A MAGISTRATE was ordered not to take photographs of office buildings in Manchester's Spinningfields business district - after a security guard said it was private property.
Scott Cowap, 56, was wandering through Hardman Square on a lunch break when he decided to take out his camera and take some snaps of the surrounding glass buildings.
Rules
But a Spinningfields security guard dressed in a blazer approached Mr Cowap and told him it was against the rules to take pictures in the area.
The guard said the public spaces within Spinningfields are classified as private property and owners Allied London have prohibited photography.
Mr Cowap, from Sale, who works for a city centre legal firm and is a lay magistrate, said: "I told him that it was ridiculous and that surely it must be a public place.
"But apparently it is not. In any case the rule is unnecessary and irrelevant because you can stand on any road adjoining the area and take as many photographs of Spinningfields as you like.
"What if you were sitting on a table with friends outside one of the restaurants - would you be stopped from taking a snap of the group as a memento of your meal?
"It's a shame because in my view the area is very photogenic and worth recording for posterity."
Polite
Mr Cowap, a keen amateur photographer, said the security guard was polite and courteous and agreed to show an identification badge to prove who he was, but insisted that he had to uphold the rule about photography.
He added: "I wasn't taking any pictures of people, it was just some of the buildings. The irony is that the area is surrounded by CCTV cameras so Allied London were busy taking pictures of me but I am not allowed to take pictures of their buildings.
Over the past eight years developer Allied London has transformed the area bounded by Deansgate, Quay Street, the river Irwell and Bridge Street as the Spinningfields district has taken shape.
The district includes several large office blocks with restaurants and bars on the ground floors, the new magistrates' court building, the Left Bank apartment complex and two public spaces. A number of exclusive retailers have also been signed up to open outlets in a new shopping precinct.
The futuristic and cosmopolitan lines of the buildings have proved a favourite with amateur photographers with scores of images posted on internet sites.
'Urban spaces'
The Spinningfields website states: "This public realm consists of a series of urban spaces made up of contemporary piazzas, boulevards and streets to compare with the best in other European cities."
Allied London chief executive Mike Ingall said that the security guard had made a mistake. Mr Ingall apologised to Mr Cowap: "We have had a problem with commerical companies filming in Spinningfields without permission and that is what we're concerned about. It does not extend to tourists or private individuals who are just taking pictures for their own pleasure. We will rebrief our security guards."
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
Thomas The Tank, Rusholme (15/08/2009 at 11:25)
You should listen to and obey the prolateriate! LOL! I agree whole heartedly, and the fact you are a magistrate will add weight to what is in effect, a totaly absurd rule yet again, one more for the pot that is the POTTY in the UK now. Big brother is not only watching YOU but taking pic's of YOU and YOU are not allowed to take pictures of HIM! LOL!
Womble, Westhoughton (15/08/2009 at 11:34)
hadenough, manchester (15/08/2009 at 12:28)
PW, Manchester (15/08/2009 at 12:35)
Theowolfe (15/08/2009 at 15:13)
The move to the privatisation of public space has gathered pace in the last decade. The same rules would apply in the Arndale, Trafford Centre and elsewhere.
Who would have though twenty years ago that a vast area of Liverpool would have become a regulated public space owned by a private organisation. But the Liverpool 1 development is more worrying than previous development that were large malls built on what were previously public streets. Liverpool 1 is effectively an area of once public thoroughfares, privatised.
Regulated public spaces are now everywhere and there seems to be no end to it. Examples of these are Stratford City, King’s Cross a, Paddington Basin in London, the centres of Liverpool, Hove and Sheffield.
Unfortunately, I believe that the example of Liverpool 1 will be used as a model for future developments of city centre regeneration and the further privatisation of public space. If you add to this the increase in gated communities, closing of roads and restrictive legislation, public space has become a minefield for the law abiding citizen.
Local Authority misuse of the DPPOs, otherwise known as Booze Ban areas, provided for under Section 13 of the Police and Criminal Justice Act 2001 adds to the further regulation of public space. In the more than 700 and growing, Alcohol Ban areas throughout the country both Police and Councils are going beyond what was provided for in the legislation.
Contrary to popular belief, it is not against the law to consume alcohol in a No Alcohol zone. It is only an offence when asked by a Police officer or PCSO to stop drinking does it become an offence. Unfortunately, the PC or PCSO does not have to justify or document their reasons; it is entirely at the discretion of the officer.
This is the only law which gives the Police the total power and there is plenty of evidence that the power is being abused. The legislation was intended to deal with people causing problems by drinking in public and was never intended to introduce blanket bans on people quietly having a drink in public.
So in a way, Scott Cowap and his magistrate colleagues have added to the problem of regulation of public space by not challenging this explosion of interference and privatisation of public space.
shaun procter (15/08/2009 at 16:58)
To Spinningfields - With your redicioulous attitude is it any wonder the place is like a ghost town after 5pm????? Why else should people bother going there unless you are forced to, because you work there! You may have rebriiefed your guards, but they didnt just dream up, these same lines they tell folks now ... did they? Glad I didnt buy that apartment down there now at Leftbank!
