Stopped by security guards photographing on a public street

Thecageyone

Anyone up on their law?

Today I had a run in with some goons security guards while taking a few shots [of a building] outside ... actually, across the road, from the shopping centre where they are employed.

I knew as they approached [one skinny guy who fancied himself as the Boss I guess, one big fat guy, while another stood outside the doors watching on ... in case of trouble!? ... I had a buggy with a sleeping child in it by my side] That they were going to question me. I was already on the defensive, not one for taking lightly to bull****.

Anyway, they asked "Are you a photographer?" - to which I replied - I guess so, why?

"Do you realise you're not allowed to take pictures on this road?"

"Says who?"

"It's private property etc .. etc .."

I called bull**** on that, saying it was a public street, if anyone owned it it was the local council. I told them if they had issue with me taking pictures they were free to call the cops/council to come down and explain to me how I was breaking some imaginary law. They laughed that off of course.

The 'head' guy had the cheek to tell me I had a bad attitude for a photographer! Obviously I told him, and probably not very nicely, where to go. And added he didn't have a great attitude for a security man, hassling innocent people outside of the property he works within.

This went on for a bit, them claiming it was a private street and they'd had dodgy activity there in the past - Fair enough. But I'm stood there with a child by my side, I took 4 shots of the side of a building, from odd angles - They said that's why they asked was I a 'tog. As it looked innocent and a bit ... arty or whatever. I explained to them the shots were for a competition [not that I had to] and by the time we were done they were wishing me luck with it

BUT, did they have any right to question me? A road outside a shopping centre, far as I understood, is a public road. And unless I was blatantly snapping people walking in and out of the centre, and the secuity guys themselves, I see no reason for them to approach me. It's not a Government building, I highly doubt it's a 'private' road and it seemed to me they were trying to scare me off with the big presence - they got a little bit of a shock - I don't think I'm all 'ard or anything, but I will stand my ground and as said, don't take any BS when I have a very good inkling that I am in the right.

At one point I pulled the cam out and said "I could take a photo of your head right now if I wanted" - they laughed and said "go ahead" - but I didn't bother, wonder what they would have done?

The shopping centre is in Navan, some of you might know it. And I was taking shots of the side of Marks and Spencer's across from it.

melekalikimaka

http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/05/09/photographers-rights/

In general, you are entitled to take pictures of anything you wish, when in a public place. You may take pictures of private property, people, or anything else you fancy.

On private property, you are also generally allowed to take photographs, provided you have permission to be on the property.

However, the owner may impose conditions on your entry to the property, which may include a complete ban on photography, a ban on photography of certain things, or a ban on certain types of photography (eg, flash photography, video photography etc).

Even where permission is not explicitly needed to enter the property, the owner is entitled to demand that you cease taking photographs, or that you leave the property. If you are asked to leave a property, you should not be threatened or attacked. Reasonable force may be used to remove you if necessary, however. In general, you are better off leaving when asked – the fact that you should not be threatened, does not mean you won’t be. The owner has no right to confiscate or damage any of your equipment.

The occupier of a private property, where he is not the owner, has the same rights as the owner would have. Security guards may also act for the owner or occupier in exercising these rights.

Violating the conditions under which you were admitted to a property voids your permission to be there, and you may be guilty of trespass. Trespass is a crime in some unusual cases but damages are more commonly sought in a civil case.

provided it was infact private

jpfahy

I would be of the view that you can snap away as long as you are not on their property nor were engaged in a criminal activity (e.g. research for a future crime). If you subsequently used photographs of their premises/property/staff commercially the owner could look for a fee or go to a civil court for an injunction to prevent publication.
They did their job in checking you out but could not stop you.

whyulittle

Pretty sure New Main Street in Tullamore is private property, even though it's a retail street.

Thecageyone

Pretty certain it's not a private road. I'm talking wide open, public access road. No entrance to it, it's always open, just like any town road. If it had been inside the shopping centre I'd have just said, ok ... and put the camera away.

They looked at each other in shock when i told them I'd photographed inside the centre, openly, many a time. I have the shots on my flickr stream of the lights in that centre, and Christmas decor.

