Taking photos in an airport security zone

[AvroLincoln]

The Daily Wail has a couple of pictures of someone called Cheryl Cole (otherwise known I believe as a WAG) being frisked at Heathrow. Every airport security zone I have been through is surrounded by notices banning photography.
Are journalists exempted from this rule?
What would happen to me if I suddenly started photographing in that area?

[davidjohnson6]

Journalists are exempt if they manage to take the photos without being noticed and have the backing of their editor !

[Capot]

I have a large number of pictures in my Blackberry to illustrate my pet hate, the worse-than-third-world conditions that passengers are subjected to in certain BAA airports as they approach Immigration on arrival, including T4 and Gatwick.

They are all taken in among the scaffolding and plastic, and show heaving crowds in those ill-lit hell-holes.

The only problem is that I disable the flash to avoid drawing too much attention, and so the quality is poor due to the appalling lighting. But they get the point across, and I'm saving them up for a report in the Press.

So fire away, old chap. Just don't be too obvious. Especially around Security.

Remember that like all bans on individual freedoms, it has nothing to do with security, peoples' feelings or any of the other excuses. It is too avoid the exposure and embarrassment that would follow.

BTW, it's always helpful to have an old u/s camera or phone to hand over if confronted.

[Munnyspinner]

And you don't think BAA have actually noticed how cruddy their airports are? I'm sure they will be enlightened when they get you photos.

They might also like you name and address so that they can alert the authorities that you have been taking photographs without permission in restricted areas.

I like your style. It is entirely conceivable that a security plod wouldn't twig the broken old camera phone trick - genius!

( avman, you might just have to work out whether this is Irony or not?)

[Skipness One Echo]

I believe the actual reason is to prevent people seeking to take photos to identify any potential weak spots in the security, know where everything is etc etc.

Not THAT unreasonable.

[Avman]

Munnyspinner, you're getting better, but still a little rough around the edges.

[bealine]

BTW, it's always helpful to have an old u/s camera or phone to hand over if confronted.That is sound advice for, quaint though it may seem, your camera may be confiscated and destroyed if pictures are taken anywhere on the airport premises.

In fact, Britian is one of the more tolerant nations - here we will only destroy the camera and possibly fine you a couple of hundred quid. In Greece, you could go to jail for five years (as plane spotters found out a few years ago) as indeed you could in Middle East countries - and if they thought you were spying, you may even cop the death penalty!

You may feel aggrieved by the state of T4 and Gatwick, but please be very careful if any staff members faces appear in your pictures that you send for publication. Airport staff are protected by by-laws and unwittingly identifying someone, whose personal safety might be compromised, could lead to criminal prosecution.

Oh dear! My post seems a bit hostile - it isn't meant to be! God knows that T5 is the only London Airport building at the moment that is anywhere close to decent! All I am asking is that you heed a bit of friendly advice! :ok:

[WHBM]

It is completely disingenuous for an organisation like BAA to fail to provide effective security procedures for the quantity of passengers being processed (including T5 every time I have gone through the place), and then when this is highlighted in the media to get all uppity about any photographs taken of the nonsenses.

If they were REALLY concerned about keeping their procedures in security free from prying eyes they would arrange it so there were not hundreds of passengers all pressed together taking 20 minutes or more to absorb the whole experience. But that would cost money to organise it all properly, and spending less and less money is something BAA give more attention to than anything else. Including effective security.

[Skipness One Echo]

Airport staff are protected by by-laws

your camera may be confiscated and destroyed if pictures are taken anywhere on the airport premises.

That's rather interesting. Wouldn't they hold it for evidence and return it at the end of a trial? Link to the byelaws concerned please someone?

[Capot]

Bealine

Thank you for your advice.....

Airport staff are protected by by-lawsByelaws are not among the best understood legal instruments, and I wonder which ones, exactly, you have in mind?

For example, which are the relevant byelaws for protecting staff at LGW?

