London Bridge Station No Filming From the Pavement Allowed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ognl8y5CumI

From about 16 minutes in.

On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 01:12:07 +0000, Yenc-PP-A&A <Yenc@power-post.org>
wrote:

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ognl8y5CumI
>
Wait until they hear about Google Streetview.

In message <3g46si90ljtngj11b95hsbh0aruitb081m@4ax.com>, at 05:16:26 on
Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 01:12:07 +0000, Yenc-PP-A&A <Yenc@power-post.org>
>wrote:
>
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ognl8y5CumI

In effect a dashcam for a pedestrian. The police are constantly
appealing for dashcom footage for when bad things happen when their
CCTV is broken or out of range.

I'm actually just as concerned about the alleged confiscation of the
pavement by Network Rail. I wonder if there's some brass-monkey
droppings saying where their land actually starts, rather than where
the anti-tank bollards are.

>Wait until they hear about Google Streetview.

That's a slightly different modality, because they do have an official
program to redact stuff.
--
Roland Perry

On 07/02/2024 05:16, Charles Ellson wrote:
> Wait until they hear about Google Streetview.

We had all this years ago.

It is private property, they can have any rules they want on their own
property.

But they cannot stop you photographing it from a public place.

They have no right to delete your pictures or take your camera without a
court order.

On 07/02/2024 10:59, Roland Perry wrote:
> I'm actually just as concerned about the alleged confiscation of the
> pavement by Network Rail. I wonder if there's some brass-monkey
> droppings saying where their land actually starts, rather than where
> the anti-tank bollards are.

Is a it a public pavement or pavement within their boundary.

Photographers Rights In The UK

https://www.pauldavidsmith.co.uk/photographers-rights/

On 07/02/2024 16:05, JMB99 wrote:
> Photographers Rights In The UK
>
> https://www.pauldavidsmith.co.uk/photographers-rights/
>
>

While true as far as it goes, it depends whether the position the guy
was filming from was actually a public place. Whole areas around that
part of the world are actually private land where the general public are
tolerated. I did a couple of interviews around there years back with the
then mayor[1] We were fine with County Hall as the background, or Tower
Bridge, but when I swung round to get a reverse shot of the journo
looking up More London Place we practically got jumped on by the
security goons. It had to be explained to them that we were standing on
GLC property with permission to film. They didn't like it but had to
retire muttering imprecations.

How they cope with all the swarms of tourists live-streaming themselves
on their smart phones is anyone's guess.

[1] Chubby chap with red hair, I wonder what happened to him?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 07/02/2024 16:05, JMB99 wrote:
>> Photographers Rights In The UK
>>
>> https://www.pauldavidsmith.co.uk/photographers-rights/
>>
>>
>
> While true as far as it goes, it depends whether the position the guy
> was filming from was actually a public place. Whole areas around that
> part of the world are actually private land where the general public are
> tolerated. …

I may have said this before, but anyway… A few years ago Mark Thomas did a
show about visiting public places in London. It turns out that the reason
Occupy occupied St Paul’s Yard when they did was because that’s the only
public land in the City of London; everywhere is private with right of way
for passing and repassing, but not pitching a tent.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In message <uq09ge$1g196$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:01:18 on Wed, 7 Feb
2024, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
>On 07/02/2024 05:16, Charles Ellson wrote:

>> Wait until they hear about Google Streetview.
>
>We had all this years ago.
>
>It is private property, they can have any rules they want on their own
>property.
>
>But they cannot stop you photographing it from a public place.

That's not what the BTP told me soon after St Pancras was opened (but
never ask plod for bulletproof legal advice).

I was wandering around the "Farmers Market" area taking photos and a
chap ran out of the M&S which was there at the time and not only
demanded I stop, but that I delete any pictures already taken.

As it happens a BTP in full bluebottle uniform was strolling past so I
asked for his opinion. He just laughed and said "carry on, they are out
of their minds".

>They have no right to delete your pictures or take your camera without
>a court order.

Some say they can threaten you with breach of copyright (or is it
trademark) but with no power to demand ID either, good luck with that -
unless you publish them later.
--
Roland Perry

In message <uq09it$1g196$3@dont-email.me>, at 16:02:37 on Wed, 7 Feb
2024, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
>On 07/02/2024 10:59, Roland Perry wrote:

>> I'm actually just as concerned about the alleged confiscation of the
>>pavement by Network Rail. I wonder if there's some brass-monkey
>>droppings saying where their land actually starts, rather than where
>> the anti-tank bollards are.
>
>Is a it a public pavement or pavement within their boundary.

