« Good Warming vs Bad Warming - Wind The Answer | Main | Pen Hadrow Off Again. »

The O2 Olympic Venue Welcome Video







O2 Olympic venue in row over security against legal photography | Sport | The Guardian

As an experiment, the Guardian attempted to shoot video footage of the O2 arena from a public road on its southern edge, only a few minutes' walk from the main entrance.

Very quickly the reporter was challenged by O2 security guards, who made a series of demands with no basis in law. They ordered that the filming stop – "We've requested you to not do it because we don't like it" – and that they be shown any existing footage. Asked on what basis they could demand this, one replied: "It's under the terrorist law. We are an Olympic venue." Another added: "You have, for want of a better word, breached our security by videoing it [the O2]."

At one point they refused to allow the reporter to leave. One said: "It's gone too far for that."

Guards are entitled to challenge suspicious behaviour and call the police. However, they have no additional legal powers on public land. While such overreach is not uncommon it is often followed by a management apology.

An O2 spokesman defended the guards' approach. He said: "On the basis that [the reporter was] filming areas of the O2 that are not usually of interest to the public, our security staff's approach and handling of the situation was entirely appropriate."

It was routine policy to intercept anyone filming the arena from public land, he added: "We work with the media and others to accommodate requests to film in and around the O2, which is situated on private property, but when we observe filming of the O2's infrastructure and access points it is our policy to approach individuals so we can take the appropriate course of action." The same policy was in force with people taking still photographs from public vantage points, he said.

The civil rights campaign group Liberty said it was alarmed. Its legal officer Corinna Ferguson, said: "There's no power stopping a person taking photographs on public land, let alone to arrest them or seize property, without reasonable suspicion they've committed an offence. Police officers or  security guards who get this wrong could well find themselves in trouble with the law.

"With all eyes on London during the Olympics what a terrible message it would send if Londoners and tourists face harassment from the authorities merely for snapping the capital's landmarks."

Comments

I have to say that my sympathies are with the guards trying to deal reasonably politely with some pratt from the Guardian stirring up trouble.

Private 'security' men trying to bully members of the public on public land with unlawful threats? I'd tell him to **** off.

And take the world's smallest Rottweiler with him.

The whole point of freedom, and especially free speech (of which this is a special case, because free speech must include the right to observe, record and publish) is to give rights to everybody - even 'prats from the Guardian'. MarkF might find that one day someone thinks he is a prat and uses that as an excuse to silence him.

The point, MarkF, is that the guards don't have a right to deal with the pratt from the Guardian, politely or otherwise.

Everyone has the right to take action when they see someone acting in a suspicious manner around a sensitive area.

When pushing the det into some explosives and rolling out the det wire maybe, but taking photographs, do they bollocks? Under such circumstances, the most you can do is take some photos of your own and pass them on to the fuzz (and if the fuzz came knocking on my door as a result I'd tell them to bollocks as well). People do not have a general right to interfere with people carrying out perfectly legal activities just because they are paranoid or nasty little fascists.

This is how england ends. Fat idiots with poodles telling you what to do in a public sheet.

This is how england ends. Fat idiots with poodles telling you what to do in a public street.

Post a comment