-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Had problems taking pictures of the railways?
- Thread starter Snapper
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
nedchester
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2008
- Messages
- 2,093
I agree but one would imagine it could rightly be assumed that outside the station environs you are in a public area especially as it is on a main London street (Euston Road)
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
I'd be interested to know where the boundary actually is in relation to the incident, as that would prove whether the CSO's or the photter were in the right or not.
ChrisCooper
Established Member
At the end of the day it all comes down to the same thing. Most people don't mind being questioned when taking photographs, as they are doing nothing wrong so have nothing to hide. They don't mind informing staff if they are going to be there for some time, and most people would do this even if they were not taking photographs all the time (for example if waiting around for a special to come to photograph that). What people object to is being told they can't take photographs, they need permission to take photographs, they have to sign in, they are "acting suspitiously" just by taking photographs or that they are doing something wrong in any way. Many times when people get trouble they are a normal fare paying passenger who has every right to be on the station (and naturally having paid for their journey and with a planned train are not going to be range from irritated to hostile towards being delayed or even threatened with removal from the station). Actually it's interesting that not once have I personally or indirectly known a photographer to be asked if they had a valid ticket.
The issue of photography in public places though, whilst perfectly within rights, has just as many problems. Last trouble I had was whilst photographing a bus depot from the opposite side of the road. One of the drivers who was standing outside shouted over that we should not be taking photographs, and then came over and told us off again. I basically told him I was on public property and could photograph what I wanted, to which he replied about his right not to be photographed, which IIRC lead to a remark about all the CCTV on buses. Naturally he replied along the lines of "well that's your choice to travel on buses" to which he got "well it's your choice to stand smoking in view of a public road". At this point he walked off.
The issue of photography in public places though, whilst perfectly within rights, has just as many problems. Last trouble I had was whilst photographing a bus depot from the opposite side of the road. One of the drivers who was standing outside shouted over that we should not be taking photographs, and then came over and told us off again. I basically told him I was on public property and could photograph what I wanted, to which he replied about his right not to be photographed, which IIRC lead to a remark about all the CCTV on buses. Naturally he replied along the lines of "well that's your choice to travel on buses" to which he got "well it's your choice to stand smoking in view of a public road". At this point he walked off.
Nobody has a right not to be photographed in public. Well, unless they go into their own house and close the curtains and never come out.
I can understand members of the public not knowing the rules, and using 'human rights' or similar to say they have privacy etc - but PCSOs are a law unto themselves. They make up rules, and think that because they have a uniform that looks remarkably similar to that of a police officer, they really are police officers. But, they haven't had the training in law so decide to make things up.
If I had been in that situation, I probably would have been equally sarcastic (but perhaps less rude, especially at the end) as once I lose all respect for someone I do find myself sinking to their level and fighting fire with fire. But, I'd certainly have demanded that they called over a police officer to discuss the law - as they may as well be ordinary members of the public.
They do worry me given that King's Cross is mostly patrolled by PCSOs and if they are so clueless, I doubt there's much chance of them uncovering any terrorist plots in the future. In fact, any terrorist wanting to slip by should just send out a decoy taking photos - and that will have all the PCSOs running over to exert their (non-existent) powers totally oblivious to anything else.
I can understand members of the public not knowing the rules, and using 'human rights' or similar to say they have privacy etc - but PCSOs are a law unto themselves. They make up rules, and think that because they have a uniform that looks remarkably similar to that of a police officer, they really are police officers. But, they haven't had the training in law so decide to make things up.
If I had been in that situation, I probably would have been equally sarcastic (but perhaps less rude, especially at the end) as once I lose all respect for someone I do find myself sinking to their level and fighting fire with fire. But, I'd certainly have demanded that they called over a police officer to discuss the law - as they may as well be ordinary members of the public.
They do worry me given that King's Cross is mostly patrolled by PCSOs and if they are so clueless, I doubt there's much chance of them uncovering any terrorist plots in the future. In fact, any terrorist wanting to slip by should just send out a decoy taking photos - and that will have all the PCSOs running over to exert their (non-existent) powers totally oblivious to anything else.
IanPooleTrains
Established Member
I think you are all going to love this one
Got off at Barking station on Friday to get some vids and snaps and we thought, best to do this the right way and went upstais and asked a gentlemen with the customer service vest on. He looked like he didn't have a clue and told us to go and speak to a oldish lady at a window.
We went over and she said that we had to have permission off of c2c to film there and tld us to go to Fenchurch Street to get permission
Me and me bro did just that, getting a ride on a 357 in the process, and we spoke to the manager there (I think), told him what the situation was and he said that the lady had no right to send us there as filming on Barking station was fine. He was very polite to us, gave us his name so that we could give it to the lady and then headed back to Barking
Got to Barking and we spoke to the lady, telling her that we had spoken to said gentlemen at Fenchurch Street and what he said and she didn't sound best pleased with us but accepted what had been ordered
She then tried to suck up to us while we were filming down one end of the station and she handed us a c2c timetable, a complete underground/network rail map and started to tak to us before she walked off, spoke to one of the underground cleaning staff and then walked off in a bit of a huff
In short, you don't need permission to film at Barking, it's a Network Rail station!