Do they apply to protection of all airport staff, or just a few lucky categories?

And what, very precisely, are they protected against, by these byelaws?

A link would be helpful................

Strangely enough, while Luton publishes its Byelaws on its website, as do several others, presumably so that people can find out what they may not do, I cannot find the same for any BAA airport. Are they Top Secret? Byelaws that no-one is allowed to know about are not enforceable.

Incidently, Conditions of Use are not Byelaws.

At Luton, you'll be relieved to hear, there is no Byelaw about the protection of staff, and I confess I'm not all that surprised. There is no prohibition on non-commercial photograhy either, although......

No person shall, in the course of business, take photographs or participate in filming or sound recording at the airport without permission.

So the question remains, which Byelaws are you quoting?

[hotmetal]

That is sound advice for, quaint though it may seem, your camera may be confiscated and destroyed if pictures are taken anywhere on the airport premises.

In fact, Britian is one of the more tolerant nations - here we will only destroy the camera and possibly fine you a couple of hundred quid. In Greece, you could go to jail for five years (as plane spotters found out a few years ago) as indeed you could in Middle East countries - and if they thought you were spying, you may even cop the death penalty!

You may feel aggrieved by the state of T4 and Gatwick, but please be very careful if any staff members faces appear in your pictures that you send for publication. Airport staff are protected by by-laws and unwittingly identifying someone, whose personal safety might be compromised, could lead to criminal prosecution.

Oh dear! My post seems a bit hostile - it isn't meant to be! God knows that T5 is the only London Airport building at the moment that is anywhere close to decent! All I am asking is that you heed a bit of friendly advice!

:mad::mad:What a load of rubbish. I guess you work in security at LGW. Please be advised you have no right to remove property from somebody and doing so against their will would be theft. If you are a police officer I hope you issue them a receipt and do it in accordance with law and if it comes to court the CPS will ask for a seizure and destruction order if they want to. If I was presiding I doubt I would grant it and I have granted such things for other matters. The photos on the camera are also the property of the person concerned and if you delete them you will be open to a charge of criminal damage. Bye-laws do not override the laws of the country. I despair when I read things like this.

[bingofuel]

A copy of airport byelaws is normally available on request from the Airport management (check the warning signs for details). These will inform you which staff members have the authority to do what, such as stop or search. I think you wil find the powers of BAA staff are quite limited, but they can just watch you whilst plod attends, and of course Plod has lots of powers to spoil your day.

[AvroLincoln]

My point with starting this thread was to query whether ANYONE is permitted to take photographs in the security zone at an airport. I personally have no wish to do so, and I can understand that precautions may be necessary to prevent disclosure of procedures, etc. in the zone.
I am just very surprised to see such pictures in the media, not to mention the fact that in my own opinion this was a breach of personal privacy.
In other words, could action be taken against the newspaper or the picture agency that provided the photos, not to mention the photographer? Either by the "authorities" or the legal representative of the passenger concerned.
Again personally, I would be upset, but then I am a nobody! Some people enjoy having their pictures in the papers.

[hotmetal]

The 'Restricted Zone' at the airport covers the whole place 'airside'. I would hazard a guess that a few hundered thousand photos are taken by the 70 million odd passengers/tourists passing through LHR every year with no ill effects. It is not an offence in the UK to take a photo of somebody without their permission even if they don't like it and it is a bit rude. No offence though. There is a new offence of taking a photo of a police officer that could be used for 'terrorist purposes'.

[raffele]

If you can't take photos within the Restricted Zone, which indeed covers the entire airside area (shopping mall, ramp etc) then why do so many people manage to legally snap photos of aircraft, ramp movements... Things like the inside of T5 etc etc etc...

[Mr Optimistic]

Apparently if you email BAA for them they send you a copy: otherwise seem a bit of a secret. Have the force of law. Imagine they make depressing reading.