That's the question. I'm disinclined to look up the Land Registry, but
the general public walking past is clearly unsighted on the matter. And
the staff might be anywhere from poorly trained to plain enjoying
throwing their weight around.
--
Roland Perry

In message <uq09nq$1g196$4@dont-email.me>, at 16:05:15 on Wed, 7 Feb
2024, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:

>Photographers Rights In The UK
>
>https://www.pauldavidsmith.co.uk/photographers-rights/

Undated Random blogger (most recent law referred to ten years old now).

I'm sure he has good intentions, but his disclaimers make it clear
he won't voluntarily pay your legal costs - and does he even have
professional indemnity insurance for that web page.

--
Roland Perry

In message <uq0aen$1gdgr$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:17:27 on Wed, 7 Feb
2024, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 07/02/2024 16:05, JMB99 wrote:

>> Photographers Rights In The UK
>> https://www.pauldavidsmith.co.uk/photographers-rights/
>
>While true as far as it goes, it depends whether the position the guy
>was filming from was actually a public place.

Which is an ambiguous term with different meanings depending on whether
we are discussing motoring law, telecoms law, upskirting law, or
something else.

>Whole areas around that part of the world are actually private land
>where the general public are tolerated.

Or sometimes welcomed. Otherwise how would customers ever get to the
shops?

>I did a couple of interviews around there years back with the then
>mayor[1] We were fine with County Hall as the background, or Tower
>Bridge, but when I swung round to get a reverse shot of the journo
>looking up More London Place we practically got jumped on by the
>security goons. It had to be explained to them that we were standing on
>GLC property with permission to film. They didn't like it but had to
>retire muttering imprecations.
>
>How they cope with all the swarms of tourists live-streaming themselves
>on their smart phones is anyone's guess.
>
>[1] Chubby chap with red hair, I wonder what happened to him?
>

--
Roland Perry

In message <uq0c56$1gno4$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:46:30 on Wed, 7 Feb
2024, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 07/02/2024 16:05, JMB99 wrote:
>>> Photographers Rights In The UK
>>>
>>> https://www.pauldavidsmith.co.uk/photographers-rights/
>>>
>>>
>>
>> While true as far as it goes, it depends whether the position the guy
>> was filming from was actually a public place. Whole areas around that
>> part of the world are actually private land where the general public are
>> tolerated. …
>
>I may have said this before, but anyway… A few years ago Mark Thomas did a
>show about visiting public places in London. It turns out that the reason
>Occupy occupied St Paul’s Yard when they did was because that’s the only
>public land in the City of London;

Even the highways where TfL presume to be able to set things like 20mph
speed limits? I know a Freeman of the City, maybe I'll ask him next time
I meet him.

>everywhere is private with right of way for passing and repassing, but
>not pitching a tent.
>
>Sam

--
Roland Perry

On 07.02.2024 17:01, JMB99 wrote:
> On 07/02/2024 05:16, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> Wait until they hear about Google Streetview.
>
>
> We had all this years ago.
>
> It is private property, they can have any rules they want on their own
> property.
>
> But they cannot stop you photographing it from a public place.

Private property and public place are not mutually exclusive. A public
place, legally, is any place where members of the public routinely have
access, either with or without the payment of an admission fee. All
passenger-accessible areas of railways stations, with a very small
number of exceptions (eg lavatories) are public places.

If the owner (or those acting on behalf of the owners such as a
management company) wish to restrict activities that a reasonable person
would expect to be permitted to do freely in a public place wishes to
restrict those activities (which include photography or making videos
for private use), the onus is on them to make those restrictions clear
in the form of visible signage in prominent locations. Simply publishing
a rule in the small print in some paperwork hidden on a website or
similar is not sufficient.

After a recent incident around a person live streaming playing the piano
in St Pancras station, there is a very informative video by the Black
Belt Barrister[1] that gives a great deal of information about the legal
position of this, including referencing both statute and case law
establishing the legal position on this topic.

[1] https://youtu.be/cmwJoJ6iFUI?si=jv9XKy5Dxvkt2A7T

> They have no right to delete your pictures or take your camera without a
> court order.

Indeed, any violation of the conditions for being on a public place are
a civil matter, and the confiscation or destruction of private property,
including photographs or videos, is not something a private individual,
company or similar organisation is entitled to do.

Robin

On 07/02/2024 17:03, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <uq0aen$1gdgr$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:17:27 on Wed, 7 Feb
> 2024, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 07/02/2024 16:05, JMB99 wrote:
>
>>> Photographers Rights In The UK
>>>  https://www.pauldavidsmith.co.uk/photographers-rights/
>>
>> While true as far as it goes, it depends whether the position the guy
>> was filming from was actually a public place.
>
> Which is an ambiguous term with different meanings depending on whether
> we are discussing motoring law, telecoms law, upskirting law, or
> something else.

It's not ambiguous in this context. Upskirting is (now) illegal wherever
it takes place. No idea what relevance motoring or telecomms law (what
telecomms law?) has.

>
>> Whole areas around that part of the world are actually private land
>> where the general public are tolerated.
>
> Or sometimes welcomed. Otherwise how would customers ever get to the shops?

Formally they are tolerated, they have no right to be there.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 07.02.2024 17:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 07/02/2024 16:05, JMB99 wrote:
>> Photographers Rights In The UK
>>
>> https://www.pauldavidsmith.co.uk/photographers-rights/
>>
>>
>
> While true as far as it goes, it depends whether the position the guy
> was filming from was actually a public place. Whole areas around that
> part of the world are actually private land where the general public are
> tolerated.

Anywhere that members of the public can routinely access is, legally, a
public place.

R v Kane [1965] established that a private club that allows access to
members of the public is, in law, a public place.

R v Waters [1963] determined that a closed hotel car park (with no
barrier to prevent the public from entering) is, in law, a public place.

Elkins v Carlidge [1974] held that an enclosure into which people were
invited is, in law, a public place.

In all of these cases, the locations concerned were private property,
but nevertheless met the legal standard to count as a public place.

> I did a couple of interviews around there years back with the
> then mayor[1] We were fine with County Hall as the background, or Tower
> Bridge, but when I swung round to get a reverse shot of the journo
> looking up More London Place we practically got jumped on by the
> security goons. It had to be explained to them that we were standing on
> GLC property with permission to film. They didn't like it but had to
> retire muttering imprecations.

Hired goon type security people can not be assumed to have any idea of
what the law actually is, and there are countless examples such as this
of them just making things up on the fly.

Robin

On 07.02.2024 17:55, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <uq09nq$1g196$4@dont-email.me>, at 16:05:15 on Wed, 7 Feb
> 2024, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
>
>> Photographers Rights In The UK
>>
>> https://www.pauldavidsmith.co.uk/photographers-rights/
>
> Undated Random blogger (most recent law referred to ten years old now).
>
> I'm sure he has good intentions, but his disclaimers make it clear
> he won't voluntarily pay your legal costs - and does he even have
> professional indemnity insurance for that web page.

More recent discussion, by a legal professional (a practicing barister
in England and Wales), citing relevant case law can be found here:
https://youtu.be/cmwJoJ6iFUI?si=ZXVTqJRmnKRCE3Zr

Robin

On 07/02/2024 16:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
>
> While true as far as it goes, it depends whether the position the guy
> was filming from was actually a public place. Whole areas around that
> part of the world are actually private land where the general public are
> tolerated. I did a couple of interviews around there years back with the
> then mayor[1] We were fine with County Hall as the background, or Tower
> Bridge, but when I swung round to get a reverse shot of the journo
> looking up More London Place we practically got jumped on by the
> security goons. It had to be explained to them that we were standing on
> GLC property with permission to film. They didn't like it but had to
> retire muttering imprecations.
>
> How they cope with all the swarms of tourists live-streaming themselves
> on their smart phones is anyone's guess.

Stories like this were common some years ago, with lots of cases quoted.

I got in an argument with someone once who was convinced I was not
allowed to photograph his home, which was of interest because of its
wartime use.

On 07/02/2024 17:05, Roland Perry wrote:

> I know a Freeman of the City, maybe I'll ask him next time
> I meet him.

The kind of freeman who argues something incomprehensible about maritime
law and the [sic] Magna Carta, while everyone else either points and
laughs or bangs their head against the nearest wall?

--
Arthur Figgis

In message <uq0f2n$1h7aq$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:36:23 on Wed, 7 Feb
2024, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 07/02/2024 17:03, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <uq0aen$1gdgr$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:17:27 on Wed, 7 Feb
>>2024, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 07/02/2024 16:05, JMB99 wrote:
>>
>>>> Photographers Rights In The UK
>>>>  https://www.pauldavidsmith.co.uk/photographers-rights/
>>>
>>> While true as far as it goes, it depends whether the position the
>>>guy was filming from was actually a public place.

>> Which is an ambiguous term with different meanings depending on
>>whether we are discussing motoring law, telecoms law, upskirting law,
>>or something else.
>
>It's not ambiguous in this context.

Actually it is, but let's not get into a legal seminar.

>Upskirting is (now) illegal wherever it takes place.

But that law was only introduced because previously the main issue was
it needing to be a public(sic) order offence.

>No idea what relevance motoring

Do try to keep up, it's well know that traffic laws apply to places like
supermarket car parks, despite being private property.

>or telecomms law (what telecomms law?) has.

The difference between public and private networks. RIPA 2000, now
superseded.

>>> Whole areas around that part of the world are actually private land
>>>where the general public are tolerated.

>> Or sometimes welcomed. Otherwise how would customers ever get to the
>>shops?
>
>Formally they are tolerated, they have no right to be there.

I don't think the shops would tolerate the landlords refusing to allow
customers on-site.
--
Roland Perry

In message <O_ecnSHYuqNNUV74nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
18:32:48 on Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
remarked:
>On 07/02/2024 17:05, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> I know a Freeman of the City, maybe I'll ask him next time I meet
>>him.
>
>The kind of freeman who argues something incomprehensible about
>maritime law and the [sic] Magna Carta, while everyone else either
>points and laughs or bangs their head against the nearest wall?

No a world famous solicitor. You do seem to be rather cynical today. Was
it something you ate?
--
Roland Perry

According to Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>:
>In message <O_ecnSHYuqNNUV74nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>18:32:48 on Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
>remarked:
>>On 07/02/2024 17:05, Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>>> I know a Freeman of the City, maybe I'll ask him next time I meet him.
>>
>>The kind of freeman who argues something incomprehensible about
>>maritime law and the [sic] Magna Carta, while everyone else either
>>points and laughs or bangs their head against the nearest wall?
>
>No a world famous solicitor. You do seem to be rather cynical today. Was
>it something you ate?

Yeah, sure, next you'll be telling us that Margaret Thatcher, Lloyd
George, Disraeli, Gladstone, Jan Smuts, Franklin Roosevelt, Bill
Gates, Vera Lynn, Placido Domingo, the late Queen and her mother were
all Freemen of the City, too.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <uq0c56$1gno4$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:46:30 on Wed, 7 Feb
> 2024, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 07/02/2024 16:05, JMB99 wrote:
>>>> Photographers Rights In The UK
>>>>
>>>> https://www.pauldavidsmith.co.uk/photographers-rights/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> While true as far as it goes, it depends whether the position the guy
>>> was filming from was actually a public place. Whole areas around that
>>> part of the world are actually private land where the general public are
>>> tolerated. …
>>
>> I may have said this before, but anyway… A few years ago Mark Thomas did a
>> show about visiting public places in London. It turns out that the reason
>> Occupy occupied St Paul’s Yard when they did was because that’s the only
>> public land in the City of London;
>
> Even the highways where TfL presume to be able to set things like 20mph
> speed limits? I know a Freeman of the City, maybe I'll ask him next time
> I meet him.

Dunno - I don’t remember enough of the show to know that. It was the show
called Trespass, but I can’t find any of the content on line.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> According to Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>:
>> In message <O_ecnSHYuqNNUV74nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>> 18:32:48 on Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
>> remarked:
>>> On 07/02/2024 17:05, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>>> I know a Freeman of the City, maybe I'll ask him next time I meet him.
>>>
>>> The kind of freeman who argues something incomprehensible about
>>> maritime law and the [sic] Magna Carta, while everyone else either
>>> points and laughs or bangs their head against the nearest wall?
>>
>> No a world famous solicitor. You do seem to be rather cynical today. Was
>> it something you ate?
>
> Yeah, sure, next you'll be telling us that Margaret Thatcher, Lloyd
> George, Disraeli, Gladstone, Jan Smuts, Franklin Roosevelt, Bill
> Gates, Vera Lynn, Placido Domingo, the late Queen and her mother were
> all Freemen of the City, too.

My grandfather was a Freeman of Pembroke Dock. I know that’s not quite so
prestigious, but it’s the best I can offer.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <uq0f2n$1h7aq$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:36:23 on Wed, 7 Feb
> 2024, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 07/02/2024 17:03, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <uq0aen$1gdgr$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:17:27 on Wed, 7 Feb
>>> 2024, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> On 07/02/2024 16:05, JMB99 wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Photographers Rights In The UK
>>>>>  https://www.pauldavidsmith.co.uk/photographers-rights/
>>>>
>>>> While true as far as it goes, it depends whether the position the
>>>> guy was filming from was actually a public place.
>
>>> Which is an ambiguous term with different meanings depending on
>>> whether we are discussing motoring law, telecoms law, upskirting law,
>>> or something else.
>>
>> It's not ambiguous in this context.
>
> Actually it is, but let's not get into a legal seminar.
>
>> Upskirting is (now) illegal wherever it takes place.
>
> But that law was only introduced because previously the main issue was
> it needing to be a public(sic) order offence.
>
>> No idea what relevance motoring
>
> Do try to keep up, it's well know that traffic laws apply to places like
> supermarket car parks, despite being private property.
>
>> or telecomms law (what telecomms law?) has.
>
> The difference between public and private networks. RIPA 2000, now
> superseded.
>
>>>> Whole areas around that part of the world are actually private land
>>>> where the general public are tolerated.
>
>>> Or sometimes welcomed. Otherwise how would customers ever get to the
>>> shops?
>>
>> Formally they are tolerated, they have no right to be there.
>
> I don't think the shops would tolerate the landlords refusing to allow
> customers on-site.

No, but because the place is private, rather than public, they can demand
that people leave when they are no longer welcome.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply