Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Stopped by security guards photographing on a public street

  • 03-05-2010 08:01PM
    #1
    Thecageyone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,756 ✭✭✭


    Anyone up on their law?

    Today I had a run in with some goons security guards while taking a few shots [of a building] outside ... actually, across the road, from the shopping centre where they are employed.

    I knew as they approached [one skinny guy who fancied himself as the Boss I guess, one big fat guy, while another stood outside the doors watching on ... in case of trouble!? ... I had a buggy with a sleeping child in it by my side] That they were going to question me. I was already on the defensive, not one for taking lightly to bull****.

    Anyway, they asked "Are you a photographer?" - to which I replied - I guess so, why?

    "Do you realise you're not allowed to take pictures on this road?"

    "Says who?"

    "It's private property etc .. etc .."

    I called bull**** on that, saying it was a public street, if anyone owned it it was the local council. I told them if they had issue with me taking pictures they were free to call the cops/council to come down and explain to me how I was breaking some imaginary law. They laughed that off of course.

    The 'head' guy had the cheek to tell me I had a bad attitude for a photographer! Obviously I told him, and probably not very nicely, where to go. And added he didn't have a great attitude for a security man, hassling innocent people outside of the property he works within.

    This went on for a bit, them claiming it was a private street and they'd had dodgy activity there in the past - Fair enough. But I'm stood there with a child by my side, I took 4 shots of the side of a building, from odd angles - They said that's why they asked was I a 'tog. As it looked innocent and a bit ... arty or whatever. I explained to them the shots were for a competition [not that I had to] and by the time we were done they were wishing me luck with it :D

    BUT, did they have any right to question me? A road outside a shopping centre, far as I understood, is a public road. And unless I was blatantly snapping people walking in and out of the centre, and the secuity guys themselves, I see no reason for them to approach me. It's not a Government building, I highly doubt it's a 'private' road and it seemed to me they were trying to scare me off with the big presence - they got a little bit of a shock - I don't think I'm all 'ard or anything, but I will stand my ground and as said, don't take any BS when I have a very good inkling that I am in the right.

    At one point I pulled the cam out and said "I could take a photo of your head right now if I wanted" - they laughed and said "go ahead" - but I didn't bother, wonder what they would have done?

    The shopping centre is in Navan, some of you might know it. And I was taking shots of the side of Marks and Spencer's across from it.


«1

Comments

  • #2
    melekalikimaka
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,686 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/05/09/photographers-rights/
    In general, you are entitled to take pictures of anything you wish, when in a public place. You may take pictures of private property, people, or anything else you fancy.

    On private property, you are also generally allowed to take photographs, provided you have permission to be on the property.

    However, the owner may impose conditions on your entry to the property, which may include a complete ban on photography, a ban on photography of certain things, or a ban on certain types of photography (eg, flash photography, video photography etc).

    Even where permission is not explicitly needed to enter the property, the owner is entitled to demand that you cease taking photographs, or that you leave the property. If you are asked to leave a property, you should not be threatened or attacked. Reasonable force may be used to remove you if necessary, however. In general, you are better off leaving when asked – the fact that you should not be threatened, does not mean you won’t be. The owner has no right to confiscate or damage any of your equipment.

    The occupier of a private property, where he is not the owner, has the same rights as the owner would have. Security guards may also act for the owner or occupier in exercising these rights.

    Violating the conditions under which you were admitted to a property voids your permission to be there, and you may be guilty of trespass. Trespass is a crime in some unusual cases but damages are more commonly sought in a civil case.

    provided it was infact private


  • #3
    jpfahy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,039 ✭✭✭jpfahy


    I would be of the view that you can snap away as long as you are not on their property nor were engaged in a criminal activity (e.g. research for a future crime). If you subsequently used photographs of their premises/property/staff commercially the owner could look for a fee or go to a civil court for an injunction to prevent publication.
    They did their job in checking you out but could not stop you.


