Armstrong Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 I've just read this article: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/12/for-20-years-i-fought-the-law-today-the-law-won I was very to surprised that this could get you a Police Caution. That area is fairly well known in London as a place where other activities might get you a caution but not tripod use. Clearly the former Editor and a Pro Photographer were caught out too. This page: http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/things-to-do/green-spaces/hampstead-heath/visitor-information/Pages/Filming-on-Hampstead-Heath.aspx doesn't really clear things up. There is fairly standard wording about Commercial Photography...but noting about illegality. My question is "How are you supposed to know in advance about these sort of bye laws?" There is a quite a jump from 'not allowed' to caution-able. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southpole Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 ridiculous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Skepper Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 It wouldn't be so bad if you could access the bylaws to research what they were talking about. Even searching on Google doesn't help and to add even further insult the City of London pages that supposedly has the link to them ( Hampstead Heath bylaws) is a dead end (Page not found). Might be interesting for those who shoot in the area to follow up. I've emailed the feedback to the website contact address to make them aware so hopefully they will fix it soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Glendell Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 That was a good laugh, 20 years as pic editor of the Guardian and his first 'offence' is for using a tripod on hampstead heath. Now would you get away with a monopod? That might just end up in the high court as a test case! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Having just read the piece in The Guardian a monopod too would be breaking the bye law. Apparently it prohibits the use of "photographic support apparatus". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Having just read the piece in The Guardian a monopod too would be breaking the bye law. Apparently it prohibits the use of "photographic support apparatus". Might not a human be thought of as a "photographic support apparatus"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Skepper Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I have just received a reply regarding the broken link to the bylaws. It has now been fixed. The byelaws were made in 1932 and the relevant section is quoted below for anyone interested. Buildings and Obstructions 11. No person shall in any open space, without first obtaining or otherwise than in accordance with the terms of a permit from the Council, erect or place or retain any post, rail, fence, photographic stand apparatus, tent, booth, screen, stand, swing or other building,, erection or structure or any obstruction of any kind whatever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Nice to see that jobsworthiness is alive and well. At least the poolice appear to have put the speck right on deleting images. That doesn't happen. Edit- it's the same in GLA parks. Incidentally, the term 'photographic stand apparatus' only appears in those byelaws. No-one else on the entire internet uses the term anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnB Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I cannot believe that the police would issue a caution over a tripod? Perhaps if they refused to remove it when asked but it doesn't sound like that was the case. Very hard to understand how using a tripod can get you a police record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I suspect the Guardian, being the Guardian, pressed the point and encouraged the caution for the sake of a story. You or I would have moved on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickfly Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I have just received a reply regarding the broken link to the bylaws. It has now been fixed. The byelaws were made in 1932 and the relevant section is quoted below for anyone interested. Buildings and Obstructions 11. No person shall in any open space, without first obtaining or otherwise than in accordance with the terms of a permit from the Council, erect or place or retain any post, rail, fence, photographic stand apparatus, tent, booth, screen, stand, swing or other building,, erection or structure or any obstruction of any kind whatever This looks like it was introduced to control funfairs, circus businesses etc. I don't think a tripod could be classed as an obstruction because it can easily be removed to allow safe passage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Skepper Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I cannot believe that the police would issue a caution over a tripod? Perhaps if they refused to remove it when asked but it doesn't sound like that was the case. Very hard to understand how using a tripod can get you a police record. I very much doubt you would get a record. Looking at the images it looks like a ticket was issued (just like a parking ticket). I agree common sense should have prevailed here. Being a retired police officer myself (not in the London area) we had more important things to enforce than old byelaws and generally only resorted to them when absolutely necessary. Believe me with the number of such antiquated byelaws around it is likely you can't step out of your front door in the UK without breaking one somewhere. Just deviating a little from the original topic here are some that are still in effect today and can be found in the Town Police Clauses Act 1847. There are far to many to list but it gives you an idea:- Penalty on persons committing any of the offences herein named...Every person who wilfully and wantonly disturbs any inhabitant, by pulling or ringing any door bell, or knocking at any door, or who wilfully and unlawfully extinguishes the light of any lamp: ..Every person who flies any kite, or who makes or uses any slide upon ice or snow: ..Every person who beats or shakes any carpet, rug, or mat (except door mats, beaten or shaken before the hour of eight in the morning): ..Every