|
Post by Chris W on Jul 26, 2008 8:25:46 GMT
I understand everyone's frustrations with the current policy.
Besides the incident at Clapham Common, I've never had a Supervisor deny permission - I've mention section 4.5 in Conditions of Carriage and they've been happy (even if it has taken 15 mins for the Supervisor to confirm what I'd stated).
My reading/understanding of the rule is that "passing through" (what it states in the traffic circular) means that you shouldn't need to ask permission IF you will only be at the station for no longer than 10-15 mins.
Its certainly not perfect, but at least it has been confirmed in writing that personal/private photography is allowed without flash/tripods.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2008 12:43:41 GMT
How can we get a printed copy of this without contravening LU's rules on privacy and internal publications? It would be handy to have if stopped by station staff.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Jul 26, 2008 14:00:22 GMT
I suppose you could simply ask station staff that cause you hassle to have a look at traffic circular 31, page 25. The document is available on the LUL intranet, so they can quite easily view it if necessary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2008 16:32:54 GMT
Not sure how much use it would be referring anyone to it when they could then say no at their discretion anyway.
The rule in the conditions of carriage banning tripods and flash implied that photography must be allowed or it would have made no sense. But this update has reversed that situation, effectively implicitly banning it unless the supervisor is willing to allow it. Something they are under no obligation to do.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,763
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 26, 2008 19:05:33 GMT
Besides the incident at Clapham Common, I've never had a Supervisor deny permission I've had supervisors deny permission at Canons Park and West Ruislip.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2008 19:15:51 GMT
Besides the incident at Clapham Common, I've never had a Supervisor deny permission I've had supervisors deny permission at Canons Park and West Ruislip. Did they give you a reason Chris? I've hears of someone else being stopped at the security hot spot of Canon's park.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,763
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 26, 2008 19:50:45 GMT
No reason was given at Canon's Park, but it was clear that the station supervisor was having a bad day (although as the train service was working fine it wasn't immediately apparent why) and I got the impression she just didn't want anyone on her station taking photos. I didn't press the issue and moved on to Queensbury. To date this was my only visit to Canon's Park, so I don't know how representative my experience was.
At West Ruislip, I believe the reason given was something similar to "Security and all that, you know" by a station supervisor who was not prepared to listen to anything I might say regarding conditions of carriage or anything else. I was not in the mood to argue further and simply left the station and went to another (I think this was the time I walked to Ickenham). I have since photographed at West Ruislip without any hassles at all.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,763
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 28, 2008 21:09:07 GMT
Another day of photographing and another incident of a member of staff saying that photography is prohibited.
This time it was at Crossharbour DLR station when I was exiting to take a replacement bus, I was taking some photographs of the platform extension work. A member of staff called over "No more pictures please mate" when I asked why, he said that "You're not really supposed to be taking photos at all, unless you've got a license from TfL". Not that he had actually enquired whether I had said license or not.
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Jul 29, 2008 7:26:23 GMT
I think that, regardless of what LU or TfL management says and regardless of what the official rules say, there will always be some staff who are of a mind to "discourage" photographers. Chris, your attitude is absolutely the right one. Don't argue if they won't listen, try somewhere else and come back another day when you will probably be left alone.
|
|
|
Post by dannyofelmpark on Jul 29, 2008 22:44:25 GMT
I think it would be a good idea for someone to contact Tim O'Toole himself and ask how he feels about what his own staff are doing to us.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Jul 30, 2008 18:52:31 GMT
Once again: Moving swiftly on; as has been stated already several times in this thread, the admins have been in contact with the relevant parties at LU (I wouldn't be all that surprised if the latest aforementioned entry in the traffic circular is a direct result of that contact) - we are not currently happy with the responses so far and are continuing our dialouge....... Those relevant parties include the film office and director level at LU. We can only ask that the situation is clarified and then passed down to front line operational staff - which we have done - this hasn't proved easy to get done, especially in an organisastion as large and red tape lined TfL/ LU are.
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Jul 31, 2008 19:05:35 GMT
Thank god my latest 'project' - a decent picture of every LU station building (or entrance) in good light - involves by its very nature standing off of LU premises when photographing, so I've remained 'hassle-free' for sometime... 80%+ done so far.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,763
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 31, 2008 22:18:20 GMT
Have you tried Fulham yet? I tried to photograph the entrance to the LU station there and was told in no uncertain terms that photography was not permitted for any reason in the shopping centre. The implication was that if I did not desist from photographing (even though the photograph was of LU property only) I would be removed from the building and would have to make my way to a different station to catch the tube.
|
|
|
Post by pakenhamtrain on Aug 1, 2008 6:52:12 GMT
I would suspect that because you were on Shopping Centre land you go under thier rules. It's the same deal at Melbourne Central(Although what line you go under is under a big debate between Connex and Centre Management) and at Box Hill.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,763
|
Post by Chris M on Aug 1, 2008 8:28:43 GMT
Indeed, as I understand the law shopping centres (and other privately owned "public" places) can legally choose to prohibit photography as part of their conditions of entry.
|
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Aug 1, 2008 10:10:43 GMT
I gather the shoping malls/centres have been targets for paedophiles who take photos of children...so this may be a reason why it is banned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2008 10:26:08 GMT
The shopping centre at Hammersmith also prohibits photography, although you can take a photo from outside the centre.