  • #4
    whyulittle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,878 ✭✭✭whyulittle


    Pretty sure New Main Street in Tullamore is private property, even though it's a retail street.


  • #5
    Thecageyone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,756 ✭✭✭Thecageyone


    Pretty certain it's not a private road. I'm talking wide open, public access road. No entrance to it, it's always open, just like any town road. If it had been inside the shopping centre I'd have just said, ok ... and put the camera away.

    They looked at each other in shock when i told them I'd photographed inside the centre, openly, many a time. I have the shots on my flickr stream of the lights in that centre, and Christmas decor.

    Not great security in there then?

    Out on the road, across from it? I highly doubt it was any of their business. They didn't much like when I put it to them to call the cops, as I'd love to hear what they'd have to say.


  • #6
    smelltheglove
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,503 ✭✭✭smelltheglove


    If it is a public road then they have no rights to ask you to stop.

    I assume it was Navan S.C., was it on the road leading to the cinema, by the bank? That may actually be property of the shopping centre.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Tefral
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,417 ✭✭✭Tefral


    Thecageyone wrote: »
    Pretty certain it's not a private road. I'm talking wide open, public access road. No entrance to it, it's always open, just like any town road..

    What you have described falls within the definition of a public place in the road traffic act
    "public place" means any street, road or other place to which the public have access with vehicles whether as of right or by permission and whether subject to or free of charge;

    So you would appear to be in the right in this instance.


  • #8
    Andrew33
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,857 ✭✭✭Andrew33


    Interesting thread OP, people get very nervy when a (D)SLR is pointed at them (or their general direction), I'd bet if you had a P&S in your hand none of the guards would have batted an eyelid. I drove down to Dublin Gliding Club in Punchestown today with the intention of taking a few pics but left the camera hanging backwards from my shoulder until I'd spoken to a few people and asked was it alright to take pictures. Once you ask, the vast majority of people will fall over themselves to accomodate you. Even security guards like to be asked (gives them a chance to do their thang).


  • #9
    melekalikimaka
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,686 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    cronin_j wrote: »
    What you have described falls within the definition of a public place in the road traffic act

    just because the public have direct access does not mean that it is automatically public property. IFSC is a prime example of this... Its unlikely they would have stop you unless it was infact private property and the owner wishes to enforce his entitlement to deny photography.


  • #10
    hmboards
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 345 ✭✭hmboards


    If it's the road that M&S is on, I'd say that is a private road. It was originally part of the outdoor car park for the shopping centre. They also had barriers on it at one stage though these are no longer there now that they have multistorey car parks.

    Why they would have a problem with people taking photos I don't know! Must have been a quiet day in security!


  • #11
    melekalikimaka
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,686 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055845955&highlight=ifsc+photography

    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055576832&highlight=ifsc+photography


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    pixbyjohn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,250 ✭✭✭pixbyjohn


    The roads within the IFSC complex in Dublin are open but are private property and photographers are often told that snapping is not allowed.


  • #13
    melekalikimaka
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,686 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    once they tell you to stop and leave, if you stay your trespassing and cant be arrested and charged, mental really


  • #14
    Fajitas!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,624 ✭✭✭✭Fajitas!


    Thecageyone wrote: »
    Anyone up on their law?

    Today I had a run in with some goons security guards while taking a few shots [of a building] outside ... actually, across the road, from the shopping centre where they are employed.

    I knew as they approached [one skinny guy who fancied himself as the Boss I guess, one big fat guy, while another stood outside the doors watching on ... in case of trouble!? ... I had a buggy with a sleeping child in it by my side] That they were going to question me. I was already on the defensive, not one for taking lightly to bull****.

    Anyway, they asked "Are you a photographer?" - to which I replied - I guess so, why?

    "Do you realise you're not allowed to take pictures on this road?"

    "Says who?"

    "It's private property etc .. etc .."

    I called bull**** on that, saying it was a public street, if anyone owned it it was the local council. I told them if they had issue with me taking pictures they were free to call the cops/council to come down and explain to me how I was breaking some imaginary law. They laughed that off of course.

