Is it illegal to take photos in Peckham Rye station?

[Timster]

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?

[louisiana]

The inside of the station is not a 'public place' in that sense.

[Timster]

Surely it is?! But that's beside the point.

PS not sure why this has been lounged.

[louisiana]

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.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

I'v taken photos from the platform and inside - but I did ask permission first. Maybe a little courtesy smooths the wheels.

[stevebailey]

Timster, I have to ask....

Why did you feel the need to tell the man and the station officer that he can take photo's when a) you don't know and b) you don't even know that it is in fact not a public place?

I'm intrigued!!

Thanks

[DulwichFox]

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

[ianr]

"Taking photographs on stations is permitted providing it is for personal use." http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/passenger_services/guidelines_for_rail_enthusiasts.html

[ianr]

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

[SeanMacGabhann]

being asked to "move on" is not the same as you are not permitted

Many security staff use "authority" to move people on when in fact they don't have any legal right to do so. You can stand your ground

[DulwichFox]

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

[DJKillaQueen]

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.

[DulwichFox]

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.

[DJKillaQueen]

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.

[PeckhamRose]

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.

[ianr]

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.

[daizie]

should be , effing sh1t hole

[DJKillaQueen]

'reasonably suspects' is clear enough in my view. It instantly makes the majority of people unapproachable by Police.

[louisiana]

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.