No photography in Glasgow subways

<p>It would appear that the fascists are intent upon the preventing the photographer from exposing the sullen carbuncle that are Scottish subways. Rise oh nation of fainthearts, stop painting your face blue, diss the English invention that is the kilt and stand up for some common sense! While you are at it feel free to kick out the two fish from SNP as well!<br>

<br />The following is a Guardian article about what is going on in Glasgow<br>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/18/photography-glasgow-ban-subway</p>

<p>The ban is for completeness. Unlike the lovely Scottish countryside, and particularly the Hebrides, or the very different city of Edinburgh, I found nothing above the ground in Glasgow worth photographing. Even my dreary hotel room wasn't dreary enough. Now they have banned photography from the underground.</p>

<p>Last sentence of the article:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>you are neither paedophile nor terrorist, only a photographer and citizen of a visual democracy.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p> How absurd!</p>

<p>Isn't England the country with the best observation and surveillance with CCTV systems in Europe?</p>

<p>I mean, how mad is it that the gov is taping you 24 hours, but you are not allowed to make images in the tube...</p>

<p>If the people who ran the Glasgow Subway had as much of a sense of humour as most Glaswegians this sort of thing would not happen. The Glasgow underground is approximately a circle and the the trains are an orange colour. What else to call it but '<em>The Clockwork Orange</em>'?</p>

<p>It has been smartened up a lot since I was on it last when the ancient trains would lean forward under braking coming into a station then lean backwards on acceleration on exit.</p>

<p>With a system like that you would have thought the operators would have had a sense of humour.</p>

<p>That's a shame as I always wanted a photo of when I push Alex Salmond in front of a fast moving train ;-)</p>

<p>I now realize that when I passed through Glascow, I didn't take a single picture....</p><div></div>

<p>Be careful in Tashkent too. You'll be surrounded by KGB types the second you snap the shutter. A pity because their subway stations are done very artistically. GJ</p>

<p>The proscriptions against photography are just a disingenuous attempt by the powers that be to convince the general public that measures are being taken to protect us from terrorists. The fact that the bombers who caused mayhem on the London Underground on 7/7 did not take photographs doesn't seem to have penetrated their skulls. In any event, most mobile 'phones now inlcude 8 meg cameras so someone could eaily take a photograph without even being noticed. No serious terrorist would draw attention to himself by toting a camera. </p>

<p>I did not get the impression it was to do with terrorism, but simply that photographers are considered a nuisance, and the simplest way of dealing with them is a complete ban. A very tidy management solution, imposed by people who are not particularly aware of the world outside their own office.<br>

I expect they are now becoming aware.</p>

<p>The article was a good read, but I think not quite complete. It quotes Luc Delahaye<br>

"[in France] to take them, it's forbidden. The law states that everyone owns their own image"<br>

Actually it seems taking a photograph is not a problem, it's the usage which might be risky<br>

The government iterpretation of Civil Code article 9 is here <a href="http://ambafrance-us.org/spip.php?article640">http://ambafrance-us.org/spip.php?article640</a><br>

"In general, the right to privacy entitles anyone, irrespective of rank, birth, fortune or present or future office, to oppose the dissemination of his or her picture - an attribute of personality - without the express permission of the person concerned."<br>

People photographed by Delahaye did go to court, because he published, but the judges found in favour of Delahaye, as EU laws on freedom of journalistic expression outweigh French privacy laws.</p>

<p >(article 10 of the European Charter for Human rights granting the rights to journalists to freely publish)</p>

<p >More here <a href="http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?35938-Photography-and-French-privacy-laws">http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?35938-Photography-and-French-privacy-laws</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>The best bit of all this? It seems that the 'rules' for the subway state:<br>

Section 9.1 You may legally buy beer in the subway from authorised outlets for consumption in designated places. And you may drink it. Legally.</p>

<p>Section 11.1.2 You may not litter the subway and must remove your rubbish. So you must dispose of or take the empty tin as litter away with you.</p>

<p>Section 9.2.2 If you get caught with an empty tin in an area of the subway not authorised for consumption of alcohol it will be treated as if it was full and you get fined for having the empty tin in your possession. </p>

<p>Genius. </p>

<p>At least thats how I understand it.</p>

<p>Maybe I've had too many tins.</p>

<p>Scottish subway beer comes in tins? Got any pix?</p>

<p>Oh, wait...</p>

<p>in this day and age where someone can take a picture with their cellphone and nobody would be none the wiser, why go after someone holding an actual camera? i've never quite understood that dichotomy. </p>