    The 'head' guy had the cheek to tell me I had a bad attitude for a photographer! Obviously I told him, and probably not very nicely, where to go. And added he didn't have a great attitude for a security man, hassling innocent people outside of the property he works within.

    This went on for a bit, them claiming it was a private street and they'd had dodgy activity there in the past - Fair enough. But I'm stood there with a child by my side, I took 4 shots of the side of a building, from odd angles - They said that's why they asked was I a 'tog. As it looked innocent and a bit ... arty or whatever. I explained to them the shots were for a competition [not that I had to] and by the time we were done they were wishing me luck with it :D

    BUT, did they have any right to question me? A road outside a shopping centre, far as I understood, is a public road. And unless I was blatantly snapping people walking in and out of the centre, and the secuity guys themselves, I see no reason for them to approach me. It's not a Government building, I highly doubt it's a 'private' road and it seemed to me they were trying to scare me off with the big presence - they got a little bit of a shock - I don't think I'm all 'ard or anything, but I will stand my ground and as said, don't take any BS when I have a very good inkling that I am in the right.

    At one point I pulled the cam out and said "I could take a photo of your head right now if I wanted" - they laughed and said "go ahead" - but I didn't bother, wonder what they would have done?

    The shopping centre is in Navan, some of you might know it. And I was taking shots of the side of Marks and Spencer's across from it.

    To be honest, you do sound very aggresive. They simply informed you you were not allowed to take photographs on the road, which is their job. I do indeed think the area in front of Navan SC is private property, so they were well within their rights.

    I'm not surprised at all they said you had a bad attitude for a photographer when you 'called bull****' on what they had to say.

    You DO have a very bad attitude for a photographer.


  • #15
    Thecageyone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,756 ✭✭✭Thecageyone


    Fajitas! wrote: »
    To be honest, you do sound very aggresive. They simply informed you you were not allowed to take photographs on the road, which is their job. I do indeed think the area in front of Navan SC is private property, so they were well within their rights.

    I'm not surprised at all they said you had a bad attitude for a photographer when you 'called bull****' on what they had to say.

    You DO have a very bad attitude for a photographer.


    That's one of the funniest posts on here in a while ...

    3, I repeat 3! Burley [well 2 of them were] security guards from a building across the street - I wasn't taking the building they work in, but one across from it - come towards me, and not in a smiling, friendly manner - and put it to me that I had no right to photograph ... a wall ... basically. Did I mention I had a sleeping child in a buggy? Security guards are not the Police, I don't think saying "Bull****" to them was aggressive.

    Sounds to me like you either know these guys or you're a bit of a push over when told what to do if you think that me saying BS to them is bad attitude. Seriously, I've heard way too many stories over the past year about photographers being harassed for simply taking pictures.

    I don't think I was aggressive enough tbh. If I thought they any way in the right, I'd have said "fine, I'll put it away" - but they came at me with attitude, they got some back. Now why do i come across bad? They're not cops, they don't work out on the road, they work in the shopping centre [which I wasn't in] - Security guard does not mean 'right to ask anyone at anytime, what they're up to'.

    When the time comes, and it will, that you can't take a picture in public at all! Then come back and tell me I was wrong to stand up for my rights. I handle things my way, it was pretty much sprung on me. Didn't feel like being polite, I didn't exactly tell them to go F off and call them a pack of C's ...


  • #16
    Tefral
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,417 ✭✭✭Tefral


    melekalikimaka wrote: »
    just because the public have direct access does not mean that it is automatically public property. IFSC is a prime example of this... Its unlikely they would have stop you unless it was infact private property and the owner wishes to enforce his entitlement to deny photography.

    I live in the IFSC, the guards have followed people all the way to the barriers in Spencer dock and i saw a guard stop someone by the concierge office for using a phone while driving. It is LEGALLY defined as a public place if there are no barriers.


