Southeastern Rail Enforcement Officeers

[bengolding]

I got this link from a friend, who says it has been on the Twitter and blogging rounds for the past few days:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.u...272308-Southeastern-Rail-Enforcement-Officers

A passenger takes a photo of a Rail Enforcement Officer on a Southeastern service. They are then escorted off the train and detained to be met by the BTP for taking photos of the Officers.

Read the rest of this very interesting and rather entertaining story to see what happens next, including a Meet the Manager session and a negative blog post from Go Ahead itentifying themselves as Adrian Chiles!

 

[222666]

It's the law that needs clarification in circumstances like these, it's not an offence to take pictures in public but it obviously causes offense to some people. In that respect it's almost like a verbal assault, certainly it is bad manners to take pictures of people without asking them, they might be concerned as to why the photographer actually wants / needs to photograph them in the first place. Until there is clarfication in such instances there will be OTT responses from offended parties methinks.

This is not helped by hysteria over terrorism & people warrant themselves as being important enough for dodgy types to be photographing them, when they're probably not that important after all :roll:.

 

[Greenback]

I think the law is fine as it is. No offence has been committed. There are too many people about who believe there is some law against taking photos in public. There is not, and nor should there be.

Of course, if you are taking pics of people directly, rather than photographing a general scene in which others can be seen in the background, then it's good manners to explain what you are doing and why. It's also good manners not to take pictures if someone isn't willing to be photographed.

 

[Darandio]

I'm not sure about this to be honest. We often hear stories about those that are challenged at stations for taking photos and the "legalities" behind it, of which most of use agree on.

To me, this incident, from the outside, seems to be a case of needlessly photographing the BTP in order to gain a reaction to support the case of those that are harrassed. Why else would you photo them on the platform, then photo them on the train as well, regardless of whether you were in the right.

It's just an un-necessary piece of tit for tat which does us (people who like o attend stations unhindered with good intentions!) no good whatsoever.

 

[Greenback]

I don't want to comment to much on this specific case, as the information about is a bit sparse. But it does seem as though the blogger wanted to take on the REO's they photgraphed, and might have been trying to get a reaction., They do seem to have a bit of a problem with rail staff of a certain type.

 

[CarterUSM]

I don't want to comment to much on this specific case, as the information about is a bit sparse. But it does seem as though the blogger wanted to take on the REO's they photgraphed, and might have been trying to get a reaction., They do seem to have a bit of a problem with rail staff of a certain type.

That's the way I read this situation. It's all a bit pointless and avoidable really.

 

[455driver]

Lets nip around to the bloggers house all stand in full view and somebody can photograph him leaving, getting in his car, then somebody else can already be at the rail station to photograph him getting out of the car, walking to the platform , getting on the train etc, another person can be on the train and take several pictures of him there, then somebody else can photograph him getting off the train, walking across the concourse and lastly another person can photograph him walking into work!
please note that at no stage has anybody followed him asd all the photographers were already in position, so it isn't illegal and lets see what the blogger thinks about being photographed in public after this lot.
As far as I can make out he has basically done everything he can to get a reaction and then complained when he has got that reaction, I do have a name for people like him and it rhymes with banker!

 

[jopsuk]

455driver- way to go with a strawman argument. The guy is a civil liberties campaigner, and just wanted a snap of the back of an REO's jacket.

To do what you suggest would require following him- how are you meant to know what route, what time train etc etc he takes to work without having first conducted surveillance, which would potentially be illegal- a totally different situation. If he'd got the picture he was after, the REOs would not have been identifiable.

The REOs stepped WAY over their boundaries- even just asking/demanding to see the photos is something that not even the police have the power to do (not that a lot of policemen are aware of this...)

 

[Greenback]

The REO's did step beyond their authority. I too have concerns about prviate security forces, such as council enforcement officers, who dress like the police but don't have anywhere near the same sort of powers. Although, I must be honest, I haven't seen any evidence that they bother ordinary people going about their legitimate business.

I think the point here is that the blogger seems to have taken quite a few pictures, on the platform and on the train itself, which aroused the interest of the REO's. I also think that the blogger's response was calculated to get their backs up and provoke them. That certainly worked! I think his response, when asked if they could see the photos he had taken, was unreasonable and disproportionate. It's worth pointing out that anyone can ask to see any photo, no particular power is needed for any human being to ask another human being that! I think we have to accept that if we have the right to take phtogoraphs, we also allow others the right to ask if they can see those photo's. We don't have to comply, of course.

I must admit, if I saw someone had taken quite a few photos of me in particular, I'd be quite interested to know why they were so keen to photograph me in particular!