Petition

[DaveNewcastle]

It's an emotive, but highly subjective topic for debate, which I'm sure will have been mentioned on the forum previously.

It certainly has been. Often.
But usually in this forum's Photography Advice & Discussion sub-forum.
There's even some long standing 'sticky' threads about 'rights' and challenges to photographers.

There is a lot of debate, informed and opinionated in there which might be helpful (particularly if you can mentally separate the informed and opinionated posts!).

I strongly suggest that you, 465fan, the OP, have a look through there.
It will also keep the rest of the forum free of photographers' complaints about their experiences on the railways.

 

[34D]

This works both way with the OP to be honest this video was taken off his site and it seems that the behavior on this clip would bring the attention of railway staff to ask for thees people to move on, after seeing this I shall not be signing any petition, one running on the platform and another over the yellow line with a train approaching - breach of safety I would say - 465fan if you are going to complain and ask for peoples assistance on an open forum you really should not be posting this material on your site :roll::roll:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfiCCzTNCt8&list=UUdTkIsfn5zVaRm-Mf_4i4yQ&index=6&feature=plcp

Hmm. I also see that the OP's facebook gives his job as 'media' and employer as 'ATOS' (provider of various IT services to the rail industry), so surely this crosses the line to someone who needs to sign in at a station, especially with a "long lens" as distinct to taking a quick picture on an iPhone.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Hmm. I also see that the OP's facebook gives his job as 'media' and employer as 'ATOS' (provider of various IT services to the rail industry), . . . .

Oh, no! Not those numpties whose ability to manage a retailling system is so poor that they'd rather concentrate on a smoke-and-mirrors attempt to re-describe history and to conceal their errors rather than to concentrate on the facts and get on with doing a good job properly? (Never mind excellence. Just doing it properly will do. Its only train tickets!)

I think I can see a parallel with this 'photography' thread and ATOS s.a.'s rail services. Its as depressing to learn what ordinary passengers on the UK rail network are up against every day as it is to hear about amateur video makers' experiences when faced with the real world of live railway working.

Anyway, isn't ATOS s.a.'s new toy the London Olympic ticketing? We shouldn't expect them to bothered with their old toy any more.

I really cannot believe that there is such a critical shortage of SQL programmers in the UK to do the job properly, though ATOS s.a. does seem to be advertising for software testers at present (perhaps that's a long overdue admission that their staff do make mistakes. Just like the rest of us?). But as they appear not to reply to passengers tellong them about their errors then we can draw our own conclusions about their interest in doing a job well, and again I wonder if the OP of this thread has that same attitude towards compliance with the right and proper standards.

 

[sheff1]

Technically, Condition 49a (NRCoC) can prohibit you taking a camera upon the railway. This one can be used to prohibit taking pictures of staff who do not wish to be filmed/photographed as you then becoming a nuisance IN THEIR OPINION.

Condition 49 concerns the acceptance, or otherwise, of luggage or articles. As a camera does not fit the definition of either luggage or articles in the NRCoC I do not see the connection.

Even if a camera did count as 'luggage' or 'an article', condition 49 relates to carriage of luggage/articles on trains, and the nuisance referred to relates to the said carriage. Again, I cannot see the connection with taking photos at a station.

 

[First class]

Condition 49 concerns the acceptance, or otherwise, of luggage or articles. As a camera does not fit the definition of either luggage or articles in the NRCoC I do not see the connection.

Even if a camera did count as 'luggage' or 'an article', condition 49 relates to carriage of luggage/articles on trains, and the nuisance referred to relates to the said carriage. Again, I cannot see the connection with taking photos at a station.

It certainly does fit! It is evidently an "article". It doesn't say anything about a carriage either. Condition 46 applies to a carriage, not 49.

Any Train Company may (notwithstanding the terms set out in Conditions 46 to 48 and
Appendix B) refuse to accept an item of luggage, an article, an animal or a cycle if, in the
opinion of its staff:

(a) “Articles” means boxes, packets, packages, toys, unpacked clothing,
umbrellas, sports equipment, musical instruments, wheelchairs and other
such items not classed as luggage but excludes cycles;

If an umbrella or toy is an article, a camera certainly is.

(a) it may cause injury, inconvenience or a nuisance or it may cause damage to
property

 

[sheff1]

It doesn't say anything about a carriage either. Condition 46 applies to a carriage, not 49.

It is nothing to do with 'a carriage'. It is all about 'carriage' - as in National Rail Conditions of Carriage.