  • #17
    melekalikimaka
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,686 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    Thecageyone wrote: »

    I don't think I was aggressive enough tbh. If I thought they any way in the right, I'd have said "fine, I'll put it away" - but they came at me with attitude, they got some back. Now why do i come across bad? They're not cops, they don't work out on the road, they work in the shopping centre [which I wasn't in] - Security guard does not mean 'right to ask anyone at anytime, what they're up to'.

    When the time comes, and it will, that you can't take a picture in public at all! Then come back and tell me I was wrong to stand up for my rights. I handle things my way, it was pretty much sprung on me. Didn't feel like being polite, I didn't exactly tell them to go F off and call them a pack of C's ...

    you assume you were on a public street... by the confidence of the security,and post here bout it being a carpark before the road... i'd tend to agree, it can go two ways, you stood your ground with arrogant security, or you were a pr1ck to two guys just doing their job, and they let you off lightly...

    its one or the other


  • #18
    Thecageyone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,756 ✭✭✭Thecageyone


    There are no barriers either end of the street. And after googling that road on a few different pages, it seems it belongs to the County Council, it is not privately owned by the shopping centre. the security guards were lying, they were bored and thought they'd pick on the harmless photographer ...

    <snip>


  • #19
    melekalikimaka
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,686 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    Thecageyone wrote: »
    And after googling that road on a few different pages, it seems it belongs to the County Council, it is not privately owned by the shopping centre.

    somebody on this very thread stated there used to be barriers AND it was a car park in the past...


  • #20
    melekalikimaka
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,686 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    cronin_j wrote: »
    I live in the IFSC, the guards have followed people all the way to the barriers in Spencer dock and i saw a guard stop someone by the concierge office for using a phone while driving. It is LEGALLY defined as a public place if there are no barriers.

    until you are asked to leave, then you are trespassing


  • #21
    Thecageyone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,756 ✭✭✭Thecageyone


    melekalikimaka wrote: »
    you assume you were on a public street... by the confidence of the security,and post here bout it being a carpark before the road... i'd tend to agree, it can go two ways, you stood your ground with arrogant security, or you were a pr1ck to two guys just doing their job, and they let you off lightly...

    its one or the other

    It is a public street, from the info I've come across at least. There are no barriers now. Plus there are other shops on the road not owned by the shopping centre. These 'guards' claimed the whole street was.

    3, not 2 security - which was what had me on the defensive when they approached - let off lightly? There's not a thing they could do. Bar call the cops. I wasn't in the shopping centre, and certainly hadn't broken any law. So they let didn't let me off with anything. if anything I could claim they upset me, out for a walk with the child, minding my own ... along come 3 big wannabes, picking on the harmless 'tog :D

    It's going to happen to you all at some point, will be interesting to see what you do. Swallow it and say sorry? Or stand up for your rights? [depending on the situation obviously] If I knew I was in the wrong I would have been polite. I really don't think they had anything on me.


    By the way, I was not asked to leave or anything of the sort. Because they knew they had no right to ask me to, that's my thinking anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Tefral
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,417 ✭✭✭Tefral


    melekalikimaka wrote: »
    until you are asked to leave, then you are trespassing

    If it has no visable means of discriminating against who goes in or out, such as gates etc, then nobody but a guard can make you leave for which he will direct you under the Public Order Act.

    The fact it USED to be a carpark is irrelevant.

    Public order act definition of a public place
    "public place" includes—

    [GA] ( a ) any highway,

    [GA] ( b ) any outdoor area to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or as a trespasser or otherwise, and which is used for public recreational purposes,

    [GA] ( c ) any cemetery or churchyard,

    [GA] ( d ) any premises or other place to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or by express or implied permission, or whether on payment or otherwise, and

    ( e ) any train, vessel or vehicle used for the carriage of persons for reward.


  • #23
    melekalikimaka
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,686 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    Thecageyone wrote: »
    3, not 2 security - which was what had me on the defensive when they approached - let off lightly? There's not a thing they could do. Bar call the cops. I wasn't in the shopping centre, and certainly hadn't broken any law.
    .

    if you had continued photographing you would have... if they were telling the truth... your basing all this on assumptions...


