Anyone going tomorrow?

clicky

Yes.I'll be there.This used to be considered the most free country in the world!!

Last night I was at Macdonalds at Waterloo Station getting a fishburger and it was all kicking off because a guy had been photographing the staff and counter there. The manager tried to take his camera off of him and the photographer and manager got into a tussle which ended in the police arriving.

Manager was adamant that the police should delete this guys pictures, guy was adamant the police should arrest the manager for assult.

Fishburger was nice, on the plus side.

joolsburger – where was the photographer? Was he on public property or within the restaurant (word used loosely!). Makes a difference on the outcome ……

Dosniner – glad to hear it. You'll probably recognise me. I'll be the one with the camera.

So what about all the tourists that come to this country with camera's taking pics of everything (just walk down through the city of Bath in summer and you will know what I mean)
Do they get their camera's confiscated ?????

would not be good for the tourist indistry

Ha!
I've just spotted my first terrorist.
Someone who openly admits to eating at Mc's and thinks the food is nice.
Must be a terrorist as no one who grew up in the West ever eats at McD's!
Shoot her (they can't confiscate either the camera nor the digital image under section 44. They can under section 43 though).

I though, (could be wrong here, please correct me if you do know) that if you have permission to be on private property,(is a shop opening its doors to the public permission?), you can take photographs, as long as the owner has not put restrictions on photography, which they can do if they wish, such as Art galleries and Museums do sometimes?

errr does that make seance?

So the MacDonald's case would be the owner could object to photographs being taken and the photographer could be asked to leave, which I guess if he did not could be classed as trespass?

Heck, I don't have a clue here? Please someone help me out 😉

Singlecrack – tourists are indeed being stopped under this misue of Section 44 – a father and son (IIRC) who were 'bus nuts' were shipped off for photographing a bus garage. There are many other examples …..

Ski – it is indeed down to the landowner and shopping malls etc., have it written into their 'permissions of use'. If the landowner asks you to stop and leave you have to stop and leave. However, the landowner has no right to you deleting the pics – nor do the police. They can be used to prove your guilt if you are found to be a terrorist (so no point in anyone insisting you delete the images).

It's a minefield!

Its like a contradiction state

'THEY' can watch our every move via cctv and photos but when we try and use our cameras for our pleasure 'THEY' come down on us

wish I could come and support but have other thing planned

and the Police appeal for photos and video from the public to assist them after there has been a incident.

The terrorists must have seen Google Street View by now and have realised that there is no need to go there themselves!

working, otherwise I'd be there… have been hassled by security gomers at Canary Wharf quite a few times, little men with a little power…

He was in the restaurant but Waterloo Mcdonalds is a walk through no doors or roof!

The police said that they would not confiscate his camera and were trying to calm everyone down.

If I wasn't so far away I'd be there.

The way this country is going on legislation like that properly frightens me. Do the powers to be not realise that any building in the country that could be a potential bomb target probably already has hundreds of photos floating around on the internet that johnny terrorist could quite happily browse within his cave.

If I was a terrorist I'd hire one those brilliant kids autistic kids who just need to look at something once then can almost perfectly redraw with they've seen. Send em on a stroll, when they return draw up the pictures then make you plan.

George W said he was going to have a "war on tourists" I think. The easiest way to identify them is by their cameras.

All a bit pointless given the current advice to police…

I'm a terrorist, not a photographer.
So, where are we meeting tomorrow 😀

Joking apart – was part of a big photog seminar last week – did a days training shooting around some key landmarks – given this current silliness I was very, very surprised that the 40 odd of us that rocked up with cameras by Tower Bridge, London Eye and National Portrait Gallery did not get an ounce of questioning – well, only outside the NPG where Boris' Wardens advised us to 'git orf his land…' whilst the Wardens at the top of the steps that lead off Trafalgar Square, up to the NPG (you'd have thought it was all the same space but no, different land owners….) could not have been more helpful ……… It's a funny old world….

I'm going in a burqua.

Yeah I'm going.

**** police state innit.

marsdenman – Member
I'm a te****st, not a photographer.

I'm not sure I would have posted that on a public forum. What with the security level just having gone to amber.

at Macdonalds ……….a guy had been photographing the staff and counter

What sort of weirdo does that ? I reckon the geezer should have been arrested for being a nutter………or sumfink.

I agree with the Filet-O-Fish comment though…………had one last Sunday 8)

I'm all too aware of the potential hassles that come with taking photographs, from innocently posting party pics of cross dressing teachers on facebook to wildlife and landscapes

Back in November i was spending a considerable time on the hills, during the deer rutt, during this time i saw a few 4×4 drivers in the dark, so took pics of there vehicles and notified the rangers(wardens) as it's illegal to drive up there without permission…

A couple of months ago i had a visit from two very large men asking for me by name, were very informal and knew what car i had and that it wasn't there(i was out) they returned on another evening i was out and threatened a few neighbours who questioned their presence in the area(private land).