[Skipness One Echo]

The BAA Airport Byelaws ( specific to each airport, a different set for each ! ) used to be prominently displayed at Prestwick and Glasgow in Times Past.

btw Google rocks !

http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/other_information/units/heathrow_information.pdf

[angels]

A mate of mine took a picture of a train going over a railway bridge in what was then Yugoslavia.

Plod had chat with him and invited him to assist with their enquiries. He didn't get his camera back but his arm healed quite well and apparently the British diplomatic staff were excellent.

Seeing cameras brings out the worst in a lot of authoritarian figures.

[bealine]

http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/censored.gifhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/censored.gifWhat a load of rubbish. I guess you work in security at LGW. Please be advised you have no right to remove property from somebody and doing so against their will would be theft. If you are a police officer I hope you issue them a receipt and do it in accordance with law and if it comes to court the CPS will ask for a seizure and destruction order if they want to. If I was presiding I doubt I would grant it and I have granted such things for other matters. The photos on the camera are also the property of the person concerned and if you delete them you will be open to a charge of criminal damage. Bye-laws do not override the laws of the country. I despair when I read things like thisFirstly, if you participate in a public forum, kindly refrain from any form of personal attack. "Flaming" someone purely because their opinion does not match your own is both a sign of lack of intelligence and insecurity! If you can't behave civilly, then choose any first word you like and I'll add the second - (Which is "OFF!")

Congratulations, hotmetal, you reminded me of the reason why I stopped posting on this forum and on F****talk, and why so many of my colleagues can't be bothered either! If it floats your boat, just you go right ahead and ignore friendly advice - but don't attack those who try to help!

FYI I do not work in security and I no longer work at LGW.

All people in the UK have the right NOT to be photographed against their wishes. This is enforceable at airports and this poster has witnessed cameras confiscated through the objections of celebrities - although some seem to welcome giving photo opportunities for their fans! Airports are treated as special "Restricted Areas":

1. Photographing Security Areas or HM Customs controlled areas is expressly forbidden.

2. Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, photographing airport staff or secure areas is illegal and may result in being held in custody for up to 60 days without charge.

3. Identifying airport security staff or airline staff in the press may make them, or their families, vulnerable to kidnap or being held hostage in order for terrorist organisations to gain access to secure areas or to force a staff member to smuggle weapons / devices into secxure areas or on to an aeroplane. (Such things are not in the realms of fantasy - these sort of events happened during the "troubles" in Northern Ireland.)


I do not profess to know the law backwards, but we are living in times where tourists have been imprisoned for photographing London buses and we have to have a sense of responsibility.

....and, for your information, it is not security staff or airline staff who confiscate equipment. We merely request a police presence. The police officers will usually question the offender, establish identity and confiscate the equipment, bagging it and receipting it properly, to await a court appearance. (Of course, in the UK, a court hearing can be anything up to a year after the incident - and even then, possibly adjourned to "await reports"!

[mickchick]

Nobody broke any law, by-law or pettifogging rules when Cheryl Cole's picture was taken. There is a properly accredited news and picture agency operating at Heathrow and their reporters and photographers are free to work within the boundaries laid down by BAA - namely that (a) security is not compromised; (b) specialist staff (police, immigration, customs etc) are not identified in close-up pictures or by name and (c) passengers who can be identified in a shot must give their permission.
Cheryl Cole had agreed to be photographed, and in fact was escorted through security and into the departure gate by the journalists.
Apart from newspaper photographs, don't forget the camera crews operating with impunity in programmes like Airport and Airline
When they film confrontations between passengers and staff (as in the wearingly familiar Easyjet stand-offs), everyone involved is asked to sign a release form afterwards. Those who decline have their faces blurred.

[hotmetal]

Bealine could you please quote the exact legislation? I would be interested to read it. For info I have read many acts including the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990. If you point me to the exact paragraph it would be useful.
Also I am interested as to where you get the figure of 60 days from? Maximum period of detention without charge in the UK is 28 days isn't it? [much longer than most other countries]

[Skipness One Echo]

2. Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, photographing airport staff or secure areas is illegal and may result in being held in custody for up to 60 days without charge.