  • #24
    Fajitas!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,624 ✭✭✭✭Fajitas!


    Thecageyone wrote: »
    That's one of the funniest posts on here in a while ...
    I aim to please :)
    3, I repeat 3! Burley [well 2 of them were] security guards from a building across the street - I wasn't taking the building they work in, but one across from it - come towards me, and not in a smiling, friendly manner - and put it to me that I had no right to photograph ... a wall ... basically. Did I mention I had a sleeping child in a buggy? Security guards are not the Police, I don't think saying "Bull****" to them was aggressive.
    Yes. Three security guards, doing their job. Being 'burley' helps when you're a security guard too. Christ on a bike, and smiling, friendly security guards? They're not going to give you a wee lollipop for your troubles, you know.

    Claiming their story as 'bull****' is both aggressive and bad mannered. There's no need for it. It automatically puts you in a bad light. Besides, swearing in front of kids? I wouldn't be at all impressed.

    There is indeed quite a chance the SC would own the access roads around it.
    Sounds to me like you either know these guys or you're a bit of a push over when told what to do if you think that me saying BS to them is bad attitude.

    Lol, no. I don't know any security guards from Navan, and I'm far from a '
    pushover' - I am however well mannered in my dealings.
    Seriously, I've heard way too many stories over the past year about photographers being harassed for simply taking pictures.
    And that gives you reason to tell these guys, in a 'not very nice' fashion, where to go? They're doing their jobs, they pointed something out to you, they didn't hassle you - You created the scene here. I'd consider a photographer being harassed as getting their camera taking off them, or being detained for taking a photograph, not being pointed out that you're shooting on public property.
    I don't think I was aggressive enough tbh. If I thought they any way in the right, I'd have said "fine, I'll put it away" - but they came at me with attitude, they got some back. Now why do i come across bad?
    Seriously? These situations don't need aggression.
    When the time comes, and it will, that you can't take a picture in public at all! Then come back and tell me I was wrong to stand up for my rights.
    This is just lol. You fight for your rights. Those dastardly right-grabbing security guards :pac:

    What say you now from your high chair Fajitas?
    Er... That ^^^^^


  • #25
    Andrew33
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,857 ✭✭✭Andrew33


    Fajitas! wrote: »
    To be honest, you do sound very aggresive. They simply informed you you were not allowed to take photographs on the road, which is their job. I do indeed think the area in front of Navan SC is private property, so they were well within their rights.

    I'm not surprised at all they said you had a bad attitude for a photographer when you 'called bull****' on what they had to say.

    You DO have a very bad attitude for a photographer.

    Ah hang on a minute fajitas, a women with a buggy and child has the right to go anywhere and do anything so you're being a bit masculine there bud! Did you not know the "International Women with Buggies rights" came into effect recently? They are not bound by the same laws as us poor mortals.


  • #26
    Thecageyone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,756 ✭✭✭Thecageyone


    Stopped reading where you insist me saying bull**** to 3 big security guys who came out of nowhere, is bad manners :D ... seriously. This is why photograhers get pissed on all the time. They take it!

    People read what they like too, I've already stated that by the end of it they were wishing me luck ... they didn't think I was ignorant after the initial 2 minute exchange.


  • #27
    Fajitas!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,624 ✭✭✭✭Fajitas!


    Andrew33 wrote: »
    Ah hang on a minute fajitas, a women with a buggy and child has the right to go anywhere and do anything so you're being a bit masculine there bud! Did you not know the "International Women with Buggies rights" came into effect recently? They are not bound by the same laws as us poor mortals.

    Recently? They've been throwing their baby-laden buggies out in front of cars for decades!!
    cronin_j wrote: »
    The fact it USED to be a carpark is irrelevant.