Mark,Radcliffe. (15/08/2009 at 17:15)
Mark Hutton (16/08/2009 at 09:16)
jeffb, buxton (16/08/2009 at 10:11)
Is It Me? (16/08/2009 at 11:10)
Horatio Dogsbody, Flixton (16/08/2009 at 11:51)
We recently had some old friends, who had moved abroad fifteen years ago, staying with us for a month's visit back home. During that time we took them for a walk around central Manchester, showing them what had changed during that time. Fortunately, apart from on one railway station, we did not meet any overblown jobsworths, which is just as well because what sort of impression would that attitude have created for our visitors.
One thing which they did remark upon was the amount of surveillance and general distrust now endemic in British socieity. Another point they noted is that our police now appear 'paramilitary' or 'Yankee' in their new style uniforms.
A very obviously privately owned 'public place' is the Trafford Centre. No jobsworths there, they were quite happy for my guests to take photographs inside and out, the official greeter even posed with them for a shot in front of the main information desk. Good customer relations obviously mean good business.
Theowolfe (16/08/2009 at 12:37)
It would be more truthful to say however, that the MEN and the media in general acquiesce when it comes to the regulation of public space, attacks on civil liberties and the advance of unwarranted increases in Police powers.
What is happening to the fourth estate?
john davis, Broughton, Salford (16/08/2009 at 14:09)
Technobabble, Manchester (16/08/2009 at 15:51)
The somewhat less palatable alternative is that they know EXACTLY what they are doing, are using these laws (or their interpretation thereof!) to push you around just because they can, and are hoping that you are too addled to know any better.
Bill Keeth, Middleton, Manchester (16/08/2009 at 16:05)
A couple of years back, when I was looking to take a few snaps of the ASDA shopping precinct in Harpurhey, one of which might have been featured as the illustration on the front cover of my novel EVERY STREET IN MANCHESTER, two security guards quickly put a stop to the exercise. So I photographed a nearby back entry instead.
More recently, though, as I was again approaching this same shopping precinct on foot, I heard an amplified and disembodied vocal request ring out as follows 'WILL THE LITTLE GIRL WHO IS FEEDING THE PIGEONS STOP FEEDING THE PIGEONS!'
Now, whilst I can easily understand the undesirability of feeding the local pigeons, I must say I remain steadfastly unconvinced that a suburban shopping precinct may be someone's private domain, or that it is in any way reasonable to address a innocent child with parade ground vigour in order to keep it that way.
Bill Keeth
Harry Roberts , Oldham (16/08/2009 at 19:24)
Ian Tomlinson...RIP.
citycentre, manchester (17/08/2009 at 08:32)
As Theowolfe says (and I have tried, but the MEN seem reluctant to publish) any areas which appear "public" are not; it would be interesting to find out how much public money is spent maintaining such areas though.
Taking pictures from the street is by no means as allowed as the magistrate seems to think, there are several examples (I have tried to list names, but will not to try and have this posted) of police using powers (mostly anti terrorist) against photogrpahy in the street.
Apparantly a leading photography magazine now runs a monthly feature on what is and is not allowed.
chris (17/08/2009 at 09:25)
Well ask then. pop a request in under the freedom of information act.
Is It Me? (17/08/2009 at 12:14)
Technobabble, Manchester (17/08/2009 at 15:20)
Is It Me?"
A perfect example of the frog-boiling principle. Personally, i would calculate the point you ask for as being the 1st May 1997, because all the things that now worry us started happening after this date.
andy waytomakeacomment, Greater Manchester (17/08/2009 at 15:42)
Is It Me? (17/08/2009 at 19:19)
If you were to drop a frog into boiling water,it would die immediately.
If you were to place a frog in cold water ,it would live. If you increased the temperature of the water by one degree a week for say,100 weeks,the water would be boiling but the frog would live because it has not noticed the temperature change, as it has adjusted itself to its surroundings.
1997 seems to be about right. Drip,drip,drip,there goes Britain,not with a bang but with a whimper!
citycentre, manchester (17/08/2009 at 20:15)
Is that it? When I saw Al Gore's documentary it was the opposite way about, if you dropped the frog in boiling water, it would jump out to avoid death; if put in warm and gradually heated it didn't notice and eventually died.
Technobabble, Manchester (17/08/2009 at 21:50)
No offence, but the only version I've ever heard of is the same as described by citycentre. Principle is still there though; big, REALLY big, changes occuring, but over such a period of time that by the time people notice these changes it's too late. Consider what is illegal now that wasn't back in 1996, I think we've had more new laws created in the last 12 years than in the previous 120. If New Labour had dumped all this legislation on us in one fell swoop back in 1997, they would have been run out of the country. Literally. Preferably with pitchforks.
What sort of country will we be handing over to our children? National security, my bum!
ednaplate, Salford (18/08/2009 at 02:43)