Stopped, ID'd and verbally cautioned under the Terrorism Act today!

[Parallax]

I read your entire post and here is the problem I see: It is private property. If the owner, personally or through his agent such as a security guard, says no pictures the its no pictures. It is no different tha a guest in your house doing something you don't want them to.

[Dangermouse]

The 7/7 bombers visited London before blowing themselves and innocent bystanders up. We know this because their trip was caught on CCTV. During that trip they took no photographs, and took no more interest in trains or buses than any tourist would.

However, the mass media and government don't really want us to notice that...

[bnishanth]

Originally Posted by Big G

"Well, under <whatever section> of the Terrorist Act I must caution you that this building could be deemed a sensitive subject and as such I'm going to have to ask you not to. I'm also gonna need to see some photo ID and take some details".

That is cr*p...check this Home Office circular

Photography and Counter-Terrorism legislation | Home Office

It is better to have a copy of this handy in such situations. There is an ongoing campaign against such harrassments here --> Not a crime - British Journal of Photography

Cheers
Nish

[séamuis]

sorry mates, but your quickly fading rights are the very reason I will never set foot on UK soil. what you guys are subjected to over there is like a damn prison, and guilty till proven innocent on top of that....

what you guys need is a good old fashioned revolution.

period.

[Peter Zack]

Originally Posted by Damn Brit

I don't see how you've retained your dignity. You stood up for yourself and your rights to a point and then you backed down, that's the way I see it anyway. As you said - "If I had exercised my rights any further, it would have involved an arrest which means I would need to make a complaint for an unlawful arrest or allow it to go to court only for a judge to laugh his ass off and throw it out of court. ". That would have been how you retained your dignity.

You also gave the security guard and the policeman confidence. The next time, they might come down even harder on someone.

Originally Posted by Wheatfield

That was what I thought. When the going gets tough, the semitough bail before they've proven anything.
Personally, I have no problem with a person going out and looking for a confrontation with the authorities over photographer's rights, and I have no problems with a person standing up for their rights in a confrontational manner.
However, you have to carry it through, or whatever stand you are trying to make is wasted, and you have effectively taken one more step to making photography in public illegal.
You should have made them take you away in chains.

I'm in complete agreement. Know your rights in your country for certain and if you decide to stand your ground, then do it full force and not part way. Just gives them more power. Better to have done nothing from the begining than to go half way.

Btw. how is it Google gets away with taking shots of nearly everything in existance and putting map directions to it on the web for Osama and his clan? They don't get much push back at all.

[lithos]

Google has dirt on everybody.

[LensScribe]

Originally Posted by mischivo

My question to the OP: why on earth were you taking photos of an escalator? Boring!

Like Damn Brit, I beg to differ. I think escalators can make for great pictures. I attach a photo as my defense (although in this particular case, I've decided a much tighter, landscape crop just above the central figure works best - just too lazy to try and find that version now).

I suspect security would have hassled me too, had they seen me, but thanks to the use of a 17mm lens, set to hyperfocal and casually held at my side, they didn't even notice I was taking a picture.

Originally Posted by Damn Brit

Not Big G but escalators can be interesting.

Note: I couldn't find ownership of this image to provide a credit.

Reminds me of the cover for Interpol's debut album, Turn on the Bright Lights. Without the red grading of course.

[Wheatfield]

Originally Posted by Parallax

I read your entire post and here is the problem I see: It is private property. If the owner, personally or through his agent such as a security guard, says no pictures the its no pictures. It is no different tha a guest in your house doing something you don't want them to.

You may have read it, but you missed a bit. He did acquiesce to the demand to stop photographing inside the mall, and mentioned in his post that they had the right to tell him to stop because it was on private property.
Unfortunately, they tried to extend their property rights onto a public street.
This is where the landowner's minion overstepped his authority.
As a landowner, your rights end at your property line.

[Parallax]

Originally Posted by Wheatfield

You may have read it, but you missed a bit................

Oops. -----