most of the time, if it's private property, I just ask first:)
 
reddeathdrinker said:
I've been approached and asked to delete photos by uniformed chimps (sorry, security guards). Quite happy to do it there and then, and let them see. I simply swap memory cards, and recover the deleted pics when I get home ;)
Click to expand...
But isn't that just encouraging them, and making them think they've got the right to do it? You're just allowing yourself to be intimidated.
 
This sort of crap is happening all over, despite government/company assurances that taking fotys is ok by them. It is nearly always down to jobsworths/little hitlers/pcsos who either dont know their own laws or rules or just cant be arsed finding out and like to make peoples lives that little bit harder.:bang:
 
parish said:
Everyone here should write to/e-mail their MP asking him/her to support Austin Mitchell's Early Day Motion about the right to photograph in public places.

You can find out who your MP is if you don't know here and there is an e-mail link on the results page. I've just e-mailed mine (Dr. Andrew Murrison, Con, Westbury) as he hasn't signed the EDM.
Click to expand...

Sorry to drag up an old thread - although the subject is still topical - but I've just received a written reply from my MP (who, it turns out, is Shadow Defence Minister) ....saying that he won't support the EDM because it is critical of the Police :bang:

Dr. Murrison should be aware come election time that I have a long memory :lol:

mp_letter.jpg
 
Perhaps you should compile a list of the many reports over the last 6 months and ask him to give his thoughts having read them all?
 
None of this is new - you haven't been allowed to take pics in a shopping centre in 30 years without permission. However there is nothing to stop you taking pics (almost) anywhere in the UK on public land.
 
parish said:
Sorry to drag up an old thread - although the subject is still topical - but I've just received a written reply from my MP (who, it turns out, is Shadow Defence Minister) ....saying that he won't support the EDM because it is critical of the Police :bang:

Dr. Murrison should be aware come election time that I have a long memory :lol:

mp_letter.jpg
Click to expand...

I don't see where it says he won't sign it because it is critical of the police. :thinking: It states that the EDM IS critical of the police, but not that that is the reason he is not signing it. He then goes on to reiterate the law regarding photography and is basically not signing it as there is no reason to change the law as it exists. The problem is a minority of officials' interpretation of that law, mostly by ill informed security guards and a small number of PCSOs. FWIW I think he's right. :rules:
 
fabs said:
I don't see where it says he won't sign it because it is critical of the police. :thinking: It states that the EDM IS critical of the police, but not that that is the reason he is not signing it.
Click to expand...

True, but since he specifically mentions the Police in the same sentence in which he says he won't sign suggests that that is his reason - else why mentio it?

fabs said:
He then goes on to reiterate the law regarding photography and is basically not signing it as there is no reason to change the law as it exists. The problem is a minority of officials' interpretation of that law, mostly by ill informed security guards and a small number of PCSOs. FWIW I think he's right. :rules:
Click to expand...

The EDM doesn't seek to change the law, it wants the Govt. to issue guidelines to the Police etc. clarifying the existing law...

EDM 1155 said:
...urges the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers to agree on a photography code for the information of officers on the ground, setting out the public's right to photograph public places thus allowing photographers to enjoy their hobby without officious interference or unjustified suspicion.
Click to expand...
 
awp said:
None of this is new - you haven't been allowed to take pics in a shopping centre in 30 years without permission. However there is nothing to stop you taking pics (almost) anywhere in the UK on public land.
Click to expand...

We know that;the problem is that there is an increasing incidence of Police and other "officials" trying to stop people taking photos on public land, using the blanket excuses of terrorism, paedos, and even the Data Protection Act :bang:

That is what this thread - and Austin Mitchell's EDM - is all about.
 
Yes i have got round that by taking Crap photo's which are of no use to anyone but me :)

Regards Mark, the modern day trouble causer.:razz:
 
parish said:
True, but since he specifically mentions the Police in the same sentence in which he says he won't sign suggests that that is his reason - else why mentio it?
Click to expand...

Why he mentioned it I wouldn't know, but I still wouldn't assume that it was his reason for not signing the EDM

parish said:
The EDM doesn't seek to change the law, it wants the Govt. to issue guidelines to the Police etc. clarifying the existing law...
Click to expand...

I stand corrected on that point, but I don't think issuing guidelines will change anything. The law is the law and if those who interpret it wrongly are given guidelines they will probably just interpret those wrongly as well. I stand by what I said in that it is mostly caused by ignorant security guards, so government guidelines to police will do nothing to rectify the issue
 
fabs said:
I don't think issuing guidelines will change anything. The law is the law and if those who interpret it wrongly are given guidelines they will probably just interpret those wrongly as well. I stand by what I said in that it is mostly caused by ignorant security guards, so government guidelines to police will do nothing to rectify the issue
Click to expand...
That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter. I've heard plenty of stories of security guards (and Police) doing things that completely contradict their training and the laws that they (of all people) should be abiding. And this is before you introduce photography into the equation. In most cases the majority of the applicable law is stated in black and white, but it is either ignored or misinterpreted. Or the officials in question just assume we all suffer from the unfortunate combination of ignorance and a willingness to comply with any request.
 
I am trying to think at what point they would steam in and arrest you:rules:, say 2 of you go down to a military base one with a point and shoot and one with a DSLR- with zoom fitted and see who gets arrested first:), Good Game,Good Game :) and if you manage to get a shot of being arrested :bat:you get the Brucey bonus as well.< cold shower in the cells

See which one they consider to be the biggest threat

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