    Tbh, if it was a carpark at some stage, it was probably private property.
    Thecageyone wrote: »

    It's going to happen to you all at some point, will be interesting to see what you do. Swallow it and say sorry? Or stand up for your rights? [depending on the situation obviously] If I knew I was in the wrong I would have been polite. I really don't think they had anything on me.
    When I know I'm in the right, I have no problem standing up for myself. When I'm in the wrong, I admit it, when I'm unsure, I inform myself and address the situation. I don't go telling people where to go before that though.
    By the way, I was not asked to leave or anything of the sort. Because they knew they had no right to ask me to, that's my thinking anyway.
    See, your problem is thinking and making assumptions. Find out first.


  • #28
    Fajitas!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,624 ✭✭✭✭Fajitas!


    Thecageyone wrote: »
    Stopped reading where you insist me saying bull**** to 3 big security guys who came out of nowhere, is bad manners :D ... seriously. This is why photograhers get pissed on all the time. They take it!
    You make them sound absolutely terrifying... And what was it you were calling yourself? The harmless 'tog? Sensationalism much?


  • #29
    Thecageyone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,756 ✭✭✭Thecageyone


    melekalikimaka wrote: »
    if you had continued photographing you would have... if they were telling the truth... your basing all this on assumptions...

    Turns out they weren't. I was basing it on a hunch. I also know you are free to photograph whatever you like, even when somebody actually of law, like a cop, asks you to stop. It would be very hard for them to get a conviction for a man taking photos on a street, of the side of a building. Wouldn't be worth their time bothering, so 'off lightly'? strange thing to say.

    I do wonder ... all the stories I hear about photographers being pestered, do they deserve it at times? For not standing up for their rights. Going by some responses in here, it seems most would side with the security. It's all opinion, and that's fine ... just wondered what others would do in the situation. Run away by the sounds of it :D

    The day will come lads ...

    [I think Fajitas is an ex security guard going by his posts tbh, seems to be a sore point ... Oh noes!!! I said BS to a ... security person!!! to hell with me!]

    Also, the point was thrown in there somewhere that if I'd been taking the same pic with my phone, they'd not have come anywhere near me.

    This is the point, they seen a big cam and thought they'd come muscle me out of it. Again ... photographers get pissed on.

    And bad attitude for a photographer?? For one, I'm a hobbyist/enthusiast, hardly a pro ... I don't need to have a certain manner about me. I didn't think you had to be a certain type to be considered a photographer though? I'm not the cliquey type either so your opinion is merely that to me Fatjia ;) saying "That is bull****" to 3 shopping centre security guys is not aggressive, it's not like I roared it at them lol.


  • #30
    Thecageyone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,756 ✭✭✭Thecageyone


    I hope all your posts aren't as boring and self righteous man, lol. Not with that amount of them at least!

    Go you and your security pals ...

    So much for 'togs standing up for rights together.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Fajitas!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,624 ✭✭✭✭Fajitas!


    Thecageyone wrote: »
    Turns out they weren't. I was basing it on a hunch. I also know you are free to photograph whatever you like, even when somebody actually of law, like a cop, asks you to stop. It would be very hard for them to get a convistion for a man taking photos on a street, of the side of a building.
    Lol. Bingo. There's your problem. You're wrong. IF you're asked to stop photographing on private property, or there's a sign to that effect, and continue, you are considered to be trespassing.
    The day will come lads ...
    The day has come and gone many a time. I've never had to turn mountains into molehills though :)
    [I think Fajitas is an ex security guard going by his posts tbh, seems to be a sore point ... Oh noes!!! I said BS to a ... security person!!! to hell with me!]
    LOL. Yeah. No. As I said, I just have better manners than that :)
    And bad attitude for a photographer?? For one, I'm a hobbyist/enthusiast, hardly a pro ... I don't need to have a certain manner about me. I didn't think you had to be a certain type to be considered a photographer though? I'm not the cliquey type either so your opinion is merely that to me Fatjia ;)
    Pfffft. A bad attitude for anyone.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement