The on-going battle of who owns the street…
On my way to buy some lunch from Tesco, sadly the only option I have thanks to its monopolisation of the British High Street, I witnessed something which I have experienced quite often and even been the victim of. The temperature has dropped significantly today and there is a windchill factor too. As a result, the Big Issue seller who stands in this part of the street, everyday of the year, had moved about four feet closer to the exit of this particular Tesco Metro store to benefit from the huge fans which churn warm air pointlessly out into the street.
As I approached I saw the manageress of the store shooing away this seller, barking at her to "move" because "customers were complaining," whilst the homeless woman whined that it was cold and she was cold and that the heat from the doorway was better. ("It's coooolldd." "Well, I'm sorry but you can't stand their, the customers are complaining, you'll have to move." "But it's cold." And so on). She wasn't actually blocking the exit to Tesco and was stood on public land, on the road she holds a licence to sell the Big Issue on. As far as I could see, she was legally entitled to stand where she was. Of course, Tesco probably don't want vagrants stealing their enegry, warmth and carbon they are so kindly donating to the atmosphere and so the manageress clearly felt this potential damage to the company image had to be dealt with promptly, and thus she made the Big Issue seller move out into the wind and open street. Every little helps.
Anyway, this reminded me of several situations I have found myself in whilst taking pictures, where over-zealous and officious individuals, who clearly have no knowledge of the Highway Code or the legal parameters that govern public rights of way, seem to think they can decide who can stand where and do what. Whilst working on my last film project (A Second City) I was asked to move twice from public land where I was legally entitled to be. The first occasion ranks as one of the most ridiculous moments in my life thus far. The second occasion was far more reasoned but still stupid.
I was filming the entrance gate of a scrap metal yard owned by EMR. Standing on the pavement, which is classed as a public right of way on that road, I set up my tripod (also allowed so long as you do not obstruct other users' rights of way) and began filming what would be a three second shot. Before I had removed my lens cap a guard in high visibility jacket and hard hat had emerged from his watch tower and crossed the road to me, stating I couldn't take photographs. I informed him politely that I was on public land and that I could, to which he retorted that the scrap yard was private and therefore I couldn't film it. I could already see where this was going but persisted and stated the law which (in its most basic form) states that anyone can take a photograph of anything whilst they are on public land. The guard informed whoever had sent him that "this geezer ain't budging" to which he was told to send me up to an office somewhere inside the yard. I obliged, packed up my kit and walked through the scrap yard to a dingy little office in a grime-covered Victorian factory building, overlooking a weigh-bridge.
Up a concrete staircase I found myself face to face with the yard manager, a wiry, middle aged man who eyed me sceptically through the hatch in the wall I was looking through. He asked me what I was doing, I explained, and he simply said it was private land and I couldn't film. I countered his claim with the facts of the law, which he refused to accept. I asked what objections he had to me filming his entrance gate, which he hilariously responded to with: "We don't want our operations filmed." I pointed out that unless he was doing something illegal it didn't really matter, and also pointed out that any competition could just stand and watch if they cared enough (he had tried to protest that the footage could be used by competition for their own benefit).
The argument became farcical when he stated he would stand in front of my camera if went back and tried to film, to which I asked if he would stand in front of anybody who happened to walk by and look in. He then threatened me with court ("I guarantee the company will win") and the police. I called his bluff and said I'd be happy for him to call the police and his lawyers as they would merely inform him of the same points I had raised. I then left the office having decided it was a waste of my time trying to reason with this man. I went back to the location and got the shot without any hassle at all. Hopefully he now knows where he stands.
My second incident was a few days later in a public market. I was approached by a market stall holder who had suddenly decided I needed a permit to photograph the market and her stall, despite it being public land and not being under the control of any private company. I explained what I was doing and this time I spent more time talking my project than the legalities of the situation. After a brief conversation I was met with a reasonable response allowing me to carry on. It seems some people can be reasonable after all.
Both of these instances, and the Tesco one, demonstrate a paranoia and suspicion which is growing in strength, worryingly, every year. More and more, people are treating anyone they deem 'undesirable' or 'suspicious' with hostility rather than applying reasoned judgement and common sense, or, in the case of the Big Issue woman, with empathy and kindness. This illogical attitude is particularly prevalent towards photographers, who are subjected to random checks and are pestered continually by self-important security officials who think they have been given a carte blanche remit to prevent anything that isn't simply walking by the area they 'govern'.
For a democracy, this erosion of freedom in public space is alarming and dangerous. The rise in private security firms- many of whom are badly trained and ill-informed and educated in the very legal system they are supposed to be upholding- are acting like a private military force for the businesses they represent, bullying the rest of us who are unfortunate enough to innocently try and work in their vicinity. The highways and walkways of Britain that are open to the public are just that. Nobody except the police have any powers to dictate your movements or actions on these pieces of land, and even the police must have significant reason to stop you. Furthermore, they cannot just arbitrarily confiscate camera equipment, demand you erase images or search you.
Section 44 of the Terrorism Act, the catch-all act which increasingly hacks at our freedom, was designed to enable police to stop and search suspected terrorists but it has been used frequently to bully photographers, journalists and even tourists and day-trippers just documenting their day out. Below are videos revealing how the public rights of way we possess are coming under more and more pressure from security forces (thankfully in some cases the police are more intelligent than their private counterparts). Yes, they are trying to protect us, but common sense seems to have been replaced by zealous self-importance and it also means these places that are being shielded from us are less open and transparent, ironically becoming more suspicious than the photographers trying to capture them as an image.
No comments:
Post a Comment