Just a quick question about photography.

[bengley]

I was walking down the stairs at Harrow-on-the-Hill this afternoon on my way to St Pancras for a go on the HS1 service.

I had my DSLR around my neck, simply because it's too big to put in my pocket (duh, it's a DSLR).

A station staff member said to me 'You know you're not allowed to take pictures on the Underground?'. This immediately angered me, seeing as I wasn't even planning on taking pictures, I was simply carrying it (with the lens cap on).

I said 'I'm not taking pictures, and even if I was planning on taking any, I am allowed'. He mumbled something about anti-terrorism and I asked him if I look like a terrorist (I'm a caucasian 16-year-old boy). He told me that the police might think so.

I just ignored him and went to catch my train.

I would like to know if he was in the wrong (I'm pretty sure he was, I just want confirmation).

I'm not planning on making a complaint or anything, I'm just curious.

Thanks.

 

[curly42]

You did the right thing - he was wrong.

 

[mumrar]

You were right, there's a lot of this self importance with security staff everywhere, not just public transport. I don't agree, as a lot of people from Omagh wouldn't, that because you're caucasian you are not a terrorist. You should be careful what context you say this in, because although I think it was harmless intent, it's still blatantly racist being in total ignorance of caucasian terrorists the world over.

 

[robert2000]

I would have complained if i was you.

being called a terrorist just because of what you look like.

 

[90019]

being called a terrorist just because of what you look like.

He wasn't.

 

[alexdodds]

The rule if i am right is that you are allowed to take pictures/videos on the underground while passing through the station. flash and tripods is not allowed. if you want to be at a station for more than 10 to 15 minutes then you need a permit.

I dont know if this rule is also used on the DLR

I thought staff were reminded about this in their traffic circulars and their working reference manuals. two times i have been to London and I have had not a single problem on the tube

 

[Daniel]

Being a member of staff I can tell you that that member of staff was incorrect. If you do have any problems whilst you are just passing through a station, remind the staff to check the back page of the latest traffic circular.

-Note: NR staff at Upminster don't have access to the TC's

 

[HSTfan!!!]

I'd only have a word with you if you were causing danger to yourself/other people/were in non public areas. You can take pictures on the tube I'm sure, as long as your not blinding staff with the flash lol - nothing gets my back up more than that.

 

[bengley]

You were right, there's a lot of this self importance with security staff everywhere, not just public transport. I don't agree, as a lot of people from Omagh wouldn't, that because you're caucasian you are not a terrorist. You should be careful what context you say this in, because although I think it was harmless intent, it's still blatantly racist being in total ignorance of caucasian terrorists the world over.

I'm just giving you the information. I'm not saying that all muslims are terrorists, because that is blatantly racist. I'm saying that I'm a caucasian 16-year-old boy.

 

[mumrar]

I asked him if I look like a terrorist (I'm a caucasian 16-year-old boy)

Despite your protestations, there is no way you just coincidently put the section in brackets. If you were just giving us information about your gender, age and ethnic background, you would have put it at the start. As you are only 16, I'm saying it as a word of caution.

 

[GB]

In all honesty Im not sure what the problem is. OK so the member of staff gave you wrong information regarding taking photos on the underground, but seeing as you were displaying a camera around your neck he simply reminded you of what the rules were (as far as he knew). Its not as if he actually told you to "stop taking photos".

As for "I asked him if I look like a terrorist ", he didnt state you were a terrorist and on that note, what does a terrorist look like? Being a young white male doesnt barr you from being one.

 

[bengley]

In all honesty Im not sure what the problem is. OK so the member of staff gave you wrong information regarding taking photos on the underground, but seeing as you were displaying a camera around your neck he simply reminded you of what the rules were (as far as he knew). Its not as if he actually told you to "stop taking photos".

As for "I asked him if I look like a terrorist ", he didnt state you were a terrorist and on that note, what does a terrorist look like? Being a young white male doesnt barr you from being one.

Let's be realistic now, how many young white males have you heard of being terrorists in this country?

 

[GB]

Thats not the point and you know it.

 

[royaloak]

The point is you had a camera round your neck, a member of staff pointed out that photography on the underground can cause problems, you stated "this immediately angered me" so you would have come across as having an attitude.
As for duh its an DSLR, so what, have you heard of rucksacks or camera bags, unless you like being mugged because you are drawing attention to yourself. i am sure we have all got opinions about people that like to show off their nice posh camera when they don't have a chance of using it!
Of course nobody can say anything to you because you know your rights, don't ask me for advise because I know my rights as well and don't have to speak to you.

 

[Ferret]

Royal oak, that's a bit out of order tbh!!! The OP is in the right here!!!!

 

[mumrar]

Hmmm, yes, let's all calm down. The OP was in the right (except maybe for his 'how many young white male terrorist attitude'). So long as his 'anger' didn't spill over in to his response it's up to him what he chooses to do with his camera. As for showing off his fancy camera, perhaps his bag was full, or perhaps he knew he'd be using it soon. Sometimes I have my camera round my neck with no obvoius photo, it's called being prepared.

 

[bengley]

The point is you had a camera round your neck, a member of staff pointed out that photography on the underground can cause problems, you stated "this immediately angered me" so you would have come across as having an attitude.
As for duh its an DSLR, so what, have you heard of rucksacks or camera bags, unless you like being mugged because you are drawing attention to yourself. i am sure we have all got opinions about people that like to show off their nice posh camera when they don't have a chance of using it!
Of course nobody can say anything to you because you know your rights, don't ask me for advise because I know my rights as well and don't have to speak to you.

