Private security at London Olympic site illegally harasses photographers shooting from public land

Discuss

34 Responses to “Private security at London Olympic site illegally harasses photographers shooting from public land”

  1. Wreckrob8 says:

    I feel safer now knowing they care.

  2. brainflakes says:

    Seems like they know they can’t stop people filming and instead try to hassle them out of the way, as they said “We have been told that we have to try to *deter* people from filming the secure area”

  3. Nick Eden says:

    Sadly I live about 200 miles away from the site, otherwise I would be totally up for a flashmob.

  4. Cynical says:

    “Scotland Yard had previously assured the National Union of Journalists that the private security at the Olympics had been trained on the legality of taking images from public land.” 

    …Trained to the same high standards as the met’s own officers, evidently. I’ll just leave this here: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2055/2311166742_7e71c2f9e5.jpg

  5. Bryan Costin says:

    Why any city would willingly subject itself to the modern Olympic games is a mystery to me. 

    • mccrum says:

       There’$ got to be $ome rea$on why any city, $tate, or country would $ubject them$elve$ to the organizing committee’$ whim$ to bow down before all $pon$or$.

      Why citizens themselves of said cities go along with it, I’ll never know, they get stuck with the taxes for stadiums and the link while the real money goes pretty far away.  You know, like Greece.

      • That is the power of propaganda. The get promised shinny stuff, without being made aware of the cost. And there is a repression on people that oppose it.

        So powerful that they can fast-track building a transit line in 4 years (the Canada Line in Vancouver, which I admit if probably the only real positive thing that happened) while they are still discussion extensions of others that were not relevant….  But the price to pay is too big.

        And I don’t really know what got built in London though.

        • Wreckrob8 says:

          We had some bloke from Vancouver over here in London telling us that once the party had started all the gainsayers would get swept up in the atmosphere of the whole thing and we would all have a spiffing time and be proved wrong. I can’t wait.

  6. That_Anonymous_Coward says:

    If they keep this up the Olympics will have no one going to watch it.  They will be unwilling to get into like 5 hours before the event so they can make sure to have enough time to get through the gauntlet of checks making sure that no one takes a photo or records a video they haven’t paid the IOC for.

    At what point do the people finally say enough?  They are contributing money to an event that most of them will be barred from, and giving up their rights and getting what in return?  Hell for half the cost of an Olympic bid, they could run commercials around the globe showing people they aren’t a bad place to visit.

    • And you forgot the part where the Owelympic sponsor have no financial liability into the event. If the bottom line is red, the taxpayer is on the hook. Not sponsors that we illegitimately ruled above the law by passing a bill to “protect” them. Happened in Canada, is happening in the UK too.

      Montreal took 30 years to pay for its stadium.

      Vancouver (and British Columbia) people largely on the hook for the Vancouver 2010™ event. Yet the sponsors who profited from it are not.

  7. James says:

    The power of a training course and a hihg-viz jacket. THE POWER!

  8. michael says:

    What a bunch of brats. Just because it’s lawful to do something doesn’t mean that you should. Why would filming a security checkpoint be of use to anyone? These guards were very restrained in their actions if you ask me. I’d love to see them travel back and try that act in China 4 years ago. The same bratty “journalists” who press the limit on what their individual rights allow them to do would surely lambast others for not providing enough protection to them and their peers. 

    • Ashen Victor says:

       So, your point is…

      “They should not be doing something that is legal because in China that was illegal and they are bratty enough to flex their rights”

      Makes absolutely no sense, sir.

    • That_Anonymous_Coward says:

      RTFA.
      The security drones decided they WERE doing something and offer no proof.
      They then misquote the law, and attempt to manhandle others property while they are on public property.

      Here is a wacky idea for you…  Why would filming a security checkpoint be dangerous?  People are going to walk through it and see it first hand.  If your security is so poorly designed that a photograph of the checkpoint renders is useless, its time to get new security staff.