Not great security in there then?

Out on the road, across from it? I highly doubt it was any of their business. They didn't much like when I put it to them to call the cops, as I'd love to hear what they'd have to say.

smelltheglove

If it is a public road then they have no rights to ask you to stop.

I assume it was Navan S.C., was it on the road leading to the cinema, by the bank? That may actually be property of the shopping centre.

Tefral

Thecageyone wrote: »

Pretty certain it's not a private road. I'm talking wide open, public access road. No entrance to it, it's always open, just like any town road..

What you have described falls within the definition of a public place in the road traffic act

"public place" means any street, road or other place to which the public have access with vehicles whether as of right or by permission and whether subject to or free of charge;

So you would appear to be in the right in this instance.

Andrew33

Interesting thread OP, people get very nervy when a (D)SLR is pointed at them (or their general direction), I'd bet if you had a P&S in your hand none of the guards would have batted an eyelid. I drove down to Dublin Gliding Club in Punchestown today with the intention of taking a few pics but left the camera hanging backwards from my shoulder until I'd spoken to a few people and asked was it alright to take pictures. Once you ask, the vast majority of people will fall over themselves to accomodate you. Even security guards like to be asked (gives them a chance to do their thang).

melekalikimaka

cronin_j wrote: »

What you have described falls within the definition of a public place in the road traffic act

just because the public have direct access does not mean that it is automatically public property. IFSC is a prime example of this... Its unlikely they would have stop you unless it was infact private property and the owner wishes to enforce his entitlement to deny photography.

hmboards

If it's the road that M&S is on, I'd say that is a private road. It was originally part of the outdoor car park for the shopping centre. They also had barriers on it at one stage though these are no longer there now that they have multistorey car parks.

Why they would have a problem with people taking photos I don't know! Must have been a quiet day in security!

melekalikimaka

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055845955&highlight=ifsc+photography

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055576832&highlight=ifsc+photography

pixbyjohn

The roads within the IFSC complex in Dublin are open but are private property and photographers are often told that snapping is not allowed.

melekalikimaka

once they tell you to stop and leave, if you stay your trespassing and cant be arrested and charged, mental really

Fajitas!

Thecageyone wrote: »

Anyone up on their law?

Today I had a run in with some goons security guards while taking a few shots [of a building] outside ... actually, across the road, from the shopping centre where they are employed.

I knew as they approached [one skinny guy who fancied himself as the Boss I guess, one big fat guy, while another stood outside the doors watching on ... in case of trouble!? ... I had a buggy with a sleeping child in it by my side] That they were going to question me. I was already on the defensive, not one for taking lightly to bull****.

Anyway, they asked "Are you a photographer?" - to which I replied - I guess so, why?

"Do you realise you're not allowed to take pictures on this road?"

"Says who?"

"It's private property etc .. etc .."

I called bull**** on that, saying it was a public street, if anyone owned it it was the local council. I told them if they had issue with me taking pictures they were free to call the cops/council to come down and explain to me how I was breaking some imaginary law. They laughed that off of course.

The 'head' guy had the cheek to tell me I had a bad attitude for a photographer! Obviously I told him, and probably not very nicely, where to go. And added he didn't have a great attitude for a security man, hassling innocent people outside of the property he works within.

This went on for a bit, them claiming it was a private street and they'd had dodgy activity there in the past - Fair enough. But I'm stood there with a child by my side, I took 4 shots of the side of a building, from odd angles - They said that's why they asked was I a 'tog. As it looked innocent and a bit ... arty or whatever. I explained to them the shots were for a competition [not that I had to] and by the time we were done they were wishing me luck with it

BUT, did they have any right to question me? A road outside a shopping centre, far as I understood, is a public road. And unless I was blatantly snapping people walking in and out of the centre, and the secuity guys themselves, I see no reason for them to approach me. It's not a Government building, I highly doubt it's a 'private' road and it seemed to me they were trying to scare me off with the big presence - they got a little bit of a shock - I don't think I'm all 'ard or anything, but I will stand my ground and as said, don't take any BS when I have a very good inkling that I am in the right.