Got off at Barking station on Friday to get some vids and snaps and we thought, best to do this the right way and went upstais and asked a gentlemen with the customer service vest on. He looked like he didn't have a clue and told us to go and speak to a oldish lady at a window.
We went over and she said that we had to have permission off of c2c to film there and tld us to go to Fenchurch Street to get permission
Me and me bro did just that, getting a ride on a 357 in the process, and we spoke to the manager there (I think), told him what the situation was and he said that the lady had no right to send us there as filming on Barking station was fine. He was very polite to us, gave us his name so that we could give it to the lady and then headed back to Barking
Got to Barking and we spoke to the lady, telling her that we had spoken to said gentlemen at Fenchurch Street and what he said and she didn't sound best pleased with us but accepted what had been ordered
She then tried to suck up to us while we were filming down one end of the station and she handed us a c2c timetable, a complete underground/network rail map and started to tak to us before she walked off, spoke to one of the underground cleaning staff and then walked off in a bit of a huff
In short, you don't need permission to film at Barking, it's a Network Rail station!
alexdodds
Member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRVSYRY6rZU&feature=channel_video_title
Another enthusiast getting told you can't film by some LU jobsworth. This time at London Bridge
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Did you not have the guidelines with you.
Another enthusiast getting told you can't film by some LU jobsworth. This time at London Bridge
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Did you not have the guidelines with you.
You may not take a photograph of a policeman and publish it if it would likely be useful to people planning to commit terrrorism.
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
This is ridiculous. Of course you can. If what you are saying is true, then I shall expect the Chief Constable of Surrey to be arrested as I've jut had a leaflet from the local force pushed through my door - and it had a picture of a policeman on it!
See my post above, I did not say it's illegal to photograph a policeman in any circumstances.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/28/section/76
nedchester
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2008
- Messages
- 2,093
I still can't figure out why a photo of a policeman (given they don't exactly remain in one place) is useful for any terrorist.
The police don't even follow set patrol routes, so there's little advantage in setting up a video camera to watch the actions of the police. Security guards in private buildings perhaps, but finding a video of someone who has been filming a building for hours/days may indeed arouse suspicion and give grounds for a court order to view the footage - but taking a picture of a train, or a policeman at a station?
I hope the police in Trafalgar Square don't start arresting tourists asking to have their photo taken with a police officer!
Still, it does seem to me that Zoe has been well taken in by the previous Government's stance on terrorism, fear and keeping us under control. As long as people believe, and even defend, the indefensible then we're all at risk of losing our rights.
The police don't even follow set patrol routes, so there's little advantage in setting up a video camera to watch the actions of the police. Security guards in private buildings perhaps, but finding a video of someone who has been filming a building for hours/days may indeed arouse suspicion and give grounds for a court order to view the footage - but taking a picture of a train, or a policeman at a station?
I hope the police in Trafalgar Square don't start arresting tourists asking to have their photo taken with a police officer!
Still, it does seem to me that Zoe has been well taken in by the previous Government's stance on terrorism, fear and keeping us under control. As long as people believe, and even defend, the indefensible then we're all at risk of losing our rights.
Please read the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008.
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
But you have to prove it.
Surely they (as in the police) have to prove it? Unless we have abandoned the legal principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'?
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
They would have to prove it to get to court in the first place. Reasonable excuse is a defence.
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
The purpose of the bit about photographing police offers is intended to protect officers who may be engaged in undercover work.
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
Hence why the Security Services and the SIS are included.
ChrisCooper
Established Member
That's where a lot of the confusion comes in, from all sides. At what point does a person become an enthusiast, a photographer or is just a general user of the station? What rules or guidelines specifically apply to each of those groups? There are different interpretations. Remember that often the response from staff is that photography is not allowed, full stop. No talk of persmission, no talk of signing in. On countless other occasions staff don't seem interested in photographers at all. I've said before that under the strictest interpretations of the rules or guidelines these staff are negligant and not doing their job correctly. If as some have suggested then photography is not allowed without permission, or poses a real security threat, then why do many staff allow photography without any problems?
anthony263
Established Member
Here in my opinion how not to go photographing trains:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/curly42/5529323102/
That bloke should be standing that close to the line, in my opinion idiots like him are not doing any favours for the rest of us.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/curly42/5529323102/
That bloke should be standing that close to the line, in my opinion idiots like him are not doing any favours for the rest of us.
ChrisCooper
Established Member
I'm not sure, he's on a public foot crossing and in what would be considered a place of safety.
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
He's trespassing.
nedchester
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2008
- Messages
- 2,093
Are you sure about that? He IS on a public foot crossing so surely cannot be trespassing?
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
Nope - this has been covered in detail many times. If you use the crossing for the purpose of crossing then you are not, but however if you loiter on it to take photographs/video etc then you are trespassing. I believe Old Timer posted it originally.
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
Yes, I believe they do.