1. I'm allowed to have a camera around my neck.
2. I didn't want to take my camera bag out, it's massive and the camera isn't that massive.
3. I had no attitude at all, I was just angry. I didn't come across angry, I simply stated my rights. This is beside the point anyway.
4. In that last sentence, you are coming across as quite a nasty person to be honest.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Let's be realistic now, how many young white males have you heard of being terrorists in this country?

I believe the IRA had a lot of white male terrorists.

3. I had no attitude at all, I was just angry. I didn't come across angry, I simply stated my rights. This is beside the point anyway.
4. In that last sentence, you are coming across as quite a nasty person to be honest.

In my book, having an attitude more or less comes with being angry. And you did come across angry. You could have mentioned your rights (which - are not rights, but privilidges given to you by LU as you are on private property) politely, yet you chose not too.

I don't think Royaloak is a nasty person - just correct!

 

[royaloak]

Answering your questions =bengley;384102
1. I'm allowed to have a camera around my neck.
Never said you weren't

2. I didn't want to take my camera bag out, it's massive and the camera isn't that massive.
Get a smaller bag then

3. I had no attitude at all, I was just angry. I didn't come across angry, I simply stated my rights. This is beside the point anyway.
You stated "this angered me immediately, so how could it NOT show or were you looking in a mirror

4. In that last sentence, you are coming across as quite a nasty person to be honest
In your opinion, which doesn't really interest me. I am merely stating I know my rights as well, which apparently makes me a nasty person, so how is it that it doesn't work that way for you, I am just curious how many you actually know, and how many you think you know.

 

[Ferret]

Thing is Royal Oak, the flashpoint happened when LUL blokey spotted somebody with a camera round his neck and instantly saw that as a problem. This ties in with the annoyance demonstrated on several threads on several sites including this one - why all of a sudden is even the mere presence of a camera suspicious?! It's a mindset that people have got into and it's completely wrong. What are you saying? That you'd rather we all doffed our cap and bowed down to these clowns? Frankly, these people deserve the derision and ridicule that they are being given on Rail UK, WNXX and in the Guardian newspaper!

You do have one valid point in all this though - I wouldn't be waving a DSLR about in certain locations - the Underground being one due to the unsavoury types that you sometimes come across who may want to pinch it!!!

 

[royaloak]

The trouble is, we don't know how "you can't take photos on the underground" was said, the OP has stated "this angered him" and he said "do I look like a terrorist" so being devils advocate, the first comment was said politely and the OP swung round with an attitude, or the other way, first comment shouted out and OP remained calm. 2 totally different scenarios with the truth somewhere in the middle.
How many times do you see people smoking on platforms even though everyone knows they are not allowed, the OP also said "I know my rights", but that doesn't mean he was going to obey them, the 3 things highlighted show what I think happened but I wasn't there so cannot be sure.
If you were on duty at the barriers and saw some-one with a DSLR around their neck going onto the underground would you "politely" remind them of the issues with photography on the underground or assume they know the rules (and will obey them).

 

[Ferret]

The point is, the rule LUL bloke stated doesn't actually exist, and so *if* the OP got annoyed with him, he has every right to been and every right to ridicule that employee on here. That's the point I believe you've missed....?

 

[royaloak]

So everytime somebody gets it a wrong we can extract the urine, nice!
The point you seem to be missing is we don't know EXACTLY what was said in which way.

 

[bengley]

If it makes it seem more appropriate, I was more upset than angered when he said it. I found it quite insulting.

 

[Ferret]

So everytime somebody gets it a wrong we can extract the urine, nice!
The point you seem to be missing is we don't know EXACTLY what was said in which way.

No, I'm not missing the point at all - I'm choosing to ignore it because it has no relevance whatsoever. It matters not how it was said - the fact is that it was said and the employee was incorrect. Those are the key facts!

To my mind, it's perfectly legitimate to ridicule the LUL employee - we know they get regular briefings on photography courtesy of a post from another LUL employee so there is no excuse. If you fail to read the notices and end up with a complaint against you, then whose fault is that?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I don't think it is legitimate to ridicule someone for making a mistake. If people ridicuked you on the internet every time you got somthing wrong - would you like it?

 

[GB]

Yes the LU employee made a mistake, but he was only reminding the OP of the rules as he understood them.

To immediately get angered at someone purely for that is quite odd. If he would have said "oi stop taking photos" or something similar I would understand a bit more.

Mumrar, you say that having a camera around ones neck can be good preperation and I agree, so is it unreasonable that the LU employee may of thought that the OP was about to take some photos?

 

[royaloak]

Now eagerly waiting for Ferret to post something incorrect so I can extract the urine for a week, as it seems so acceptable to him.
Nice to meet somebody perfect that has never made a mistake or got anything wrong!

 

[Ferret]

Oh good grief, there's making a mistake and then there's negligence. LUL employees are briefed regularly on photography - he's clearly chosen to ignore those briefings. That's not a 'mistake' that anybody could've made, it's negligence.

Now that may come as a painful reality to some of you, but I suggest you deal with it!!!

And another salient point - in life, people who make mistakes do get ridiculed - be it as fuel for messroom laughter or a football referee who makes a bad decision. It's called life....

 

[bengley]

Yes the LU employee made a mistake, but he was only reminding the OP of the rules as he understood them.

To immediately get angered at someone purely for that is quite odd. If he would have said "oi stop taking photos" or something similar I would understand a bit more.

Mumrar, you say that having a camera around ones neck can be good preperation and I agree, so is it unreasonable that the LU employee may of thought that the OP was about to take some photos?

The point is, is that I knew he was wrong.