      A PRIVATE security team should NEVER think they are above the law.  The fact that you support this type of action is amazing.

      Stupid uppity people exercising their legal rights, how dare they.

      • michael says:

        Here’s a better question. What purpose does filming the checkpoint serve? If the security officers that are employed to protect the grounds feel it may be a threat then why do it? 

        I didn’t necessarily say that I “support” the guards. I merely pointed out how ridiculous the actions of the camera persons were. 

        The fact that you have a Guy Fawkes image representing you does not bode well to your objective opinion of this matter. V for Vendetta was a great film huh.. 

        • James says:

          It serves no purpose. But then, walking in the park serves no purpose either. Nor does spotting trains, being a fan of watching aircraft, listening to the police band or any of a million other activities.

          Point is, there doesn’t need to be a purpose behind doing something that’s legal, that’s sort of how residual freedoms work. Anything that isn’t fobidden is permitted. End of. You don’t have to justify it.

          The fact that these chumps don’t like people exercising their rights means approximately bugger all. Their feelings don’t matter and nor does their opinion because their power to do anything about it ends at the border of the private property they guard.

          And on the flip side of the argument, what purpose does lying about the law, their own powers, and the legal issues regarding photographing the area serve beyond making them all look like halfwits with no clue as to the job they’re meant to be doing?

        • CaptainPedge says:

          What purpose does the Olympics(tm all rights abused) serve?

        • That_Anonymous_Coward says:

          Please point out where, other than in the fevered imaginations of the security drones, where they were actually filming the checkpoint.

          The ridiculous actions were those of the guards who are not officers of the law, and have no power on the public property where they decided to flex their muscle.

          Your focusing on 1 tiny thing to make this all alright, but you have no proof.  Maybe they were taking photos of this giant boondoggle that is going to end up costing everyone tons more money.

          You see my avatar and decide you know the who, what,  and how I am, your primed for a job in security.  Unable to actually think in terms without making connections that might only exist in your own mind.

          Maybe I support blowing up Catholics… had you considered that? 
          Didn’t think so. (In my defense they called me names first.)
          Please point out on the doll where I ever claimed I was objective.
          Please point out the thousands of times peoples rights have been trampled on by overzealous rent-a-cops drunk on their own power.

          So I might not be objective, but it is hard to maintain ones objectivity when the rule of law is being trampled.  When corporations have more rights than people.  When a rent-a-cop decides they get to make the call as to what rights people might be allowed to have.

          While you didn’t directly support the guards you went out of your way to cast the photographers and the people videoing the guards lying about the law as the ones in the wrong.

    • Michael, you are a dictator in the making. Seriously. People fought for their rights, and still have too. This guard would be restrained if they didn’t misquote the law to justify their unlawful actions of harassing people.

  9. DaHoss says:

    Bring friends and stun guns.

  10. vinculture says:

    They were trespassing and disturbing the peace and deliberately engineered this ‘confrontation’. I’ve asked the Guardian several times to correct their malicious and dishonest reporting but they have refused.

    I wonder why?

  11. As long as citizen will let Governments put this kind of practice upon them, it will happen. After all, it is the citizen, and not the sponsor that are held financially liable of the Owelympics.

  12. CLamb says:

    I was disappointed the video ended so early.  I would’ve liked to see the police response after collecting information.

  13. G4S are infamous in the UK events business for being over-zealous ham-fisted half-wits.

    The amount of hassle they generate makes them a nightmare to work with.

  14. kraut says:

    Why would filming a security checkpoint be of use to anyone?
    It’s of bugger all use to terrorists, that’s for sure, so the constant attempts to stop photography are a sign of paranoia.

     I’d love to see them travel back and try that act in China 4 years ago.
    When did China become an example to follow?

  15. Mantissa128 says:

    I’m surprised there aren’t taser-lenses for cameras that shock anyone stupid enough to put their hands over it.

  16. Mark McNulty says:

    Thos photographers would have been disappointed if they hadn’t have been stopped. 

Leave a Reply