Your Say RSS Feed


Ban on photographs on Rock is nonsense

9:33am Friday 30th July 2010


I was angry to read in last week’s Bury Times about Mr Gibbs, a pensioner, who had been stopped by security guards from taking photographs of the new development on the Rock.

What nonsense is this? He was told that everyone was considered a potential terrorist now.

The Rock centre director, Mr Laycock, says that they expected lots of people to take photos during the opening event but not when it was quieter as this would ‘raise more questions’. If Mr Gibbs is an undercover terrorist he is clearly a useless one as he should have taken his photos when it was busy and the ‘no photography’ rule didn’t apply.

So, how will this be policed? Is it just people who have a camera that will be stopped or all those thousands who have mobile phones that have a camera capability who can take photos quickly and discreetly with hardly anyone noticing? Are they hoping that terrorists will only use the larger, traditional style of camera so that they will be easier to spot? If photos of the Rock are deemed to be a terrorist threat then the Bury Times did us no favours by publishing five pages of them.

The Bureau of Freelance Photographers issued a card in 2008 which begins: “There is no law in the UK preventing a photographer — whether amateur or professional — from taking photographs in a public place. Nor do individuals have a legal right to stop a photographer from photographing them. Thus a photographer is perfectly free to shoot street scenes, landscapes, buildings, people etc without breaking any law and with perfect freedom to do so.”

Mr Laycock needs to think again about this policy which is only applied some of the time and which is unenforceable anyway. The only thing it will do is alienate the public. And if we have reached a stage where everyone, including a 68-year-old pensioner out on a Sunday morning, is seen as a potential terrorist, then the terrorists have won.

Name and address supplied

Your Say YourBury

Jude K, says...
11:36am Fri 30 Jul 10

I went to The Rock early on Saturday morning, the day before Mr Gibbs and the day after the opening. I went to take some photographs before the shops opened. There were security people and cleaners around and nobody stopped me, even though I took several photographs in different places. I think there needs to be some consistency and common sense. We have been hearing how good it will be for months, but we can't take photos. How strange.

Report this post »    Register/Sign In »

nh32, says...
1:00pm Sat 31 Jul 10

That's a very nice piece of imformation you have quoted regarding The Bureau of Freelance Photographers.
Shame that the rock is not a public place. Just because it is outside. Do not get confused. It is a privately owned piece of land, and privately owned buildings with privately owned shops.

So if you do get asked to stop taking photographs and you refuse, you will then be asked to leave. if you refuse to leave then you would be trespassing which the police would then get involved in.

Report this post »    Register/Sign In »

The Man on Bury Bridge, Elton, Bury says...
1:04pm Sat 31 Jul 10

This writer is correct - you cannot be stopped from taking photopgraphs in a public place. Whoever stopped Mr Gibbs was wrong to do so, and this has been compounded by Mr Laycock's fatuous comments about The Prevention of Terrorism Act. I wonder if the Rock staff would have stopped anyone hiding behind a niqab or burqa? Thought not....

Report this post »    Register/Sign In »

Knillymanjaro, Leeds says...
4:00pm Sat 31 Jul 10

Quite interestting that Section 44 of The Terrorism Act has arrived in Bury. This is nothing new to anyone with a decent camera. Security guards think that anyone with an SLR is working for some terrorism group somehwere.

If you are able to access Facebook please check the site;

I'm a Photographer, Not a Terrorist

and you will be amazed at how much of this is going on in this paranoid age we live in.

Report this post »    Register/Sign In »

Knillymanjaro, Leeds says...
4:02pm Sat 31 Jul 10

http://www.facebook.
com/home.php#!/pages
/Im-a-Photographer-N
ot-a-Terrorist/12853
4046017?v=info

Report this post »    Register/Sign In »

icannotrace, says...
12:42am Mon 2 Aug 10

nh32 wrote:
That's a very nice piece of imformation you have quoted regarding The Bureau of Freelance Photographers. Shame that the rock is not a public place. Just because it is outside. Do not get confused. It is a privately owned piece of land, and privately owned buildings with privately owned shops. So if you do get asked to stop taking photographs and you refuse, you will then be asked to leave. if you refuse to leave then you would be trespassing which the police would then get involved in.
While this may or may not be true I do know that trespassing is a civil offence rather than criminal therefore the police would not be involved.

Report this post »    Register/Sign In »

MW52, Unsworth says...
9:53am Mon 2 Aug 10

nh32 may be correct about the new development being private property and and the rights they have to stop people taking photos. My point was - what is the point? Why have a rule that is unenforceable? Also, as it is likely to be private property then they need to put up signs stating that fact at the point where the public right-of-way becomes private land. There is still no law that stops you taking photos of private property as long as you are not trespassing and I'm sure you could photograph most of the new development from the public walkway. Which brings me back to my opening point - what is the point of a No Photography rule. It surely isn't the threat of terrorism.

Report this post »    Register/Sign In »

Geoff P, Prestwich says...
7:40pm Mon 2 Aug 10

It is clear from the posts above that the owners / management of the Rock development have lost sight of the reasons for the various POT Acts and that good old fashioned common sense had gone out of the window. It is also clear that the training that the staff are receiving is totally inadequate and in need of an injection of a " reality check " as soon as possible. As a retired Security Service Officer I find Mr Laycock's comments rather baffling?

Report this post »    Register/Sign In »

Janet Myatt, Morecambe says...
8:56pm Tue 3 Aug 10

Last year I tried to buy an A to Z in Tesco and was asked for ID. When I queried the fact that no one could possibly believe that I was too young, I was told that it was because I might be a terrorist. I had to prove I was a British Citizen to buy an A to Z. I'm sure if the real terrorists wanted a map they could just buy one or look on Google Street View.

Report this post »    Register/Sign In »

Comments are closed on this article.

In this section


Horoscopes Cinema Old Pals Music Box

Featured Advertisers


Local advertisers

Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »