Golden Wonder ...security ...priceless

[Vultch]

A chap standing in a public area with a camera...worth a watch... and a boycott of their products

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=hcy8hBfEdds

[frontman]

Great stuff, nobody seems to realise that without the reaction there would never been a reason to post it!

[MWS]

The answer to the age old question of "Who put the c**t in Scunthorpe", has now been revealed............They must have originally tried, and failed to get jobs as traffic wardens.............

[Webbo]

Enjoyed that, the Chap taking the pictures was so calm.

[Maverick]

Technically any photography can be stopped, and the pictures destroyed under the anti-terrorisum act (it has some really worrying powers). If he was really doing a piece about Scunthorpe he'd know that it is good etiquette to request permission before taking pictures. I know that there is a ban of unauthorised photography where I work, but the all the land (and roads around us are private property).
Saying that the security didn't conduct themselves in a professional manner, and require retraining before their SIA licenses (which were not on show, which is a requirement) are renewed.

[Vultch]

The anti terrorism laws are worrying ....regard asking permission I disagree, if your in a public place and you can see it with your MK I eyeball then a photo or video should be no problem.
Once you enter a private shopping area or factory then yes its a different matter.

[slobodan]

Great find.

I love that guy!!!

Typical stubborn Yorkshireman.



(over here the security tw@t would have just shot him.)

[Maverick]

(over here the security tw@t would have just shot him.)

That's why they won't let us have fire arms, although I could imagine it happening eventually. Especially as we had another transport security check last month!

[dieselboy]

Technically any photography can be stopped, and the pictures destroyed under the anti-terrorisum act (it has some really worrying powers). If he was really doing a piece about Scunthorpe he'd know that it is good etiquette to request permission before taking pictures. I know that there is a ban of unauthorised photography where I work, but the all the land (and roads around us are private property).
Saying that the security didn't conduct themselves in a professional manner, and require retraining before their SIA licenses (which were not on show, which is a requirement) are renewed.

Actually it cannot. There is a fine line, you are correct but there has to be reason for belief that the photographer has bad intent. It is perfectly legal to film or to take photos of people and buildings when on public land. Strangely enough I spent a good few hours reading up on this last night as it is common misbelief that people cannot film in public.

[si tate]

That's why they won't let us have fire arms, although I could imagine it happening eventually. Especially as we had another transport security check last month!

I'm a yorkshire man & I have a cz452 bolt action.

[TonyN]

Strangely enough I spent a good few hours reading up on this last night as it is common misbelief that people cannot film in public.

Yup, look at all these stupid 'cops on camera' type shows, when someone kicks off at the cameraman the first thing Plod says is they can film what they like in a public place.

[Sclerotic Hen]

While the security guards are completely out of order with their aggressive but impotent blustering I think the whole situation could have been calmed down by the photographer gently explaining he was collecting photographs of local industry for posterity. If the photographer sees no harm in doing what he does surely he would be quite happy to explain to interested parties why he doing it. I thought in the video he came across as someone baiting the security guards just to get a rise which lessened his argument.

[TonyN]

I agree 100%, he is being just as beligerant as the secruity people.

While the security guards are completely out of order with their aggressive but impotent blustering I think the whole situation could have been calmed down by the photographer gently explaining he was collecting photographs of local industry for posterity. If the photographer sees no harm in doing what he does surely he would be quite happy to explain to interested parties why he doing it. I thought in the video he came across as someone baiting the security guards just to get a rise which lessened his argument.

[Vultch]

I disagree chaps..in a public arena as long as your not breaking the law you can do whatever you want. Be that photography, video or whatever and you dont need to answer to anybody (except plod) of course its polite to answer if asked politely.

If this behaviour is endorsed, imagine being told by private security that you cant stand in a certain place to collect your kids or you cant drive that sort of vehicle on a public road.

[TonyN]

I'm not endorsing the security people, they are completely up their own arses, but it didn't need to go on that long, the guy was loving it and I bet couldn't wait to get home and put it on utube.

He set them up and they fell for it.

There would have been 100% different outcome if he's asked their publicity people in advance, or straight up told the neanderthal guard he just wanted one or two pics for a local news thing.

There is a big difference between going about your business and baiting someone, even if he didn't mean to at the start, he was at the end.

I disagree chaps..in a public arena as long as your not breaking the law you can do whatever you want. Be that photography, video or whatever and you dont need to answer to anybody (except plod) of course its polite to answer if asked politely.

If this behaviour is endorsed, imagine being told by private security that you cant stand in a certain place to collect your kids or you cant drive that sort of vehicle on a public road.