At one point I pulled the cam out and said "I could take a photo of your head right now if I wanted" - they laughed and said "go ahead" - but I didn't bother, wonder what they would have done?

The shopping centre is in Navan, some of you might know it. And I was taking shots of the side of Marks and Spencer's across from it.

To be honest, you do sound very aggresive. They simply informed you you were not allowed to take photographs on the road, which is their job. I do indeed think the area in front of Navan SC is private property, so they were well within their rights.

I'm not surprised at all they said you had a bad attitude for a photographer when you 'called bull****' on what they had to say.

You DO have a very bad attitude for a photographer.

Thecageyone

Fajitas! wrote: »

To be honest, you do sound very aggresive. They simply informed you you were not allowed to take photographs on the road, which is their job. I do indeed think the area in front of Navan SC is private property, so they were well within their rights.

I'm not surprised at all they said you had a bad attitude for a photographer when you 'called bull****' on what they had to say.

You DO have a very bad attitude for a photographer.

That's one of the funniest posts on here in a while ...

3, I repeat 3! Burley [well 2 of them were] security guards from a building across the street - I wasn't taking the building they work in, but one across from it - come towards me, and not in a smiling, friendly manner - and put it to me that I had no right to photograph ... a wall ... basically. Did I mention I had a sleeping child in a buggy? Security guards are not the Police, I don't think saying "Bull****" to them was aggressive.

Sounds to me like you either know these guys or you're a bit of a push over when told what to do if you think that me saying BS to them is bad attitude. Seriously, I've heard way too many stories over the past year about photographers being harassed for simply taking pictures.

I don't think I was aggressive enough tbh. If I thought they any way in the right, I'd have said "fine, I'll put it away" - but they came at me with attitude, they got some back. Now why do i come across bad? They're not cops, they don't work out on the road, they work in the shopping centre [which I wasn't in] - Security guard does not mean 'right to ask anyone at anytime, what they're up to'.

When the time comes, and it will, that you can't take a picture in public at all! Then come back and tell me I was wrong to stand up for my rights. I handle things my way, it was pretty much sprung on me. Didn't feel like being polite, I didn't exactly tell them to go F off and call them a pack of C's ...

Tefral

melekalikimaka wrote: »

just because the public have direct access does not mean that it is automatically public property. IFSC is a prime example of this... Its unlikely they would have stop you unless it was infact private property and the owner wishes to enforce his entitlement to deny photography.

I live in the IFSC, the guards have followed people all the way to the barriers in Spencer dock and i saw a guard stop someone by the concierge office for using a phone while driving. It is LEGALLY defined as a public place if there are no barriers.

melekalikimaka

Thecageyone wrote: »

I don't think I was aggressive enough tbh. If I thought they any way in the right, I'd have said "fine, I'll put it away" - but they came at me with attitude, they got some back. Now why do i come across bad? They're not cops, they don't work out on the road, they work in the shopping centre [which I wasn't in] - Security guard does not mean 'right to ask anyone at anytime, what they're up to'.

When the time comes, and it will, that you can't take a picture in public at all! Then come back and tell me I was wrong to stand up for my rights. I handle things my way, it was pretty much sprung on me. Didn't feel like being polite, I didn't exactly tell them to go F off and call them a pack of C's ...

you assume you were on a public street... by the confidence of the security,and post here bout it being a carpark before the road... i'd tend to agree, it can go two ways, you stood your ground with arrogant security, or you were a pr1ck to two guys just doing their job, and they let you off lightly...

its one or the other

Thecageyone

There are no barriers either end of the street. And after googling that road on a few different pages, it seems it belongs to the County Council, it is not privately owned by the shopping centre. the security guards were lying, they were bored and thought they'd pick on the harmless photographer ...