I quizzed myself to try and work out whom they were, not baliffs, angry husbands, etc…….

So carrying on as normal i continued my life, however i began suspecting everyone i met.. then i recalled the time on the hills when i suspected that a 4×4 was up there not just for recreational purposes..it was being driven exceptionally slow and part way along the ridge it stopped, lights off and for a moment nothing…then a spot light beamed across the heath to the right and went out…the head lights came back on and the vehicle passed me by, i grabbed a photo but it was too far away for the flash to pick out the number plate…..i walked back to my car, and seemed to recollect a vehicle being back at the cp, did it follow me home i thought…..

So i believe whilst innocently taking pics of deer and preventing illegal activities on the hills, attempts to warn me off were made….Luckily i know a few useful people and have seen or heard from them again..

So! it's not just the government you need to beware of..it's a world of distrust and dishonestly..snap away but snap smart!

The police didn't care when i took these…which lead to arrest, prosecution and a weak sentence.

They got prosecuted for spewing up their McShakes?

lol, no this was a day after someone posted on here their bike was part nicked(front end).

I clocked the nicked parts on that bike and recognised the thieves coat and ruck sack from the one in the private cctv pic in the OP.

Take the pics to the law and post them on here, someone working the surveillance cams in the town see's the images on here so looks out for he bike the next day, see's it and thief gets arrested….

Nearly as exciting as the way jedi got his nicked bike back.

For what it is worth there seems to be at the moment a very high possability of another attack in the capital very soon.

i suppose they are worried of these people taking pics of future targets
or to and where to place the bombs.
Crap in some ways I know has this new photo law.
They just dont know how to impliment it and when to inforce it.

I don't remember any nonsense about banning photography when we had proper terrorists in the 70s and 80s. Why on earth would a terrorist need to photograph a building or station anyway? Is there any evidence that they have?

Wonder when the nice people of Google and Wikipedia along with the Google car drivers,doing streetview are going to be arrested for supplying information that may be of use to normal peace keeping people.

So did anyone go from here?

Telegraph blog of the event:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/kateday/100006352/photographers-protest-against-police-use-of-anti-terror-laws/

Yeah I went. Good turn out. At least 2000 people there.

Few pics here

Nice b&w pics, real news reportage stylee. Yet to be confronted for taking photos anywhere other than at some concerts, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time. At which time I'll point the clot in question in the direction of the Home Office and Google StreetView and Maps.

marsdenman – Member
I'm a te****st, not a photographer.

I'm not sure I would have posted that on a public forum. What with the security level just having gone to amber.

LOL – won't sleep tonight – worried I might be subject to an Extraordinary Rendition – dragged back over the hill to Lancashire…… 😉

GingaNinja – nice shots – your second pic is on the steps I referred to in my original post….

i suppose they are worried of these people taking pics of future targets

Yep, any self-respecting and conscientious terrorist, likes to take before and after pics for their portfolio.

And one of the reasons why there have been no further attacks since 7/7, is that the authorities have successfully frustrated all attempts by potential terrorists to take photographs of double-decker buses and underground stations.

Take away their cameras/fancy mobile phones ……… and Al-Qaeda are well and truly buggered.

We will always be one step ahead of Al-Qaeda – don't worry about that.

Unless of course ………………. they can figure out how to take photos whilst no one's looking 😐

Unless of course ………………. they can figure out how to take photos whilst no one's looking

nothing to it ernie – just need to spend time as a 'reportage style' wedding photographer 😉

Slightly amusing but Labour are asking for photos of public buildings

http://www.labour.org.uk/change-we-see

Why have labour come over all Yoda-esque?

Wonder when the nice people of Google and Wikipedia along with the Google car drivers,doing streetview are going to be arrested for supplying information that may be of use to normal peace keeping people.

I never really understood why taking pictures was such a big deal when you could view very detailed photos in the comfort of your own home using streetview – especially in London, which seems to have nearly 100% coverage.

Has anyone in authority explained why one is OK and the other isn't – seems bizare.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/21/photographer-films-anti-terror-arrest

Now taking photographs in public constitutes anti-social behaviour…

FFS

saw that one woffle, it seems to suggest that the police are a bit thick esp' when it comes to law. which i'd never have guessed.

The manager tried to take his camera off of him and the photographer and manager got into a tussle which ended in the police arriving.

If someone tried taking my camera off me I'd deck them and then call the police telling them I'd caught a thief.

Why did he not just give them his details if he was so innocent, and then he could have gone home rather than getting locked up..

Oh hang on, he wouldn't have been in the paper then..

Someone give him Max Clifford's number.