ralphchadkirk
Established Member
Yes, and being told you can't take a photograph is not bullying. Why should they give him one more chance when I get the feeling he has been disregarding the rules for a while? Am I right?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Had problems taking pictures of the railways?
- Thread starter Snapper
- Start date
Yes, and being told you can't take a photograph is not bullying. Why should they give him one more chance when I get the feeling he has been disregarding the rules for a while? Am I right?
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
alexdodds
Member
Its nothing to do with what you are been told its more of a case of how you are been told. He has also been followed round by staff now that's called stalking. I know cos he talks to me and others up here.
Metro did make an arrangement with him to let him video but a few things went wrong and it got withdrawn. But people do make mistakes and then learn from them. I am sure he would learn where he went wrong if he was given a second chance.
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
Right, so that something was probably his fault and Metro therefore withdrew his permission to film on their property? I bet the complaints about the staff have come after permission was withdrawn.
Most people only get one chance in this world. If you don't treat it right the first time then there's no reason to expect you'll get a second chance.
alexdodds
Member
I think you would know more if you spoke to him yourself.
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
I don't know the person in question so I'm reliant on you.
alexdodds
Member
I dont think i can mention whos on Facebook on here. but his youtube is coachalex1996
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
His YT channel seems to show he's deliberately and knowingly flouting the rules, and complaining when the Metro enforce them.
alexdodds
Member
But providing some good footage as well.
Theres a couple of other videos on there you will want to see.
Good footage of what? His regular rule breaking? Seems to me it just gives more evidence for the Metro to not give him permission.
90019
Established Member
If I came and stood in your house, I'm sure I could get some good footage of your living room.
Obviously that makes it fine with you?
I'd advise you to stop digging.
Or perhaps you'd like a bigger spade?
alexdodds
Member
No need to take the mick
That bigger spade might come in handy if i do get annoyed with certain folk. now enough.
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
It's not a good look to threaten people when they disagree with you!
May I again remind people that railway stations are public places, no matter who owns them, because they are used by the public all day, every day (except Christmas). People's houses are not intended to be used by the public. If you live in a pub, then that might be a bit more valid.
90019
Established Member
Just answer this;
Why is it ok for your friend to be on private property when the owner doesn't want him to be?
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
Railway stations are private property to which the public are generally allowed access. That is no different from, for example, a Tesco where it is private property but there is a general presumption of access.
There is also an implied consent of access to someone's property (not however the house, so perhaps standing in the garden may have been a better analogy?) which, for example, is utilised by postman and couriers etc.
90019
Established Member
A railway station is private property.
So is a pub. They are not personal dwelling places, they are used by the public and that is the whole point. I define a public place by who uses it rather than who owns it. Don't ask me about the legal standing, I'm a scientist who writes stories sometimes, but I think that's how most people would think of it.
It's written in the deeds to my house. It states requires access for visitors, including postmen, couriers, utilities etc.
Now, I'd have certain rights to evict trespassers, but as a civil offence I guess I'd be rather limited in my chances of success.
90019
Established Member
Indeed, and the landlord (and their staff) can refuse you access to the pub.
Indeed, which is why it is a much more valid comparison with a railway station.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Quite right.
Does anyone know who actually owns the roads in this country? It might turn out that they are the sovereign's private property, yet there is no disputing that they are a public place.
alexdodds
Member
Exactly. They say its something to do with privacy but they have got that wrong because in public theres no right to privacy with cctv all around us and if your taking a picture you can just shout MOVE to everyone. and then theres that health and safety red tape rubbish.
The platforms may be short in length but if they changed the rules to something like on the tube at least letting people take pics and videos if there passing through a station without a tripod and flash they we can all be happy.
Policies like this go into the minds of staff and some of them then become hell bent on giving a photographer a right good clip round the ear
Last edited:
electra27000
Member
I'd have thought the answer to the issue of whether you can take images on Nexus (Metro) stations is to simply choose places where you can take images of their trains from public land...
the sniper
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Sep 2007
- Messages
- 3,499
The conversation should have ended here. The Metro have allowed him to video, but he screwed up and now he's banned again. Your friend is probably the kind of person who causes the problems for all the photographers out there who do nothing wrong... Some of his videos don't help his cause.
Personally I don't see why the Metro are so bothered about photography on their property in general, but I don't think your mate has done himself any favours and he doesn't seem to be entirely blameless for the treatment he receives.
That's too logical.
Had my first problem filming on the railways today.
I was on the Pollokshaws East to Glasgow Central service today (the one that goes right round the stations). Train had hit Cathcart and I got the camera out to take a video of the scenery going by. Big ticket inspector comes by, tells me to get the "camera down. Recording isn't permitted". I say "Nae Bother". Don't want any probs.
He then stands in the doorway typing into his mobile phone and staring at me. I think he even took a sly picture of me too. I'm going to email Scotrail about that and where that picture is headed. Train hits Central, I try to get out and the guy puts his arm across the door - "I have to get somebody", but he didn't reckon on the crowd behind me who were wanting off, so he put his hand down and I walked very fast out the station.
I was filming at the time, but I only managed to get the first milliseconds of the conversation, so if you really need to hear the mumbling, I will put it up.
I was on the Pollokshaws East to Glasgow Central service today (the one that goes right round the stations). Train had hit Cathcart and I got the camera out to take a video of the scenery going by. Big ticket inspector comes by, tells me to get the "camera down. Recording isn't permitted". I say "Nae Bother". Don't want any probs.
He then stands in the doorway typing into his mobile phone and staring at me. I think he even took a sly picture of me too. I'm going to email Scotrail about that and where that picture is headed. Train hits Central, I try to get out and the guy puts his arm across the door - "I have to get somebody", but he didn't reckon on the crowd behind me who were wanting off, so he put his hand down and I walked very fast out the station.
I was filming at the time, but I only managed to get the first milliseconds of the conversation, so if you really need to hear the mumbling, I will put it up.
So he took a photo of you? I wonder what he was planning to do with that? I'd have posed and made a funny face!
If he suspected you were a terrorist (surely about the only reason to want you to stop filming) then he obviously failed miserably at apprehending you and passing you onto the authorities - so it seems like he's just a total prat.
If he suspected you were a terrorist (surely about the only reason to want you to stop filming) then he obviously failed miserably at apprehending you and passing you onto the authorities - so it seems like he's just a total prat.
There's a chance someone who goes that far can be sued for false arrest.
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
Where was the arrest?
Sorry, didn't make myself clear. Firstly, I am not a lawyer, so I don't know how accurate this is. If someone is arrested, or at least stopped, then the person doing so might find themselves in very hot water because it might turn out to be false arrest/imprisonment. I don't really want to encourage the "see you in court" culture, but it's a possibility.