It's never been tested in court, on the photographing of secure areas, which in itself is unlikely to see charges brought under such sledgehammer legislation, universally known to be badly drafted. Which part refers to photographing airport staff? The photographing of Police Officers is proving ridiculously hard to define and enforce, not to mention open to widespread abuse by plod who doesn't want to have his actions on camera.

[bealine]

Okay, your knowledge of the law may be superior to mine - you are right that 28 days is the maximum you could be held without charge. However, your knowledge of the law would not have stopped an Ipswich man being cautioned for taking photographs of the Chrismas lights which provoked the following discussion:

Can I take pictures on the train station?

Yes, but there are rules to stick to and you must tell the station duty manager

Can I be arrested for harassment by taking a photograph of somebody?

Yes. For a harassment offence to have been committed the behaviour must have occurred on two separate occasions.


What should I do if the police stop me taking pictures?

The police in the UK can't stop you taking pictures.
Be polite, answer the questions and explain what you are doing. Remember they have heard every original excuse you can think of. If they search you you need to know the information contained on the following web site: Police Stop And Search Powers etc.

Can I be arrested for invading someone's privacy?
No.
However the Press Complaints Commission has a policy which you should stick to if you want to stay out of bother
PCC Code of Practice

I like taking pictures of people - do I need to be worried by libel?
Yes - don't add a caption which says anything other than exactly what you have seen. "Man asleep on park bench" is probably ok, "Typical homeless drunk crashed on park bench" isn't.

If I am asked to wipe my memory card do I have to do it?

No. They are your pictures. If any MoP asks you to and starts to use threatening behaviour, call the police. The police have no right to delete them either.

Why can't I take pictures at Gigs?

The gig is a private place and it is up to them who can take pictures. If you do decide to take pictures anyway you could be treated as a trespasser ab initio. This allows them to force you to leave.

Can someone stop me taking pictures of their house?

No, as long as you aren't trespassing when you take the picture - this includes leaning on their fence.

Can I take pictures of my children naked?

Yes. As long as they aren't indecent. unfortunately the definition of indecent is up for grabs. The photo marketing association issues guidelines to photo labs :-
1. Does the child appear to be under 19?
2. Is the child aware the photo is being taken (posed)
3. Are genitalia exposed?
4. Does the photograph have a gratuitously sexual implication?
5. Is it indecent by virtue of the context?

Can I take shots of my children playing Saturday league football?

Yes, if the teams are playing on public land and there are no by-laws to prevent it. Always check with the match referee and officials.
FA Guidelines

Why can't I take pictures of my child at school?

A school is a private place and it is up to the school who may or may not take pictures. There are child protection issues which should be respected - one of which makes it an offence for a carer to allow the identification and location of a child under care by the publication of a photograph.


I would suggest that you leave your knowledge of the law and your argumentative nature to the confines of the courtrooms - it really wouldn't do to bandy words at an airport where there will be heightened tension as we approach the 2012 Olympic Games!

[Skipness One Echo]

Sorry but can we have the link to the conversation and the context therein?
I agree that heightened tensions will be a problem but clear guidance and an open interpretation of well drafted laws and consistent rules well known to the people would help immensely.

That is my sole reason for being picky here, as it is an important and much misunderstood area. The problem as I see it is the result of Labours orgy of new legislation passed by MPs who are not really concerned with the consequences of the details before them, much of which is not actually understood outside the policy unit that drafted the legislation. The MPs expense scandal shows us the kind of people we have in the job, lobby fodder who have little grounding in the real world needed to pass proper rigorous and sensible legislation to work alongside the common law.

What we have is a left hand and a right hand pulling different ways and plod in the middle knowing some but not all and little of the consequences.

Thanks

[Capot]

Bealine

I do not profess to know the law backwards,

You can say that again! May I suggest that you resist the temptation to produce pseudo-legal claptrap at the drop of a hat?

There are too many legal errors in your posts to comment specifically. Unfortunately many petty officials, including security staff, hold the beliefs that you hold. And they also love to issue awful, unspecified warnings like "it really wouldn't do to bandy words at an airport".

Wouldn't it? If some ignorant idiot in a peaked cap tells me rubbish such as.....

quaint though it may seem, your camera may be confiscated and destroyed if pictures are taken anywhere on the airport premises

Airport staff are protected by by-laws

I will certainly "bandy words".

[TightSlot]

Be nice everybody, please...

[ATNotts]

At EMA there were (last time I went through there) signs prominently displayed landside in the terminal that it is forbidden (probably for "security reasons") to take photos anywhere inside the building.

Whilst I can appreciate why there may be a security problem photographing HM Border Agency or HMRC staff I really cannot understand why there should be a blanket ban. I can't recall seeing this at other UK airports, or at airports sur le continent.

Is this another case of the UK's mania for security?

[hotmetal]

There are a lot of differences on the continent about the way society is run. Security staff generally seem less officious and jobsworthy, petty officials don't seem to delight in ordering people about. Do any places have those signs saying something like 'Our staff are entitled to be treated with respect etc.' I haven't seen one. Only in the UK do we think they are necessary. The German U-Bahn system seems to have helpful signs telling you where the train lines are and what time the trains will come. In the UK stations seem littered with signs prohibiting all sorts of activities. I often feel I would like to take some of my fellow UK citizens who don't get abroad much with me when I travel [I do a lot of it] and show them what the rest of Europe is like. It might open their eyes and they might just think 'Hey you know I never realised you could live like this. I thought there had to be rules everywhere and people in fluorescent tabards to control us. Life really is quite fun outside UKPlc isn't it?'

[Bobalob]

Hello,

I've been looking at this thread, and wonder if this guide would be any help:
UK Photographers Rights v2 ? Sirimo (http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/)

I should perhaps clarify I am no lawyer, but hope the referenced nature of my comments provide some assurance, however they should not be regarded as legal advice or a statement of the law.

Several points have been made about criminal offences. Section 58(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000 reads thus:
"A person commits an offence if—(a) he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or (b) he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind."Records include photos (Section 58(2)). But it's a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his action or possession. Provisions of the Counter-Terrorist Act 2008 also apply for taking photographs of a Constable.

It's up to the courts to define what is a reasonable excuse, given the circumstances of each case. It will depend on what is in the public interest. It's also up to the courts to determine what is useful to a person preparing an act of terrorism. So blanket rules can't be given - in many cases it will be a balancing act, and lots of factors can be considered, for example there is a public interest in maintaining respect for security protocol, but there's also a public interest in accountability and free reporting of news.

There is also the question of the Aviation Security Act 1982. Section 21C relates to unauthorised presence in a restricted zone. It says:
(1)A person shall not—
(a)go, with or without a vehicle, onto any part of a restricted zone of—
(i)an aerodrome, or
(ii)an air navigation installation which does not form part of an aerodrome,
except with the permission of the manager of the aerodrome, the authority responsible for the air navigation installation or a person acting on behalf of that manager or authority, and in accordance with any conditions subject to which that permission is for the time being granted, or
(b)remain on any part of such a restricted zone after being requested to leave by the manager of the aerodrome, the authority responsible for the air navigation installation or a person acting on behalf of that manager or authority.
...


(3)A person who contravenes subsection (1) above without lawful authority or reasonable excuse shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. The question therefore arises as to what conditions of entry there were to the restricted zone, and whether there was a reasonable excuse for the breach of them, if they concern photography.