Section II, which includes Conditions 46 - 51, concerns Conditions of Carriage for Luggage, Articles, Animals and Cycles.

If an umbrella or toy is an article, a camera certainly is.

Not in my view. But as I said above, even if it is, Section II of the NRCoC has no relevance to the taking photos at stations.

 

[First class]

It is nothing to do with 'a carriage'. It is all about 'carriage' - as in National Rail Conditions of Carriage.

Section II, which includes Conditions 46 - 51, concerns Conditions of Carriage for Luggage, Articles, Animals and Cycles.




Not in my view. But as I said above, even if it is, the NRCoC have no relevance to taking photos at stations.

NRCoC doesn't just apply to train carriages.

Section 53 and 58 proves that it can also apply to railway "premises". Section 61 applies to car parks etc...

Either way, the Byelaws can be used to prohibit it if required.

 

[sheff1]

NRCoC doesn't just apply to train carriages.

Section 53 and 58 proves that it can also apply to railway "premises". Section 61 applies to car parks etc...

Either way, the Byelaws can be used to prohibit it if required.

Condition 53 is in Section III - Conditions Relating to Lost Property, so is not relevant to the matter at hand. Nothing has been lost.

Condition 58 may indeed be relevant, but on a standalone basis. There is no linkage with the 'carriage' conditions in Section II.

Condition 61 refers the reader to separate conditions and has nothing to do with luggage, articles etc.

Of course the Byelaws can be used, if necessary.

 

[Michael.Y]

Technically, Condition 49a (NRCoC) can prohibit you taking a camera upon the railway. This one can be used to prohibit taking pictures of staff who do not wish to be filmed/photographed as you then becoming a nuisance IN THEIR OPINION. This would then most likely cause them to invoke Section 58 NRCoC.

I've had a couple of people take photos of me while I've been trolleying. Mostly giggly teenagers with smartphones taking the ****. Now I'm not averse to someone taking a pic of me serving tea and coffee if they really want to, but I AM averse to that pic being uploaded to Failbook or something similar as is the fashion amongst kids nowadays. As railway staff, to a passenger, can I legally ask them to delete the picture from their phone and/or request the guard to act by proxy and enforce any such conditions in the Byelaws / Conditions of Carriage?

 

[First class]

I've had a couple of people take photos of me while I've been trolleying. Mostly giggly teenagers with smartphones taking the ****. Now I'm not averse to someone taking a pic of me serving tea and coffee if they really want to, but I AM averse to that pic being uploaded to Failbook or something similar as is the fashion amongst kids nowadays. As railway staff, to a passenger, can I legally ask them to delete the picture from their phone and/or request the guard to act by proxy and enforce any such conditions in the Byelaws / Conditions of Carriage?

If you are employed by, or on behalf of the railway, and feel offended by their actions or believe they are causing a nuisance, you can deal with it yourself if you feel comfortable. You can't force them to delete it, but you can:

1) Eject them from the train/station (Condition 58 NRCoC)
2) Have them prosecuted under Byelaw 6(8) by calling a PACE trained member of staff or BTP
3) If you believe they are acting in an unsafe manner, you should tell them to stop. If they do not comply with that, a Byelaw offence is committed.
4) You can request they delete it. If they don't then you can't physically make them, but you could then apply the above, (tell them if they don't then they will be leaving the train at the next stop) if you feel they have caused nuisance or caused you or others to feel intimidated/offended etc.

Section 5 Public Order Act 1986 is also relevant. You could easily become/feel distressed or threatened by somebody taking pictures of you and laughing, especially if you have asked them not to. An £80 fixed penalty notice for disorder could be used as a disposal method. Pictures still wouldn't get deleted though, although could be seized by the police as evidence of the offence.

 

[the sniper]

2) Have them prosecuted under Byelaw 6(8) by calling a PACE trained member of staff or BTP

I wonder if a case like that has ever got through to the Magistrates. It'd be harsh (and unfair) in most cases, but I've long thought situations like that fit the wording of the byelaw. I can see the removal provision being used more readily, fairly or not...

3) If you believe they are acting in an unsafe manner, you should tell them to stop. If they do not comply with that, a Byelaw offence is committed.

What would be the 'unsafe manner' aspect?

Section 5 Public Order Act 1986 is also relevant. You could easily become/feel distressed or threatened by somebody taking pictures of you and laughing, especially if you have asked them not to. An £80 fixed penalty notice for disorder could be used as a disposal method. Pictures still wouldn't get deleted though, although could be seized by the police as evidence of the offence.

Bit of a stretch that, would you really call it threatening, abusive, insulting or disorderly behaviour? Depends on the specifics of the incident and people involved, but I doubt you'd get it to stick in many circumstances.

On the OP, I doubt you could expect the security guard to be aware of the risk that the camera would be damaged to prove the reckless element, though it would depend on the extent of the force used with the walkie talkie.

In the other incident you might have a case for Battery, though it'd would depend on whether he was acting with the lawful authority of the byelaws.

 

[First class]

What would be the 'unsafe manner' aspect?

As I said, depends on the circumstances, but climbing on seats etc to take the picture/obstructing aisles and such like would be "unsafe".

On another note, other legislation I forgot exists at specific stations around the UK. For example, all photography at Stanlow & Thornton station is prohibited, regardless of what your doing it for. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a Sellafield Nuclear Byelaw/Law or similar which could also prohibit photography there, too.

The station is within the complex (although the irony of a picture of the prohibition sign is amusing):

 

[Fare-Cop]

This works both way with the OP to be honest this video was taken off his site and it seems that the behavior on this clip would bring the attention of railway staff to ask for thees people to move on, after seeing this I shall not be signing any petition, one running on the platform and another over the yellow line with a train approaching - breach of safety I would say - 465fan if you are going to complain and ask for peoples assistance on an open forum you really should not be posting this material on your site :roll::roll:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfiCCzTNCt8&list=UUdTkIsfn5zVaRm-Mf_4i4yQ&index=6&feature=plcp

Yes, I agree and having viewed the link you provide, I wouldn't sign any petition either.

Commonsense should dictate behaviour on both sides of the argument, but as we live in the real world I guess that's pretty unlikely

 

[ralphchadkirk]

There's still 99,829 signatures to get. I doubt it will happen.

 

[Greeny]

I see this thread has become vastly off course.

Isn’t that just true!

I think the way you were treated was disgraceful. Personally (and whilst no expert) I’d have thought that the individual damaging your camera in the way you describe would put you in fear of immediate violence. A Copper wouldn’t do it so a Staff member certainly shouldn’t - unless you were about to hit him with the camera and I doubt you were going to do that, and so far in this thread I have seen nothing else from anybody that would justify his actions.

Unfortunately, the old terrorist argument can be dragged into any situation. The result of which is ever more obnoxious little Hitler’s hiding behind their ‘duty’ or 'the law’ to perform, and behave in the manner you describe and there is no shortage of nutters supporting them. We used to call them ‘Platform Admirals’ at Liverpool.

If you were deliberately photographing individuals against their wishes, or in violation of a legitimate instruction not to do it, then that is a different matter. However, what you describe was not the case.

Good luck with your complaint.

G

 

[Muzer]

Unfortunately, the old terrorist argument can be dragged into any situation. The result of which is ever more obnoxious little Hitler’s hiding behind their ‘duty’ or 'the law’ to perform, and behave in the manner you describe and there is no shortage of nutters supporting them. We used to call them ‘Platform Admirals’ at Liverpool.

Wow, I never thought I'd see Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies demonstrated so elegantly.

 

[Greeny]

Well, it was either Hitler or Stalin - Hitler was the easy option!.

 

[OuterDistant]

Between this, Road Rage in Bath, terrorist panic, over zealous officials, ill-informed police officers and countless other belligerents in the War on Photography, maybe it's just easier if I take a bloody spy camera around with me instead of an SLR

 

[Metroland]

Back in the BR days managers used to get quite involved with model railways, and would provide liveries to the manufacturers and use of logos. If you look at film from the 1950s and 1960s, platforms were thronging with enthusiasts with many taking pictures. How times have changed..

The over-zealous application of anti-terrorist laws makes a fool out of the railways. A terrorist would never appear on a platform with a long-lens SLR camera. Most of the information is available on-line, indeed on the National Rail Enquiries site there are plans of all the stations. This is without Google Earth, many published books and guides on and off line.

If anyone did need to go 'on site' they would use concealed cameras or at the very most cameras built into mobile phones, which these days are good enough for HD video. As virtually all of us carry around mobile phones, what's next confiscate all phones from everyone before they board trains? Unlikely, as the railway knows its customers would disappear overnight...

Friends of mine were stopped at Nottingham Trent station recently and were nearly asked to leave the station because a security guard thought they were trying to take pictures of a signal gantry with a cheap consumer camera. Probably ignorant of the fact, you can download a simulator with all the signals on it, quite freely for free.

