No photos allowed in Bristol's Temple Quay area!
Strolling aimlessly the other day as I waited for a friend to arrive at the train station, I took a few snaps of the new gherkin-type building they're putting up, because it looked interesting from an angle underneath the Valentine Bridge, when...
.. a hapless security guard called over to me and asked me to stop taking photos because his employers, GVA Grimley, had told him he has to do this. He was very nice and we had a good chat . But he did tell me that the site around Temple Quay is apparently private and the owners don't want people taking photos.
I was scandalised of course as I thought this was a public space along the canal. Has part of our city been sold off to a business who can ban photography on its land? Under what law? Anti-terrorism?!
Surely this can't be true?!
make this your indymedia front page
Monday June 08, 2009 17:58
by Goanna
printable version
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (6 of 6)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6GVA Grimley are the same crazies who stuck barriers in the middle of a cycle path (for health and safety reasons of course) and who banned buses from going to Temple Quay because they were making the road 'oily'.
I regularly pass through this area and i don't remember seeing any signs that its private (but i know it is) i have taken many photos there as well, i think the concept of a private public space is a bit strange, and increasing private roads which are indistinguishable from normal public roads and paths is a problem. If i had been told that i would have ignored them What powers do they have? and they don't own the properties you were taking photos of as that is across the river and is built by a company which is insolvent? actually funded by loyds tsb and so therefore about 70% government owned including the nice but very expensive foot/cycle bridge.
The streets are ours, despite whatever piece of paper says otherwise.
I am often out with a large video camera and ofte nget asked to stop.
The latest was cabot circus and outside that silver ball thingy.
It's complex but in a nutshell.
You can film anything in a publically accessible area - note accessible. If anyone tells you to stop - tell them to go away - if they dont threaten to call the police.
BUT if there are signs up ( unlikely otherwise ) on publically accessible private land you become a trespasser and the sec can use REASNOBLE force to remove you.
BUT if all you are doing is taking random snaps it is VERY unlikely that any pc will think any force is reasnoble.
All this hinges on you not being an oaf if the police turn up and with video kepp the camera going at all costs as these exchanges make good video.
If in doubt film - always.
As of two weeks ago, you can take photos in Cabot circus. I know this as I have a video of one of their people in Quakers Friars telling me that it is ok to take pictures, but not while cycling along, as the bikes are a no-no.
There are laws that restrict you from photographing the police, and any photograph taken in a public place can be spun as an offence under anit-terrorism law. There are many cases in our supposedly great capital of innocent tourists having their camera seized and images erased. We are in a police state that assumes watching our every move is ok, yet if we want to, it is a criminal offence.
I am having great difficulty in waking people up to the reason/s behind this, they seem to be in a trance. I beg of all that read this comment to visit infowars.com and at least read the news articles posted there and spread the word.
We need our freedom back.