Another point related to airport by-laws. These vary, but because they have to be authorised by the Secretary of State should have some similarity. You can see the types of things that can be regulated by by-laws here: Airports Act 1986 (c. 31) (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1986/cukpga_19860031_en_9#pt6-pb1)

There has been some talk that airport security officers (distinct from customs officers, immigration officers or police officers) have some "power" to stop photography, more than an ordinary citizen. It would be interesting to have evidence of this in law.

A couple of other points. It was claimed that
All people in the UK have the right NOT to be photographed against their wishes.Not so. The situation is more subtle than is described. See from paragraph 8 of http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/mosley_v_news_group.pdf

[barstow]

Quote:
All people in the UK have the right NOT to be photographed against their wishes.

Have to second this being far from correct.

The general overriding principle regarding the right to not be photographed is whether "the subject would have a reasonable expectation of privacy" ie in a toilet/changeroom/security shakedown for instance.

The rest of the airport should be fair game, obviously special airport rules excepted, as others have referred to.

When questioned about the ramifications of section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 (which was inserted by section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Shahid Malik) said

"I want to be clear about this: the offence does not capture an innocent tourist taking a photograph of a police officer, or a journalist photographing police officers as part of his or her job. It does not criminalise the normal taking of photographs of the police. Police officers have the discretion to ask people not to take photographs for public safety or security reasons, but the taking of photographs in a public place is not subject to any rule or statute.

There are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing has said that we will issue all police officers and forces with a circular on the new offence. It will set out the policy intentions behind the offence and make it clear that it does not criminalise legitimate photographic or journalistic activity. The circular will be discussed with interested parties before it is issued."

[WHBM]

Do any places have those signs saying something like 'Our staff are entitled to be treated with respect etc.' I haven't seen one. Only in the UK do we think they are necessary.
I have more than once written to the managements of various organisations who have pasted such signs all over the place, asking if the same is true in reverse, and their staff are also instructed to treat the customers/passengers with adequate respect rather than arrogance and rudeness, as it seems they have not been.

To date I have not received a reply.

[Capot]

Signs appealing for people not to abuse staff are prevalent in the UK for a good reason.

They serve as a warning that the treatment you are about to receive will be rude, incompetent and enough to make a Saint homicidal.

You are going to be delayed or otherwise messed around, and dealt with by teenagers who can't speak or write basic English, even if unusually that's what they are, know nothing about their job, and appear to have been trained only to make robotic responses to any enquiry, before threatening you with penalties if you persist in trying to communicate on an adult level.

The best thing to do when you see these signs is go away, which is, I think, the intended response. But if you actiually need to get through the ordeal, they do at least forewarn you about what is going to happen to you.

I always fire up my Ipod when I see them, play soothing Classics at quite high volume, and try and get through the "customer experience" in a kind of trance state, much as fire-walkers do.

[TightSlot]

My personal mental alarm goes off whenever I see a sign or similar that contains the words "In order to better meet the needs of a majority of our customers..." or "In response to customer demand..."

Both mean two things:-


No customer has actually been consulted

In some small way, my life is about to get worse.


I haven't yet been wrong.

[bealine]

There are a lot of differences on the continent about the way society is run. Security staff generally seem less officious and jobsworthy, petty officials don't seem to delight in ordering people about. Do any places have those signs saying something like 'Our staff are entitled to be treated with respect etc.' I haven't seen one. Only in the UK do we think they are necessary. The German U-Bahn system seems to have helpful signs telling you where the train lines are and what time the trains will come. It's funny you should say that, because yoyr lack of travel experience is now quite clear! The security staff in Germany, particularly, are far more officious and will call the Poizei at the slightest provocation. The Polizei have the ability to issue on the spot fines which will rise by 10 Euros every time you open your mouth to argue!

It is very clear that many visitors from overseas, when in Britain, moan vociferously about our security, continually attempt to duck under barriers and cross floor markings. In their own respective countries, these people wouldn't dare to step out of line! Now I'll agree that Terminal 4 is not good, but it is under re-construction and will be a whole lot better before 2012. Gatwick, however, will not have any new investment until it is sold - and given its slow demise and loss of mainstream airlines, a new buyer is not likely for a long time!