<snip>

melekalikimaka

Thecageyone wrote: »

And after googling that road on a few different pages, it seems it belongs to the County Council, it is not privately owned by the shopping centre.

somebody on this very thread stated there used to be barriers AND it was a car park in the past...

melekalikimaka

cronin_j wrote: »

I live in the IFSC, the guards have followed people all the way to the barriers in Spencer dock and i saw a guard stop someone by the concierge office for using a phone while driving. It is LEGALLY defined as a public place if there are no barriers.

until you are asked to leave, then you are trespassing

Thecageyone

melekalikimaka wrote: »

you assume you were on a public street... by the confidence of the security,and post here bout it being a carpark before the road... i'd tend to agree, it can go two ways, you stood your ground with arrogant security, or you were a pr1ck to two guys just doing their job, and they let you off lightly...

its one or the other

It is a public street, from the info I've come across at least. There are no barriers now. Plus there are other shops on the road not owned by the shopping centre. These 'guards' claimed the whole street was.

3, not 2 security - which was what had me on the defensive when they approached - let off lightly? There's not a thing they could do. Bar call the cops. I wasn't in the shopping centre, and certainly hadn't broken any law. So they let didn't let me off with anything. if anything I could claim they upset me, out for a walk with the child, minding my own ... along come 3 big wannabes, picking on the harmless 'tog

It's going to happen to you all at some point, will be interesting to see what you do. Swallow it and say sorry? Or stand up for your rights? [depending on the situation obviously] If I knew I was in the wrong I would have been polite. I really don't think they had anything on me.


By the way, I was not asked to leave or anything of the sort. Because they knew they had no right to ask me to, that's my thinking anyway.

Tefral

melekalikimaka wrote: »

until you are asked to leave, then you are trespassing

If it has no visable means of discriminating against who goes in or out, such as gates etc, then nobody but a guard can make you leave for which he will direct you under the Public Order Act.

The fact it USED to be a carpark is irrelevant.

Public order act definition of a public place

"public place" includes—

[GA] ( a ) any highway,

[GA] ( b ) any outdoor area to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or as a trespasser or otherwise, and which is used for public recreational purposes,

[GA] ( c ) any cemetery or churchyard,

[GA] ( d ) any premises or other place to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or by express or implied permission, or whether on payment or otherwise, and

( e ) any train, vessel or vehicle used for the carriage of persons for reward.

melekalikimaka

Thecageyone wrote: »

3, not 2 security - which was what had me on the defensive when they approached - let off lightly? There's not a thing they could do. Bar call the cops. I wasn't in the shopping centre, and certainly hadn't broken any law.
.

if you had continued photographing you would have... if they were telling the truth... your basing all this on assumptions...

Fajitas!

Thecageyone wrote: »

That's one of the funniest posts on here in a while ...

I aim to please

3, I repeat 3! Burley [well 2 of them were] security guards from a building across the street - I wasn't taking the building they work in, but one across from it - come towards me, and not in a smiling, friendly manner - and put it to me that I had no right to photograph ... a wall ... basically. Did I mention I had a sleeping child in a buggy? Security guards are not the Police, I don't think saying "Bull****" to them was aggressive.

Yes. Three security guards, doing their job. Being 'burley' helps when you're a security guard too. Christ on a bike, and smiling, friendly security guards? They're not going to give you a wee lollipop for your troubles, you know.

Claiming their story as 'bull****' is both aggressive and bad mannered. There's no need for it. It automatically puts you in a bad light. Besides, swearing in front of kids? I wouldn't be at all impressed.

There is indeed quite a chance the SC would own the access roads around it.

Sounds to me like you either know these guys or you're a bit of a push over when told what to do if you think that me saying BS to them is bad attitude.

Lol, no. I don't know any security guards from Navan, and I'm far from a '
pushover' - I am however well mannered in my dealings.

Seriously, I've heard way too many stories over the past year about photographers being harassed for simply taking pictures.

And that gives you reason to tell these guys, in a 'not very nice' fashion, where to go? They're doing their jobs, they pointed something out to you, they didn't hassle you - You created the scene here. I'd consider a photographer being harassed as getting their camera taking off them, or being detained for taking a photograph, not being pointed out that you're shooting on public property.

I don't think I was aggressive enough tbh. If I thought they any way in the right, I'd have said "fine, I'll put it away" - but they came at me with attitude, they got some back. Now why do i come across bad?

Seriously? These situations don't need aggression.

When the time comes, and it will, that you can't take a picture in public at all! Then come back and tell me I was wrong to stand up for my rights.

This is just lol. You fight for your rights. Those dastardly right-grabbing security guards :pac:

What say you now from your high chair Fajitas?

Er... That ^^^^^

Andrew33

Fajitas! wrote: »

To be honest, you do sound very aggresive. They simply informed you you were not allowed to take photographs on the road, which is their job. I do indeed think the area in front of Navan SC is private property, so they were well within their rights.

I'm not surprised at all they said you had a bad attitude for a photographer when you 'called bull****' on what they had to say.

You DO have a very bad attitude for a photographer.

Ah hang on a minute fajitas, a women with a buggy and child has the right to go anywhere and do anything so you're being a bit masculine there bud! Did you not know the "International Women with Buggies rights" came into effect recently? They are not bound by the same laws as us poor mortals.

Thecageyone

Stopped reading where you insist me saying bull**** to 3 big security guys who came out of nowhere, is bad manners ... seriously. This is why photograhers get pissed on all the time. They take it!

People read what they like too, I've already stated that by the end of it they were wishing me luck ... they didn't think I was ignorant after the initial 2 minute exchange.

Fajitas!

Andrew33 wrote: »

Ah hang on a minute fajitas, a women with a buggy and child has the right to go anywhere and do anything so you're being a bit masculine there bud! Did you not know the "International Women with Buggies rights" came into effect recently? They are not bound by the same laws as us poor mortals.

Recently? They've been throwing their baby-laden buggies out in front of cars for decades!!

cronin_j wrote: »

The fact it USED to be a carpark is irrelevant.

Tbh, if it was a carpark at some stage, it was probably private property.

Thecageyone wrote: »

It's going to happen to you all at some point, will be interesting to see what you do. Swallow it and say sorry? Or stand up for your rights? [depending on the situation obviously] If I knew I was in the wrong I would have been polite. I really don't think they had anything on me.

When I know I'm in the right, I have no problem standing up for myself. When I'm in the wrong, I admit it, when I'm unsure, I inform myself and address the situation. I don't go telling people where to go before that though.

By the way, I was not asked to leave or anything of the sort. Because they knew they had no right to ask me to, that's my thinking anyway.

See, your problem is thinking and making assumptions. Find out first.

Fajitas!

Thecageyone wrote: »

Stopped reading where you insist me saying bull**** to 3 big security guys who came out of nowhere, is bad manners ... seriously. This is why photograhers get pissed on all the time. They take it!

You make them sound absolutely terrifying... And what was it you were calling yourself? The harmless 'tog? Sensationalism much?

Thecageyone

melekalikimaka wrote: »

if you had continued photographing you would have... if they were telling the truth... your basing all this on assumptions...

Turns out they weren't. I was basing it on a hunch. I also know you are free to photograph whatever you like, even when somebody actually of law, like a cop, asks you to stop. It would be very hard for them to get a conviction for a man taking photos on a street, of the side of a building. Wouldn't be worth their time bothering, so 'off lightly'? strange thing to say.

I do wonder ... all the stories I hear about photographers being pestered, do they deserve it at times? For not standing up for their rights. Going by some responses in here, it seems most would side with the security. It's all opinion, and that's fine ... just wondered what others would do in the situation. Run away by the sounds of it

The day will come lads ...

[I think Fajitas is an ex security guard going by his posts tbh, seems to be a sore point ... Oh noes!!! I said BS to a ... security person!!! to hell with me!]

Also, the point was thrown in there somewhere that if I'd been taking the same pic with my phone, they'd not have come anywhere near me.

This is the point, they seen a big cam and thought they'd come muscle me out of it. Again ... photographers get pissed on.

And bad attitude for a photographer?? For one, I'm a hobbyist/enthusiast, hardly a pro ... I don't need to have a certain manner about me. I didn't think you had to be a certain type to be considered a photographer though? I'm not the cliquey type either so your opinion is merely that to me Fatjia saying "That is bull****" to 3 shopping centre security guys is not aggressive, it's not like I roared it at them lol.

Thecageyone

I hope all your posts aren't as boring and self righteous man, lol. Not with that amount of them at least!

Go you and your security pals ...

So much for 'togs standing up for rights together.

Fajitas!

Thecageyone wrote: »

Turns out they weren't. I was basing it on a hunch. I also know you are free to photograph whatever you like, even when somebody actually of law, like a cop, asks you to stop. It would be very hard for them to get a convistion for a man taking photos on a street, of the side of a building.

Lol. Bingo. There's your problem. You're wrong. IF you're asked to stop photographing on private property, or there's a sign to that effect, and continue, you are considered to be trespassing.

The day will come lads ...

The day has come and gone many a time. I've never had to turn mountains into molehills though

[I think Fajitas is an ex security guard going by his posts tbh, seems to be a sore point ... Oh noes!!! I said BS to a ... security person!!! to hell with me!]

LOL. Yeah. No. As I said, I just have better manners than that

And bad attitude for a photographer?? For one, I'm a hobbyist/enthusiast, hardly a pro ... I don't need to have a certain manner about me. I didn't think you had to be a certain type to be considered a photographer though? I'm not the cliquey type either so your opinion is merely that to me Fatjia

Pfffft. A bad attitude for anyone.

Thecageyone

Fajitas! wrote: »

And what was it you were calling yourself? The harmless 'tog? Sensationalism much?

I just forgot to use one of these ---> :rolleyes:

"LOL, Bingo"? ... so, you came into the thread just awaiting a slip up? Even though you've seen me say numerous times - not only is it a PUBLIC road, and the security guys were from the building OPPOSITE the one I was shooting, but they weren't exactly sweet as pie themselves, and they were lying through their teeth. But you're right, How very dare I say Bull**** in the presence of such importance.


I know I'm abrupt at times, especially when confronted in such a manner while my 2yr old daughter sleeps in her buggy. I'd just had a torrid time with her, then these goons come at me. Bad timing on their part perhaps, but I think honestly, and yes 'think' as nobody seems to have any facts in this thread, just opinionation, that they were bored and saw me as a soft target.

What do you not understand about 'by the end of it they were wishing me luck'? You just seem to talk a heap of BS yourself.

You are the one IMHO who has a terrible attitude for a photographer. In your opinion, it seems, I should have said "yessir, nosir, sorry missur" and ran off with my tail between my legs.

BS.

Fajitas!

Thecageyone wrote: »

I hope all your posts aren't as boring and self righteous man, lol. Not with that amount of them at least!

Go you and your security pals ...

So much for 'togs standing up for rights together.

They all are. Definitely.

Lol, standing up for my "fellow 'togs"? Not a hope. They'll all go make a show of themselves.

magicbastarder

here's one way of looking at it; if you are stopped by someone on a street which seems to form part of a private complex, and they tell you it's private property (and you are not sure if that is the case), the best course of action is to stop taking photos, rather than arguing from a position of ignorance.

go and inform yourself of the truth, and come back with the camera knowing that your defence is sound.

Thecageyone

magicbastarder wrote: »

here's one way of looking at it; if you are stopped by someone on a street which seems to form part of a private complex, and they tell you it's public property (and you are not sure if that is the case), the best course of action is to stop taking photos, rather than arguing from a position of ignorance.

go and inform yourself of the truth, and come back with the camera knowing that your defence is sound.

But the lighting was perfect right then

Let's twist it another way - What if one of them had been standing by the doorway smoking? And I approached them and told them to stop, because they were indoors and it's illegal ... even though they were obviously outside. And he said "Bull****" ...

Why do some of you think the security guard out-ranks, so to speak, the photographer? Both do what they do. I wasn't interfering with them, didn't even see them until they were up on me. And I wasn't in their place of work. Again ... 'pretty sure' they don't work the road.

Thecageyone

Fajitas! wrote: »

They all are. Definitely.

Lol, standing up for my "fellow 'togs"? Not a hope. They'll all go make a show of themselves.

I like to work alone anyhow, good job eh? :P

gman2k

Thecageyone wrote: »

I hope all your posts aren't as boring and self righteous man, lol. Not with that amount of them at least!

Go you and your security pals ...

So much for 'togs standing up for rights together.

Fairplay to you Thecageyone. there needs to be more people standing up for their rights (even if it's a grey area re public/private road).
I wish these hat wearing thicks would actually do the job they were meant to do, as opposed to hassling people who are obviously doing no harm.
PS, I know lots of people who work in security, and most of them just love being on the power trip of being able to tell people what to do. So when someone stands up to them, they honestly don't know what to do!

Fajitas!

Thecageyone wrote: »

I just forgot to use one of these ---> :rolleyes:

"LOL, Bingo"? ... so, you came into the thread just awaiting a slip up?

Yes. That's exactly what I've done. Now, should I use one of these ':pac:' or one of these ':rolleyes:'

Even though you've seen me say numerous times - not only is it a PUBLIC road, and the security guys were from the building OPPOSITE the one I was shooting, but they weren't exactly sweet as pie themselves, and they were lying through their teeth. But you're right, How very dare I say Bull**** in the presence of such importance.

Who cares if you were opposite the building, it could still be private property. The ten streets around it could well be private property. You're so sure of it, go prove it!

Lol, and where did I say it was in front of such 'importance' you dare say 'bull****'. It's bad manners regardless. End of story.

You are the one IMHO who has a terrible attitude for a photographer. In your opinion, it seems, I should have said "yessir, nosir, sorry missur" and ran off with my tail between my legs.

BS.

Lol, give reading the above a go - I already mentioned I would have informed myself of whether it was public property or not, and I'd have reacted accordingly, whether that meant stopping to take photographs, or informing the security guards. Either/or.

Yes, a terrible attitude that, informing myself.

magicbastarder

Thecageyone wrote: »

Why do some of you think the security guard out-ranks, so to speak, the photographer?

because you don't know if you are right when you insist it's public property. it's that simple.

sprinkles

To be perfectly honest it does sound as if you could/should have handled the situation with a bit more decorum. 3 security guards approach you and claim that the road is private property and request that you cease taking photographs. For 1 you didn't know if they were telling the truth or not. It's quite possible and indeed probable that the road was/is private property. Just because there is public access and it doesn't have gates/bollards does not mean that it's definitely a public road. The council has no right to demand the road to fall into the public domain and in some cases the property owner keeps control for various reasons although they must maintain the upkeep of the road/lighting etc.

In any case I agree with Fajitas, you did seem to act aggressively - more so than the 3 security guards (and this is even your account of the happenings!!).

I'm not the cliquey type either so your opinion is merely that to me Fatjia

Why post on here then if you don't want people's opinions? Are you merely looking for a pat on the back for having rudely answered a few security guards who were doing their jobs?

I don't need to have a certain manner about me.

No one needs to have a certain manner about them but you'll get a lot more respect in life if you do have them... they cost nothing after all.

So much for 'togs standing up for rights together.

No one is denying your rights or failing to stand up for them but the fact is you didn't know what rights, if any, you had in this case. You did not know for certain that you were on public property and when confronted you acted aggressively. That, imo, is what gives photographers a bad name and why there are more and more stories about photographers getting hassle.

Calina

Thecageyone wrote: »

I just forgot to use one of these ---> :rolleyes:


I know I'm abrupt at times, especially when confronted in such a manner while my 2yr old daughter sleeps in her buggy. I'd just had a torrid time with her, then these goons come at me. Bad timing on their part perhaps, but I think honestly, and yes 'think' as nobody seems to have any facts in this thread, just opinionation, that they were bored and saw me as a soft target.

Amongst those lacking in facts and using a lot of opinion is you.

From where I am sitting - which is weary of people making excuses for being "abrupt" - your attitude leaves something to be desired on this thread.

Please temper it.

gingerGiant

Navan shopping center own the building Marks and Spencer are in they also own the road between the two buildings so if you were standing on the road between these you were on private property.

The road that runs from Argos past Marks and Spencer's and Eason down to the main entrance to the shopping center on Kennedy road is a privately owned road that is open to the public 24X7. If you were anywhere along this road the security guards were within their rights to question you, but they should have better things to do to be honest.

