Glasgow underground set to introduce complete ban on photography

[editor]

Totally unworkable and spectacularly stupid.

Amateur Photographer (AP) can exclusively reveal that Glasgow Subway passengers will be told they must ‘not take photographs, or make video, audio or visual recordings on any part of the subway'.
The ban is contained in Section 12.1 of proposed byelaws drawn up by the system's operator, Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT).
The new rules add: ‘The only exception to byelaw 12.1 is if a passenger has the written permission of SPT in relation to the activity.
‘The passenger must be carrying the permission, show it to an officer on request, and comply with any conditions of that permission.'
The crackdown will apply to all parts of the underground system, including trains and areas owned by SPT, even above ground.
Transport bosses say the byelaws are designed to ‘make sure that travelling on the subway is easy, safe, secure and comfortable'.

In a statement, the SPT told us: ‘SPT regularly receives photography and filming requests for the Subway and we are always happy to accommodate these when we can.
‘Our company policy has always been that consent must be sought prior to any photography taking place, and this is in line with security restrictions at any major transport hub, including railway stations, airports etc.
‘It also allows us to ensure that any such activity does not disrupt the operations of the network in any way.'

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...otography-on-underground-set-for-outright-ban

 

[Hocus Eye.]

They are just asking for everyone in Glasgow who has a mobile phone with a camera to start using it on their way to work, their way home and at everytime they go on the tube. This has to be made to look stupid and unworkable.

 

[purenarcotic]

What a load of shite for an idea. How fucking stupid.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

What a load of shite for an idea. How fucking stupid.

Thank you for your interest.

 

[skyscraper101]

Dickheads. They've invented a problem that wasn't there, and now has to be solved by a near unenforcable law. Who thinks up this shit?

Big up to any protest event that ensues. Hope they make a rod for their own back.

 

[editor]

How are they going to know if someone is looking at their smartphone screen or taking a photo? Man, the possibilities for civil disobedience and wind ups are truly immense here. Hopefully the unions will tell the bosses where to shove these ridiculous rules.

 

[stuff_it]

Dickheads. They've invented a problem that wasn't there, and now has to be solved by a near unenforcable law. Who thinks up this shit?

Big up to any protest event that ensues. Hope they make a rod for their own back.

...to avoid cuts perhaps?

 

[purenarcotic]

Thank you for your interest.

Does it really need much elaboration? This is going to be so hard to police it's absolutely laughable. And I can imagine all the complaint letters from wee Tabitha's parents who are royally narked that their kid has been told off for taking a picture of her and her mates to stick up on facebook.

So, as before, it's a shite idea and fucking stupid.

 

[skyscraper101]

I wonder if this is just bad legislating.

For instance, there's a good reason for not allowing flash photography on London tube station platforms (as it could impair the driver's vision), so I wonder if they've stupidly passed a byelaw which puts a complete ban on all photography. If it's not this, then they could be getting down (a few years too late) with a bit of 'anti-terrorism' to stop those pesky terrorist photographers from blowing up trains with their detailed snaps. The cynic in me suggests this could be some ploy to protect the Glasgow Subway's commercial interests and get a fee for any professional job by banning everything without registered permission being sought. Or perhaps a bit of all the above.

When we were in New York last year, the Empire State Building owners told us we needed to pay a fee to shoot any footage which contained an image of the building. Talk about trying to cash in at every opportunity, they were literally attempting to collect a fee for filming the skyline. I don't think so. They were told to fuck off.

 

[skyscraper101]

...to avoid cuts perhaps?

Banning photography reduces the chance of budget cuts? How do you work that out?

 

[stuff_it]

Banning photography reduces the chance of budget cuts? How do you work that out?

Drunkenly

 

[skyscraper101]

 

[George & Bill]

Airports can ban photography because they are private property, and there's nothing much can be done about that. This, otoh, is requiring a bylaw, which has the potential to be found to be incompatible with, for eg, human rights legislation.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Calling the Glasgow underground a 'network' is a bit grandiose IMO, it's just one big circle.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

I am going to start a rumour that Glasgow underground was closed and demolished from the date of this coming into force. They will not be able to prove me wrong because there will be no photographic or even audio proof of its existence.

 

[Mr Smin]

Airports can ban photography because they are private property, and there's nothing much can be done about that. This, otoh, is requiring a bylaw, which has the potential to be found to be incompatible with, for eg, human rights legislation.

Pretty narrow scope for that example as it's hard to see how anyone has a human right to take photos. I would agree that it opens up avenues for legal challenge that would not be available if you were challenging an airport's ban.

 

[sim667]

Lets be honest, they've done this under the guise of terrorism, but its a couple of years too late.

 

[klang]

couple of years ago i got into trouble on the glasgow underground for carrying a tin of paint. 'fire hazard' they said and wouldn't let me on.

 

[sim667]

Shoulda poured it all over the floor.

 

[klang]

i did. in the name of modern art.

 

[XR75]

If car parks can be considered public areas for insurance purposes despite private property then shouldn't railway stations be considered public for this?

 

[Pickman's model]

some years back i took a load of pictures of the cctv at liverpool street station, right opposite bishopsgate police station (and i took some of that too) and no one kicked up a fuss. and i bet you can take pictures at airports, for the plane spotters among us (and i'm sure we all recall the furore about the plane spotters in greece). when i'm next in glasgow if this stupid ban is still in force i'll make a point of taking pictures. i didn't last time i was there because it wasn't exactly photogenic, their underground.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

some years back i took a load of pictures of the cctv at liverpool street station, right opposite bishopsgate police station (and i took some of that too) and no one kicked up a fuss. and i bet you can take pictures at airports, for the plane spotters among us (and i'm sure we all recall the furore about the plane spotters in greece). when i'm next in glasgow if this stupid ban is still in force i'll make a point of taking pictures. i didn't last time i was there because it wasn't exactly photogenic, their underground.

You fool Pickman's, nobody ever takes pictures of Glasgow underground. That is why they have put a ban on it. They are hoping people such as you will deliberately infringe their rules and publish them on the internet. That way they get free publicity.

 

[Pickman's model]

 

[danny la rouge]

Calling the Glasgow underground a 'network' is a bit grandiose IMO, it's just one big circle.

SPT runs a network, though, of which the Subway is a part.