I got stopped by the Mets for taking a picture of the outside of Rotherhithe and was spoken to under the terrorism act. The PC looked a bit embarassed when he found my warrant card. Jusrt remember taking pictures in itself does not contravene the terrorism act, whatever others may think.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Aug 1, 2008 12:18:41 GMT
Certainly in the case of Fulham Broadway, but I'm sure the same applies at Hammersmith, the land & building is owned by LU properties - not that I suppose it makes any difference though....
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Aug 1, 2008 12:59:44 GMT
Have you tried Fulham yet? I tried to photograph the entrance to the LU station there and was told in no uncertain terms that photography was not permitted for any reason in the shopping centre. The implication was that if I did not desist from photographing (even though the photograph was of LU property only) I would be removed from the building and would have to make my way to a different station to catch the tube. Fulham? Yes, done it and without incident... I intend to deal with Hammersmith (D&P) the same way, or might resort to the uniform/hi-vi combo. www.flickr.com/photos/24772733@N05/2671021794/sizes/l/Of course being on 'enclosed' premises I didn't produce the camera until the last minute and quickly snatched a couple of shots while the 'coast was clear'. In other words I acted furtively and 'suspiciously' rather than openly as I would have done in the past.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2008 14:39:46 GMT
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Aug 1, 2008 15:13:40 GMT
or..... You could nick mine - mind you, the angle is a bit naff....
|
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Aug 1, 2008 17:13:47 GMT
I am sorry but I had to break the rules and extract a quote from another forum, The guys wanted to take photos of West Coast Main Line traffic: ... we went on to Headstone Lane, where we were moaned at for taking pics by station staff, so we left for South Kenton.
Headstone Lane is a great place for photos, but try to avoid it if possible...
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Aug 1, 2008 18:29:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Aug 1, 2008 18:32:17 GMT
I am sorry but I had to break the rules and extract a quote from another forum, The guys wanted to take photos of West Coast Main Line traffic: ... we went on to Headstone Lane, where we were moaned at for taking pics by station staff, so we left for South Kenton.
Headstone Lane is a great place for photos, but try to avoid it if possible... Of course Headstone Lane is LO, not LU, another TFL area ripe for confusion no doubt.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,763
|
Post by Chris M on Aug 1, 2008 18:53:46 GMT
The only LO station I've had any trouble at is Harringay Green Lanes. I've not photographed at Headstone Lane, but the staff member I saw at Hatch End didn't even comment.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,763
|
Post by Chris M on Aug 1, 2008 18:57:42 GMT
I gather the shoping malls/centres have been targets for paedophiles who take photos of children...so this may be a reason why it is banned. I fail to understand why they would want photos of children who are fully dressed, not engaging in any sexual activity (at least I hope not!), not acting provocatively or posing seductively or anything like that? As far as I can tell, this is just another example of the current paranoia over the issue of paedophilia, which in the long term will probably be just as harmful as the paranoia over terrorism. </rant>
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2008 20:02:36 GMT
The only LO station I've had any trouble at is Harringay Green Lanes. ~~ Got off there one day a few months back, and was lamblasted for not touching out... So... back up the stairs, flicked the plastic wallet open, showed it to him, touched out, and sauntered off down the stairs... He immediately became a Mini Me from Austin Powers...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2008 14:59:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Chris W on Aug 3, 2008 16:14:01 GMT
The person concerned has every right to be very angry about his/her treatment. IMO its very simple (remember this is my personal opinion and I am not criticising or casting aspersions about others who choose to deal with this differently). By taking photographs legally (following LU/TfL//BTP etc. etc guidelines), am I doing anything wrong = NO Will I allow myself to be bullied by the state or railway/security jobsworths = NO Should I stop taking railway photographs = NO Its important not to become too militant and therefore create the perfect tinderbox for your arrest (I suspect that if you are surrounded by BTP/Met Police any excuse will do). But remember that although your property can be seized (section 45(2) of the Terrorism Act 2000), photographs cannot be deleted from a DSLR or film destroyed in an old SLR camera unless a court order has been obtained first - otherwise said Police/security are destroying evidence - that in itself IS illegal! In reality we're only hearing about the absolute worst cases when we read about them in RAIL etc. or on the internet. For the vast majority of railway photographers, incidents are few and far in between, although it has to be said the frequency is increasing WHAT WOULD YOU DO!?Ask yourself what you would do if you ran a railway and someone walked onto your system/property to take photographs. You might want to know that they were present and would not put the safety of passenger/staff at risk (blinding them with flash/tripping them up with a tripod). It would seem fair that you would expect to be asked first for permission (there could be circumstances that were reasonable, albeit unlikely, to prevent photography at that time). If permission has been granted by the Station Supervisor, the photographer has some limited protection as they have obtained expressed permission first and their activities were known about. I have seen too many utter pratts on LU during enthusiast events using flash photography, tripods or who trespass and IMO its these characters who give the genuine railway enthusiast a bad name!! As I have stated in my advise thread about railway photography (originally stated by District Dave on his original site): districtdave.proboards39.com/index.cgi?board=selfhelp&action=display&thread=6610I have also collated in this thread as much information (including links) as I possibly can regarding railway photography on LU and national rail - please let me know if you come across more. Regards ChrisW
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Aug 3, 2008 17:08:36 GMT
Blimey! Handcuffed to a chair and surrounded by 14 officers - that is appalling.
|
|