Flickr user I didn't mean to go to Stoke recounts an unfortunate encounter with private security guards (and eventually police) in Middlesborough's shopping centre:-
My friend and I were photographing in the town. I spotted a man being detained by this security guard and a policeman, some kind of altercation was going on, i looked through my zoom lens to see what was happening and then moved on.
Moments later as i walked away this goon jumped in front of me and demanded to know what i was doing. Ii explained thatI I was taking photos and it was my legal right to do so, he tried to stop me by shoulder charging me, my friend started taking photos of this, he then tried to detain us both. I refused to stand still so he grabbed my jacket and said i was breaking the law. Quickly a woman and a guy wearing BARGAIN MADNESS shirts joined in the melee and forcibly grabbed my friend and held him against his will. We were both informed that street photography was illegal in the town.
Two security guards from the nearby shopping center THE MALL came running over, we were surrounded by six hostile and aggressive security guards. They then said photographing shops was illegal and this was private land. I was angry at being grabbed by this man so i pushed him away, one of the men wearing a BARGAIN MADNESS shirt twisted my arm violently behind my back, I winced in pain and could hardly breathe in agony.
A policewomen was radioed and came over to question the two suspects ( the total detaining us had risen to seven, a large crowd had now gathered)
The detaining guard released me, i asked the policewoman if my friend and i could be taken away from the six guards, she motioned us to a nearby seat and told all the security people to go. She took our details, name, address, date of birth etc. She wanted to check my camera saying it was unlawful to photograph people in public, i told her this was rubbish. we agreed to come with her and we sat in the back of a police car, she radioed back to the station to check our details, i explained to her the law regarding photography and handed over a MOO card, i asked to take her picture and she said no. We were free to go with no charge. I may press charges for unlawful detention and physical assault by the security guards, watch this space.
Luckiily my friend videoed some of this so it can be used in evidence.
Here it is www.flickr.com/photos/photodrift/2422740769/
Photorights.org isn't any more keen on censoring debate and points of view than we are on restriction of photographers' free expression. So long as comment is not abusive or defamatory, I would prefer to see points answered rather than removed.
For the avoidance of doubt I'm not taking sides in this. As far as I am aware, Lawrence was legally exercising his right to take photos in a public place. He may have pissed off some people along the way, a situation I regard as unwise when photographing in the street, but there is no law against pissing people off and the security guards do not have a public duty to act as arbiters, they have a public duty to stick to the law.
Photorights admin
Brenda's description of my photos and my actions are completely untrue, it is a scandal that these untruths are allowed to remain on this forum
the problem is,
there was nothing illegal going on here, he has the right of expression and I feel is a doing an important piece of social documentary. Ok so his comments are some off sometimes, but nothing a tabloid or nuts would not do and no where near that close. what if he was martin parr would be be saying he should behave himself, I think not, what about the social documentary of on the buses from liverpool. I dont think anyone has ever criticised henri cartier bresson in this way, I think its a little short sighted to issue quotes like
"Middlesbrough is a small town, and a close knit community. Mothers, sisters, grandmothers have been photographed going about their daily business, without their permission, and their subjects have been mocked and ridiculed on the internet. Whilst I agree that the former might be legal, it is not ethical. Posting photographs of people grimacing at an unwanted camera in their face and mocking them is rude, but may not be illegal, depending on whether or not the subjects have been identified. I don't know, IANAL."
Every one has a right to do it, whether they exercise that right or understand its implications is not our position to moc.
The shooter is doing something he believes in, I see nothing wrong with what he is doing and nothing there is bad. Other views on life should be accepted and celebrated, anyone only need look at the actions in tibet to know that. In an irony, I can only wager that his work maybe well be embraced by the council in the long term.
So we should fight for our rights to do so and take action to protect these actions and documentations. you only need to remember the effect of colour images from Vietnam, that effected the war there not so long ago.
cheers
anonymous
This is a useful and productive thread thank you.
It might well come to that, on both counts.
In the meantime my default position is to take with a large pinch of salt anything Windrush says. Pointing a finger at the wrong person in a so-called assault and then conducting a campaign against them on the internet is a serious matter.
Unfortunately a minimum wage security operative (or someone's grandmother out shopping) isn't in the position to employ lawyers in defamation cases.
Publishing images that expose people to ridicule is sailing close to defamation, for which the subjects could take legal action. I imagine Flickr would pull any images that subjects find offensive at the faintest whiff of a lawyer's letter, and quite likely close the account. It also sounds as if an ASBO may be viable, if people complain about harassment to police.
So there are ways to deal with vexatious photographers legally, instead of making up non-existent powers that assert photography itself is verboten.
©A admin
Yes, I totally concur. Two further points though:
1. Middlesbrough is a small town, and a close knit community. Mothers, sisters, grandmothers have been photographed going about their daily business, without their permission, and their subjects have been mocked and ridiculed on the internet. Whilst I agree that the former might be legal, it is not ethical. Posting photographs of people grimacing at an unwonted camera in their face and mocking them is rude, but may not be illegal, depending on whether or not the subjects have been identified. I don't know, IANAL.
There will almost certainly have been complaints made about Windrush to community safety officers and the police locally. There are issues of blocking thoroughfares and creating a public nuisance which are caused by Windrush's behaviour. It may be on these grounds that he was stopped, we simply do not know.
2. Windrush's accounts of events are often wildly contradictory. His photograph and video of the security guard shows no assault, and his description of the supposed assaulters is that they were wearing teeshirts, whilst the guard is in a navy uniform. His picture and video therefore are in his own terms, pointing the finger of suspicion at the wrong person.
If Windrush is excluded from the centre of Middlesbrough by some sort of public safety order, many of us who use the town regularly will not be at all surprised, and as a photographer I will be delighted to see him removed. His actions give photography a bad name.
I agree with your general point that photographers should work with respect and integrity, and would go further and add that sensitivity is essential unless there is some overwhelming public interest. Personally I deplore a lot of what paparazzi get up to, and would not do that sort of work myself, but the fact remains it is legal and there is a substantial market for it among members of the public who buy the publications that run it.
Avoiding any comment about Windrush's pics or actions, it is not the job of police, CSO's or private security to act as arbiters of taste and ethics. They are there to ensure law is upheld, and there are laws which may apply here, ranging from harassment to defamation (a civil matter anyway).
©A admin
Whilst it is important to agree to ensure that photography is allowed when and wherever practicable, still it is incumbent upon us as photographers to work respectfully and with integrity.
Lawrence Windrush is notorious in the Middlesbrough/Tees area for publishing photographs of mostly poor, elderly or overweight locals on the internet and subjecting them to mockery by sarcastic or ironic titles and tagging. He reports that he is often stopped by community wardens and the police, and this is hardly surprising given his behaviour.
Photographers' rights are important, of course, yes. But respect for one's subjects is equally important. Unfortunately it seems Windrush may be suffering the consequences of his own behaviour.
Middlesbrough is a lovely town, full of warm and welcoming locals with a ready smile and a sense of humour. I have never had any problem photographing there.
It is worth adding as an addendum that when I last went to the Mall Centre Middlesbrough two weeks ago, on a simple arranged visit to return a non-working item to the Carphone Warehouse, the staff called security (three of them) while I was waiting, and I had to leave the building while they checked me out. The place has gone completely mad, and I don't know why.
cheers
Paul Ingram
There is some kind of problem with The Mall Centre. I was asked to leave by the general manager, David Macnee, just for carrying a camera (I was on the way to a shop, been going there 30 years and more). I went through the usual rigmarole of pointing out everyone in the Centre has a camera, but he passed me on to the head of security. This happened again, the next time I visited, minus the GM. I'm going to take it up with him (we exchanged business cards, it was entirely surreal).
I've been asked to stop photographing the fountains in town at night, by private security. There is a species of insanity at work in Middlesbrough - best just to go out with camera, and face it down.
Post new comment