Fajitas!

gingerGiant wrote: »

Navan shopping center own the building marks and Spencer are in they also own the road between the two buildings so if you were standing on the road between these you were on private property.

The road that runs from argos past marks and spencer and eason down to the main entrance to the shopping center on kennedy road is a privately owned road that is open to the public 24X7. If you were anywhere along this road the security guards were within their rights to question you, but they should have better things to do to be honest.

Whoop! Closure!

Cheers gingerGiant

Thecageyone

Calina wrote: »

Amongst those lacking in facts and using a lot of opinion is you.

From where I am sitting - which is weary of people making excuses for being "abrupt" - your attitude leaves something to be desired on this thread.

Please temper it.

Temper what exactly? Please point out where I have broken any rules ... Seriously, everytime I say anything in here you're on my case. Are you just waiting in the shadows?

From where I'm sitting you could have at least offered an on topic opinion.

"The design of this project was carried out by Paul Keogh and Associates, architects employed by Meath County Council on behalf of Navan Town Council. The plan was to upgrade the surfacing to give priority to the pedestrians who wish to access the shops, offices and other businesses, surrounding this area.

Parking for 110 cars has been provided and the access for deliveries and collections improved by providing designated loading areas at each end of the parking area.

Access for disabled has been improved considerably, with easy access to designated parking spaces and ramps at a number of key locations. New lighting, seating and drainage has been included to bring this location up to a proper standard for such an important centre town civic space. The overall design has enhanced this area as a central meeting point for visitors and shoppers alike. The finished paving are granite sets and paving slabs throughout."


Sounds to me that the Council own it.

Thecageyone

sprinkles wrote: »

To be perfectly honest it does sound as if you could/should have handled the situation with a bit more decorum. 3 security guards approach you and claim that the road is private property and request that you cease taking photographs. For 1 you didn't know if they were telling the truth or not. It's quite possible and indeed probable that the road was/is private property. Just because there is public access and it doesn't have gates/bollards does not mean that it's definitely a public road. The council has no right to demand the road to fall into the public domain and in some cases the property owner keeps control for various reasons although they must maintain the upkeep of the road/lighting etc.

In any case I agree with Fajitas, you did seem to act aggressively - more so than the 3 security guards (and this is even your account of the happenings!!).



Why post on here then if you don't want people's opinions? Are you merely looking for a pat on the back for having rudely answered a few security guards who were doing their jobs?




No one needs to have a certain manner about them but you'll get a lot more respect in life if you do have them... they cost nothing after all.


No one is denying your rights or failing to stand up for them but the fact is you didn't know what rights, if any, you had in this case. You did not know for certain that you were on public property and when confronted you acted aggressively. That, imo, is what gives photographers a bad name and why there are more and more stories about photographers getting hassle.

What's become the big issue here is alot seem to think that saying 'BS' to a ... security guard ... is bad mannered. Sorry, but I strongly disagree. It's hard to describe a situation, but you're being just as ignorant by reading what you like into it. I said at least 3 times now that by end of it, they were wishing me luck. Funny they didn't think I was anything of the sort in the end. They even shook hands with me ...

If you think saying "That is BS" is aggressive, I wuold worry for some of you uot in the big bad world.

"Why post on here then if you don't want people's opinions? Are you merely looking for a pat on the back for having rudely answered a few security guards who were doing their jobs?"

Because I like to here other's input, doesn't mean I have to nod and agree. WHo's looking for a pat on the back, I asked had they any right? and what would you do? I didn't ask for a lecture in mannerisms.
"

Calina

Thecageyone wrote: »

Temper what exactly? Please point out where I have broken any rules ... Seriously, everytime I say anything in here you're on my case. Are you just waiting in the shadows?

No. I stand right there in the sunlight where you can't miss me.

Try not being abrupt to other users. It works wonders on not waking me up.

Thecageyone wrote: »

From where I'm sitting you could have at least offered an on topic opinion.

Oh that. I'm not familiar with Navan and chose not to add to the speculation about whether the location was private property or not. I understood you wanted hard facts.

On balance since we appear to have established the title of the property, I think this thread bears a lock.