Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Coming through Peckham Rye station on the way home from work, one of the staff was shouting at a man taking photos of the inside of the station. I don't know why he was taking photos - but I told him he was allowed to and told the staff member the same thing. Am I right about that? Do Southern staff have authority to stop people taking photos in a public place?

Lounged: because it's Peckham not Dulwich?


It's not a public place, it's a private space (which is locked at night) which the public are allowed to enter at certain times and according to certain rules. Much like a shoping centre or a swimming pool building.


It's not beside the point, as the owner of the space can decide the rules of play. It's probably in the bye-laws, so worth checking those out.


Once upon a time BR was fairly laissez-faire, but we seem to be seeing more and more Greek-style (read: paranoid) behaviour from Those Who Must Be Obeyed these days. I wouldn't be surprised if they started arresting train spotters the way things are going.

There are many places where you cannot Film or take Photos without permission.


I was asked to move on whilst taking Photos in Borough Market because I was using a Professional Camera

IE a Nikon.


There were loads of other people taking Pics with small cameras.


Due to Anti Terrorism laws, Railway Stations, Bus Stations, and many other buildings,

Financial Institutions, Military, Police are considered 'Sensitive Areas' to take photographs


Section 44 of the Anti-Terrorism Act.


Photography Anti-Terrorism Act Section 44

louisiana Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's not a public place, it's a private space (which is locked at night) which the public are allowed to enter at

> certain times and according to certain rules. Much like a shoping centre or aswimming pool building.


I think they are all public places. Cf http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Public_place

Another Example.


Police delete London tourists' photos 'to prevent terrorism'


Like most visitors to London, Klaus Matzka and his teenage son Loris took several photographs of some of the city's sights, including the famous red double-decker buses. More unusually perhaps, they also took pictures of the Vauxhall bus station, which Matzka regards as "modern sculpture".


But the tourists have said they had to return home to Vienna without their holiday pictures after two policemen forced them to delete the photographs from their cameras in the name of preventing terrorism.


Article:- Here

Section 44 was suspended in July following a court ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. That's the piece of anti-terror legislation used to stop people taking photos. They are no longer allowed to stop you under section 44.

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Section 44 was suspended in July following a court

> ruling by the European Court of Human Rights.

> That's the piece of anti-terror legislation used

> to stop people taking photos. They are no longer

> allowed to stop you under section 44.


That is correct.


My earlier link was about Section 44 being Suspended.


It is a Very Grey Area. and no one, including the Police seem to understand the current situation.

Check the British Journal of Photography's website which has a lot of info about this. But what DJKQ says is right.

It really is crazy. I always carry a camera around with me (a film camera) and when I have to attend court for my work they take it off me, but when I offer them my mobile which has a camera in it and video record facility (don't they all?!!) they let me keep it. Ridiculous.

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's not grey at all....they have to absolutely sure you are linked to terrorist activity if they

> want to confiscate photos. So ultimately a totally unworkable law.


"s.45(2) A constable may seize and retain an article which he discovers in the course of a search by virtue of section 44(1) or (2) and which he reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism." [My emphasis]


Section 44 authorises only the exercise of stop and search, and gives no powers concerning photography. Section 45 similarly says nothing about photography, or the destruction of property.

ianr Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> louisiana Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > It's not a public place, it's a private space

> (which is locked at night) which the public are

> allowed to enter at

> > certain times and according to certain rules.

> Much like a shoping centre or aswimming pool

> building.

>

> I think they are all public places. Cf

> http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Pub

> lic_place


They are public in the sense of the public being able to enter them. But they are not public spaces in the sense that the pavements and roads are public spaces. They are each governed by a set of individual byelaws or private regulations which are particular to those spaces; and not by the byelaws that apply to the streets, squares, pavements, beaches etc. of the local authority where they are located.


For example, the railway byelaws run to thirty pages, and inform you that they can eject you if you do the 'wrong' thing with your pram or dog on any railway assets (which includes stations as well as the lines, embankments etc.). You can be chucked out if an approved person says so. Every rail company used to have its own byelaws but I think they've all been rationalised now.


Shopping centres are almost always privately owned. The public has access, but the rules are set by the owner, and policed by private security. You can be ejected for any reason they wish, so not exactly like being on the street. This applies as much to major developments that incorporate open-air streets (see Liverpool's L1, where formerly public streets have effectively been privatised) and the Broadgate Centre (70 acres?) as it does to smaller or enclosed developments such as Southwide in Wandsworth. Example regulations from The Glades in Bromley: you are not allowed to sit on balustrades, wear a hoodie, take photographs, shout, enter the centre with your dog unless a guide dog... and you must wear a top/shirt at all times. 'Loitering' is something many shopping centres use as grounds for removal. Privatisation of the public realm.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...