person who keeps any pigstye to the front of any street, not being shut out from such street by a sufficient wall or fence, or who keeps any swine in or near any street, so as to be a common nuisance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Holt Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Wimbledon Common has similar byelaws. I agree with Spacecadet though. The fine was probably put on expenses, and anyway the fee for the story effectively makes it a win. Utterly ridiculous situation though: It's fine to swear and threaten someone, but tripod users are the truer evil. Makes our fair isle look progressively backward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnB Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I cannot believe that the police would issue a caution over a tripod? Perhaps if they refused to remove it when asked but it doesn't sound like that was the case. Very hard to understand how using a tripod can get you a police record. I very much doubt you would get a record. Looking at the images it looks like a ticket was issued (just like a parking ticket). From the article: "As it was a first offence he wasn’t going to prosecute, but he would issue a written caution." You obviously know more about these things than I do and possibly the journalist used the wrong terminology but it is my understanding that a caution remains on record and may be disclosed in crb checks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Skepper Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I cannot believe that the police would issue a caution over a tripod? Perhaps if they refused to remove it when asked but it doesn't sound like that was the case. Very hard to understand how using a tripod can get you a police record. I very much doubt you would get a record. Looking at the images it looks like a ticket was issued (just like a parking ticket). From the article: "As it was a first offence he wasn’t going to prosecute, but he would issue a written caution." You obviously know more about these things than I do and possibly the journalist used the wrong terminology but it is my understanding that a caution remains on record and may be disclosed in crb checks. A caution that will stay on a persons record would have to be administered through a set process and usually by an officer of at least inspector rank. It would not be given by a beat officer and I would advise anyone that finds themselves in unfortunately similar circumstances to seek clarification on what the word 'caution' means in the circumstances i.e. will there be a criminal record for the purposes of CRB checks. I strongly suspect (although can't say for certain) it was simply akin to a 'slap on the wrist' and the purpose of the ticket was to record that a warning had been given for using the tripod so if there is a repeat offence, the offender cannot plead ignorance of the byelaw in any subsequent court proceedings. Also the irate jogger would see that the police would have taken some action in the circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russell Watkins Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 No way that this this was a "Caution" in the true sense of E&W Law and so would not appear on a CRB check (or whatever they're called now). More likely it was a form of Fixed Penalty Notice or fine. The Hampstead Heath "Police" are not sworn officers of any constabulary although they do have limited police powers. It's worth reading some of the comments BTL where there's a more in depth explanation of this. The subject in the story, Alan Rusbridger, is the current Editor of the Guardian, by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Skepper Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 ...snip The Hampstead Heath "Police" are not sworn officers of any constabulary although they do have limited police powers. ...snip Not according to their website: They enjoy full powers of a constable when in their jurisdiction and have a good working relationship with the local Metropolitan Police Sound very similar to the way the British Transport Police enforce law on railway property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russell Watkins Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 ...snip The Hampstead Heath "Police" are not sworn officers of any constabulary although they do have limited police powers. ...snip Not according to their website: They enjoy full powers of a constable when in their jurisdiction and have a good working relationship with the local Metropolitan Police Sound very similar to the way the British Transport Police enforce law on railway property. Sort of. They only have the "full powers of a constable" when enforcing Hampstead Heath byelaws. Also from their site: "Any significant incidents or crimes on the Heath are handed over to the Metropolitan Police..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famousbelgian Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I just finished reading this book as it happens. You would not believe what bye laws still exist today, how weird some of them are, and how most of us are blissfully unaware of them. It's a really good book, very enjoyable. http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1364344.The_Strange_Laws_of_Old_England Marc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barking Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Point 1 surely they should make a counter complaint for foul and abusive language likely to cause a breach of the peace? Point 2 these by laws were clearly written to stop 'semi permanent' structures being set up and would not apply to a tripod point 3 the by laws must be clearly advertised, I doubt that's the case a set up ifuyou ask me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanGibson Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 For anyone interested in using a tripod on Hampstead Heath, there's been something of a clarification. http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-news/tripod-users-records-stay-on-police-database-for-up-to-seven-years-46177 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 No problem. I can rarely be bothered to carry one these days. If anyone who's entitled to do so asks, I'm never a professional photographer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.