If you ever go to the USA, just try crossing the yellow line at the head of the Immigration queue before it's your turn! You'll soon see what an apopleptic fit looks like!

[PaperTiger]

I believe the actual reason is to prevent people seeking to take photos to identify any potential weak spots in the security, know where everything is etc etc.

Not THAT unreasonable.Yes, terrorists have such appallingly low attention spans and terrible memories that they cannot simply take note of such weak spots and write them up later. They must have photos, and make sure the authorities see they are taking them.

But then security doesn't need a reason, it's security. Uh-huh.

[Agathapud]

Just been to T4 to take my son for his flight to a holiday of a lifetime. Appalling layout for passengers in the check-in area. Continually asked to move so others could make their way through. I wanted to take a photo of my son as he neared the front of the queue for the bag drop so that I could get the 'Kenya Airways' sign and a rear view of him as his journey began. Not a single sign anywhere to say that photography is not allowed. As soon as I produced my camera I was told by a member of staff that I could not photograph anything. I said I just wanted a rear view shot of my son and was told that I was not allowed to photograph anyone without their permission. I re-iterated that I did not want any shot of anyone from the front, only the rear. She then told me to go to the front of the queue and 'ask permission'. Of whom? As the queues were moving all the time the people were changing all the time. Not only where there no signs to say photograph was disallowed, there were no signs either telling anyone that they were continually being photographed for the purposes of the airport (CCTV). But no-one was asked or advised about this! Went home totally gutted.

[lenhamlad]

Totally agree with Bealine.

[Capot]

Tightslot's 2009 post can be updated with a third warning sign, which I suspect would have been valid then.

"Our staff are entitled to work in a pleasant environment" or words to that effect "and we will not hesitate to seize and prosecute anyone who abuses, threatens or uses violence on our staff" or words to that effect.

Translation.

"You are about to be pissed about by a bunch of brain-dead morons following a rule-book written by a social sciences graduate aged 21 on work experience in Head Office, from which they are not allowed to deviate one millimetre even if they had the brains and initiative to do so. They have been trained to believe that their rights outweigh yours, and that any idle remark, or indeed an untoward facial expression, that comments on their behaviour, skills, idiocy or appearance is violent abuse.We don't give a toss about you or your welfare, and any objection to the treatment you are about to receive will be met by throwing you off/out/into (insert as appropriate). So keep your mouth shut, accept whatever we do to you, grovel to the underpaid cretins we employ because they are cheap, and you may get through the experience in one piece.
Have a nice day."

That text is common to all places where the operators find it necessary to issue such warnings because of how they treat their customers; banks, railway trains and stations, airports, and so on.

Sorry, add Low-Cost Airlines to the list, one in particular.

[Tableview]

My normal riposte to petty officials when they say : "You can't do that ..." is : "I just have ....." Like the woman in a bank who refused to honour the currency exchange rates displayed on their electronic display, saying they were 'from yesterday' despite it being 4 o'clock in the afternoon. So I took a photograph to accompany my complaint and was told .... "You can't photograph that ...."

[Shack37]

lenhamlad

Totally agree with Bealine

Having read and in general agreed with your informed posts on the "Slow Handclapping" thread I'm surprised you can respond as above in response to a three year old post. I find myself more in agreement with Capot as to the travel experience in 2012 especially in countries where the security is handled by professional organisations such as customs officers and police as opposed to private agencies. Their very professionalism and expertise in their job makes rudeness unecessary to the extent that their firm politeness is sufficient to prevent unacceptable behaviour by the "customer".

What we are seeing now with G4S is a good example of this lack of professionalism.

[radeng]

Try security and immigration at Nice airport. My experience from them has been unfailing courtesy, friendliness and efficiency - plus a strange habit (to one used to LHR) of opening more channels as the queues start to build up.