Over cautious or justified security?

[UncappedTag]

Was taking my usual jaunt through Liverpool St Station this morning on my way to work. Notice a dude on the middle raised walkway by train departure board with a tripod and camera. Noticed his flash go off and then within seconds this dude was surrounded by police and station staff. Considering that the station has recently been broadly publicised as part of a mobile phone campaign, why is it an issue to take photographs? Not as if what he was photographing something which has not already been broadcast to millions on TV.

Seems somewhat daft, as I'm sure Kings Cross International with its Champagne bar gets photographed regularly by tourists, the same as I would imagine Grand Central Station in NY. The embarrassment of unknowingly photographing something then being surrounded by cops just seems farcical IMO as a regular photographer myself.

[andy400]

2009: Trainspotting becomes extreme sport.

[SS HSV]

You don't know what he was photographing. Could be a pedo? After all the security centre would be watching him on the cctv and the rozzers would have made their move after they had sufficient information for them to proceed.

[hugo a gogo]

high security innit

it's not like I could get millions of pics, plans, layout etc of Liverpool st station just by googling it

[him_over_there]

I haven't seen any reports from any sources that suggest terrorists use photography to form reconnaissance on potential targets. Also, as far as I am aware, taking photos in public is completely legal.

I hope he told the security to sod off.

I may be in the minority here, but seeing security and police crowd a photographer wouldn't make me feel any safer at all!

Edited by him_over_there on Tuesday 17th March 12:07

[cazzer]

SS HSV said:

You don't know what he was photographing. Could be a pedo? .

Riiiiiiight.....they're everywhere you know....there's faaaaasands of em.

[tonyvid]

Aside from any security issue...

It probably isn't public property and lots of London is very strict about putting up tripods without a pass.

[Distant]

him_over_there said:

I haven't seen any reports from any sources that suggest terrorists use photography to form reconnaissance on potential targets. Also, as far as I am aware, taking photos in public is completely legal.

I hope he told the security to sod off.

I may be in the minority here, but seeing security and police crowd a photographer wouldn't make me feel any safer at all!

Edited by him_over_there on Tuesday 17th March 12:07

Ah, but isn't a station private property? I got a asked to refrain from taking pictures in a shopping centre once. I don't agree with it but it is down to the person that owns the land, and that's that.

OP, you've got no idea what happened in the run up to this guy being questioned. Could be anything.

[Mattygooner]

Liverpool street is hardly picturesque is it? I go through there every morning, except the occasional lady, nothing is worth the battery power.

[Oakey]

SS HSV said:

You don't know what he was photographing. Could be a pedo?

It's comments like that that are contributing to the downfall of this country. I have a Canon 20D and a tripod, I guess I'm a pedo too? And we should just change the title of the Photography and Video forum to "Paedo Forum" I guess?

[gingerpaul]

cazzer said:

SS HSV said:

You don't know what he was photographing. Could be a pedo? .

Riiiiiiight.....they're everywhere you know....there's faaaaasands of em.

Even if he was it's not in itself illegal to take pictures of children in a public place.* I suppose the private property and not having permission argument was used here. It does seem to be a law that is only applied to people with "proper" cameras though.

• Just edited to add that I do not condone paedophilia before someone calls me one.

Edited by gingerpaul on Tuesday 17th March 12:19

[UncappedTag]

Distant said:

him_over_there said:

I haven't seen any reports from any sources that suggest terrorists use photography to form reconnaissance on potential targets. Also, as far as I am aware, taking photos in public is completely legal.

I hope he told the security to sod off.

I may be in the minority here, but seeing security and police crowd a photographer wouldn't make me feel any safer at all!

Edited by him_over_there on Tuesday 17th March 12:07

Ah, but isn't a station private property? I got a asked to refrain from taking pictures in a shopping centre once. I don't agree with it but it is down to the person that owns the land, and that's that.

OP, you've got no idea what happened in the run up to this guy being questioned. Could be anything.

nah just saw dude come in with a camera and one of those single legged tripods. Take a pic looking todwards the east side, then swamped with police. No idea what the outcome was.

Edited by UncappedTag on Tuesday 17th March 12:21

[AlexKP]

BAHN-STORMA said:

him_over_there said:

taking photos in public is completely legal.

The station isn't a public place.

That's correct. I have always had to gain permission to film at railway stations in the past.

Same goes for shopping centres etc.

[smifffymoto]

Doesn't the rail infrastruture belong to Network rail(an arm of the governmeent)if so what is the ruling about open public spaces(run by councils or the crown).I may be wrong(probably am) but all space is "owned" by some one or some entity(not extra terrestrial)

[theaxe]

Isn't taking a picture of the police now illegal? Perhaps that's it.

Personally I think we should all be encouraged to film/take pictures of the police to show confidence in their standards...

[Mattygooner]

But apparently it is ok to take pictures of our soldiers......

There is protocol, he obviously did not observe it.

[gingerpaul]

theaxe said:

Isn't taking a picture of the police now illegal? Perhaps that's it.

Personally I think we should all be encouraged to film/take pictures of the police to show confidence in their standards...

It should only be illegal if it could be of use to terrorists I think, although I can't remember the exact wording. It has been reported that some police have abused this law already though.

The stupid thing is that if a terrorist attack did happen then one of the first things to happen would be the police appealing for anyone who had taken any pictures of the area beforehand to get in touch so that their pictures could be used as evidence.

[theaxe]

Indeed, I don't know the details but it sounds silly.

I can't see what info a photo/video gives of policing that couldn't be captured by observation or online resources.

[AndrewW-G]

hehehehehe doesnt Winky Mcfknut know about google earth?

[Bing o]

UncappedTag said:

Was taking my usual jaunt through Liverpool St Station this morning on my way to work. Notice a dude on the middle raised walkway by train departure board with a tripod and camera. Noticed his flash go off and then within seconds this dude was surrounded by police and station staff. Considering that the station has recently been broadly publicised as part of a mobile phone campaign, why is it an issue to take photographs? Not as if what he was photographing something which has not already been broadcast to millions on TV.

Seems somewhat daft, as I'm sure Kings Cross International with its Champagne bar gets photographed regularly by tourists, the same as I would imagine Grand Central Station in NY. The embarrassment of unknowingly photographing something then being surrounded by cops just seems farcical IMO as a regular photographer myself.

I must have been about 20 seconds behind you - I even muttered "fascist s" as I walked by the coppers.

He had two cameras, one on a tripod and a smaller one that the police were asking him to show them photographs on.

I hate what this country is becoming.