Monday, 29 September 2014

No, No, It’s A Cover Up, All Right…

…and remember, it’s ALWAYS the cover up that does you in, not the original event:
A spokeswoman said: “Two members of our security team approached a small party of guests who were taking photos of our ride staff and guests during the evacuation.
“They were politely asked to delete these images as neither our staff nor the guests in question had given permission for their photos to be taken.”
She said the policy helped the safe evacuation of the ride but insisted that anyone resisting would not have been threatened with removal from the park.
She said: “It’s for safety. It’s not a cover-up.”
*chuckles* Yeah, love, if you say so...
The amusement park said it was following a policy of protecting the privacy of its guests.
How do they manage on a daily basis then? Everyone taking pictures with others in the background would be required to obtain permission!

Pull the other one, it’s got bells on…
News of the move sparked an online backlash against the theme park, which has suffered a number of mechanical breakdowns in recent years.
Mike Burkitt wrote on Facebook: ”Nothing to do with protecting anyone’s privacy and everything to do with protecting the reputation of the business.”
Which, as a result of this heavy-handedness, has now taken yet another nose-dive…

7 comments:

Ian Hills said...

Police try to stop people taking pictures of them at demonstrations too, on the pretence that it's illegal. It isn't.

Anonymous said...

Choosing not to take a photograph of someone who doesn't want to be photographed is a courtesy. Only a courtesy.
They have no legal basis for stopping you.
If such legal basis did exist there would be np papparazzi.
It is a courtesy I observe if the objections are put to me with courtesy, otherwise I go ahead and explain what I am doing.

Anonymouslemming said...

Anonymous - All of that changes on private land though. The owners reserve the right to choose who they allow on their property.

This is one of the biggest dangers of the privatisation of public spaces. Things that you're allowed to do on Oxford street can be banned at Bluewater or Canary wharf.

Furor Teutonicus said...

XX They have no legal basis for stopping you.
If such legal basis did exist there would be np papparazzi.XX

They have such a legal basis here. We still have those pieces of incredible crawling shite called "Papparazzi.

Kath lissenden said...

I guess they stopped people taking photos because they were not making exorbitant amounts out of the photos, the only way you would get a picture of that little excursion is if you delved deep in your pockets for an "official" chessington snap, I have no clue what those cost now as I have not been there in over 10 years but last time I went they were a fiver so I guess a tenner a head by now would about cover it. Chessington used to be a great though even in the 90's slightly pricey day out, these days I wouldn't go there if they paid me.

Anonymous said...

Anonymouslemming,
There are public places and places to which the public have access, such as the outside areas of Canary Wharf, or by payment such as Chessington or football grounds. In the latter, unless there are signs prohibiting photography of any kind then there is no legal right to make people delete photos from their cameras or mobile phones. Requests can be made but no demand. To avoid confrontation, you can always offer to share the photos, retaining copyright. A reasonable management will accept this.
Penseivat

JuliaM said...

"Police try to stop people taking pictures of them at demonstrations too, on the pretence that it's illegal. It isn't."

Yup. But since it works with the dim, they'll keep trying.

"Anonymous - All of that changes on private land though. "

True enough - it's a condition of entry. But they'd have to post warnings, wouldn't they?

"Chessington used to be a great though even in the 90's slightly pricey day out, these days I wouldn't go there if they paid me."

I don't think I've ever been, not since it went from 'zoo' to 'theme park'.