And what's the chance of getting killed in a Terrorist incident anyway? For the average person next to nill, you have more chance of being run-down walking to the station.

As with all these things, the authorities should be looking at 'risk' rather than introducing draconian laws.

While I quite understand the limitations of photography on private property (although of-course you are quite free to take pictures of anyone you want and upload them to the internet without their permission, or photos of private property from a public place) one advantage of the Nationalised railway was because it was effectively 'publicly owned' station staff were more realistic and friendly to observers as long as they didn't cause a problem.

I puzzle to think what the railways gain from alienating enthusiasts on the privatised railway, who we are told are so-much more 'public friendly' than any nationalised monolithic organisation.

 

[Wath Yard]

Nobody can stop a person taking a camera onto a platform or train. Nobody, without a court order, can force anybody to delete a photograph. Ths subject of a photograph does not have to give their permission for the photograph to be taken. Photography on stations or trains is perfectly legal and requires the permission of nobody unless it is for commercial use.

Randomly quoting byelaws, often out of context, proves nothing at all.

 

[the sniper]

Too be fair, I don't think there are that many problems nowadays, certainly not as many as there were a few years ago. Many problems now seem to be tied to the proliferation of private security guards being used by TOCs.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

I always find it strange that security staff are on hand to dictate to harmless individuals taking the odd picture yet when someone is having the living crap beaten out of them by thugs, being mugged, stabbed etc etc they are nowhere to be seen.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

If anyone did need to go 'on site' they would use concealed cameras or at the very most cameras built into mobile phones, which these days are good enough for HD video. As virtually all of us carry around mobile phones, what's next confiscate all phones from everyone before they board trains? Unlikely, as the railway knows its customers would disappear overnight...

Very true, I saw several people at Leeds today looking at their phones in a way in which they could easily have been taking pictures.

Friends of mine were stopped at Nottingham Trent station recently and were nearly asked to leave the station because a security guard thought they were trying to take pictures of a signal gantry with a cheap consumer camera.

I would love to know what the guard thought a terrorist could do with a photo of a signal gantry. Strange how it is never mentioned that none of the recent terrorist attacks on trains have actually involved any photography before-hand, people just got onto the trains carrying explosives.

 

[starrymarkb]

I always find it strange that security staff are on hand to dictate to harmless individuals taking the odd picture yet when someone is having the living crap beaten out of them by thugs, being mugged, stabbed etc etc they are nowhere to be seen.

Probably because when they are polite and courteous to photographers* or intervening/arresting in violent situations that isn't newsworthy so doesn't get reported.

*I was spotted by security at Exeter Airport, and expected to be moved on when the guard's 4x4 came over. Instead the guards informed me of the ETA of the next few flights!

 

[Greeny]

Regarding the original point, the thing which annoys me most is that if the puffed up little Hitlers’ (sorry Muzer) swanning (or should I say goose-stepping) round picking on photographers genuinely suspected terrorism you wouldn’t see them for dust – they’d pee themselves and call the Police. Or as another poster has said, someone being attacked, and they wouldn't want to know.

G

 

[Trog]

Nobody can stop a person taking a camera onto a platform or train.

Railway stations are private property so you and your camera can always be asked to leave.

 

[northwichcat]

Technically, Condition 49a (NRCoC) can prohibit you taking a camera upon the railway. This one can be used to prohibit taking pictures of staff who do not wish to be filmed/photographed as you then becoming a nuisance IN THEIR OPINION. This would then most likely cause them to invoke Section 58 NRCoC.

Condition 49a refers luggage being refused and states "This Condition applies from the start of your journey and also if you need to change trains."

NRCoC states at the very beginning that the contract is made when a ticket is purchased. So if said user isn't travelling and hasn't been sold a platform ticket to take photos then no contract exists so the user only has to comply with the law. However, as no contract exists they can also be asked to leave the premises without reason.

 

[Wath Yard]

Yes a person and their camera can be asked to leave, but the point a certain person on here was making was that staff could prevent cameras being taken onto platforms or trains - no they can't. A person without a camera can also be asked to leave.

Smoking is prohibited on stations, unlike photography, but it is not illegal to take cigarettes onto a railway station. In fact you can purchase them on the platform at many stations.

 

[TDK]

To stop all this arguing and second guessing why do NR not just ban all photograhy from plaforms and have the stations for the travelling public as designed - this will avoid any claims and also save money on security!

 

[Wath Yard]

Why should Network Rail ban all photography, because a few railway staff don't like it?

So security staff at stations is just to stop spotters taking photos of trains?