pleasant experiences

Hello,

At the time of the recent Euro 2008, I was travelling through Vienna,
and with my night train out of Bahnhof Wien Sued not bound to depart
for another hour or so, I was taking some night time photos inside
the station hall.

Soon I was approached by a member of staff, who politely queried
whether I might need any help or guidance. I replied that I was
well aware about the departure platform and was just making
good use of the time before the train departure taking some snaps.

He then suggested that he could take a photo of me with my camera.
So he did, and after that photo with the flash on, we entered into
a wee discussion, he proposing to take another photo without flash,
me worrying about the long exposure time involded, and he replying
(apart from me setting the camera to a higher ISO value) that he
does have a steady hand indead, so it probably would turn out ok.
Which it did.

Somehow a few minutes earlier I must have left a plastic back
with two railway magazines somewhere in the hall. Sure enough
the bag was gone, so I retraced my steps to the information booth.

I explained where my bag went missing and what was inside.
Sure enough the bag was there. And the guy inside, with a grin
on his face, even told me, if I had turned up a few minutes later,
he would have started browsing through that railway literature ;-)

Regards

Klaus

xpost mtre+ukr, choose f'up wisely

In message
<3df2a504-57ee-4df9-b098-f451033d360f@8g2000hse..com>, at
08:08:22 on Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Neil Williams <pacer142@>
remarked:
>> And have they *actually* done it (trainers, or photography), and how
>> would a member of the public find out?
>
>Most (all?) German private property open to the public has a published
>"Hausordnung", a set of rules under which the public may enter. This
>is almost always posted clearly near the entrance.
>
>Thinking about it, the Network Rail Byelaws are posted clearly in
>Euston in a number of places, including right by one of the entrances.
>
>Perhaps more of this kind of thing is needed?

Yes. The byelaws are OK as far as they go, but despite many prohibitions
fail to mention photography.
--
Roland Perry

In message <m38f74d4jq4i3nfeuip2s13ibb8bbdbqus@>, at 19:12:12 on
Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Charles Ellson <charles@ellson.> remarked:
>>> Yes. The byelaws are OK as far as they go, but despite many prohibitions
>>> fail to mention photography.
>>
>>Nor is photography mentioned in the Conditions of Carriage. As it's not
>>mentioned in either place, it must be permitted...
>>
>No. "Being permitted" applies if there is positive permission. If
>there is no positive permission than an otherwise unrestricted
>activity is capable of restriction if the occupier/landowner lawfully
>wishes it to be restricted.

There's no prohibition in the Byelaws or the Conditions of Carriage, so
we believe there's no general intent for it to be restricted.

>The lack of any initial prohibition (e.g.
>no notices saying "XXXXXXX is prohibited") does not mean the
>occupier/landowner is prevented from later imposing a prohibition as
>long it does not conflict with any obligation upon him.

But where is the "later imposition" of this restriction? That's what we
are looking for.
--
Roland Perry

In message <g58g87$4hi$1@registered.motzarella.org>, at 21:36:12 on Fri,
11 Jul 2008, Jerry <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> remarked:
>But to have a *right* to photograph, such a right would have to be
>written *into* either the Bylaws or Conditions of Carriage -
>photography might not be explicitly prohibited but niether is it
>expressly permitted either.

In the absence of an explicit prohibition then it's allowed. That's the
way the law works in UK (it's different in Russia, aiui).

>If a photographer is, in the opinion of the land or equipment owner (or
>their agents), causing a 'problem' there *are* Bylaws and/or Conditions
>of Carriage to cover such issues - if you then argue the toss, at best
>you would then be obstructing the operation of the railway...

If a photographer is creating a genuine nuisance, then of course there
are "catch all" rules for the situation. But we are manly concerned
about photographers who aren't.
--
Roland Perry

In message <g58h8m$teh$1@registered.motzarella.org>, at 21:53:34 on Fri,
11 Jul 2008, Jerry <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> remarked:

>>>But to have a *right* to photograph, such a right would have to be
>>>written *into* either the Bylaws or Conditions of Carriage -
>>>photography might not be explicitly prohibited but niether is it
>>>expressly permitted either.
>>
>> In the absence of an explicit prohibition then it's allowed. That's
>> the way the law works in UK (it's different in Russia, aiui).
>
>Only for common land, railway land is not common, all other land is
>private and as such the owners can impose what ever conditions of use
>they like - they could, for example, insist that anyone and everyone
>who enters upon the land should strip naked and dance a Irish jig!

Of course, and we have discussed Mr Polson's brown suede shoes before.

But they currently don't publicise any such restriction in the Byelaws
or CoC. That's the beginning and end of it.

>> If a photographer is creating a genuine nuisance, then of course
>> there are "catch all" rules for the situation. But we are manly
>> concerned about photographers who aren't.
>
>In yours and the said photographers opinions, of course....

Frankly, there are more nuisances caused by people with suitcases inside
St Pancras, than people taking photos of the statues.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:20:43 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <m38f74d4jq4i3nfeuip2s13ibb8bbdbqus@>, at 19:12:12 on
>Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Charles Ellson <charles@ellson.> remarked:
>>>> Yes. The byelaws are OK as far as they go, but despite many prohibitions
>>>> fail to mention photography.
>>>
>>>Nor is photography mentioned in the Conditions of Carriage. As it's not
>>>mentioned in either place, it must be permitted...
>>>
>>No. "Being permitted" applies if there is positive permission. If
>>there is no positive permission than an otherwise unrestricted
>>activity is capable of restriction if the occupier/landowner lawfully
>>wishes it to be restricted.
>
>There's no prohibition in the Byelaws or the Conditions of Carriage, so
>we believe there's no general intent for it to be restricted.
>
ITYF it would be ruled unreasonable to presume that the absence of
specific mention intends all activities to be _without_ restriction.

>>The lack of any initial prohibition (e.g.
>>no notices saying "XXXXXXX is prohibited") does not mean the
>>occupier/landowner is prevented from later imposing a prohibition as
>>long it does not conflict with any obligation upon him.
>
>But where is the "later imposition" of this restriction? That's what we
>are looking for.
>
When the proprietor or his representative tells you to stop doing
something. Until that time an activity could be otherwise "lawful" (as
in not naturally illegal).

In message <g58jb0$aep$1@registered.motzarella.org>, at 22:15:02 on Fri,
11 Jul 2008, Jerry <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> remarked:
>there are enough Bylaws to stop any actions that the railway staff at
>the time want to stop - QED.

If you are relying upon the "annoyance" type clauses, then this is
pretty much like gangs of youths beating up people wearing the wrong
colour t-shirt, because it apparently annoys them. You are suggesting
that the railway staff can be judge and jury, and capriciously ban
things which "annoy" them, but don't annoy anyone else or have any other
detrimental aspects.
--
Roland Perry

In message <g5b3kv$gej$2@registered.motzarella.org>, at 21:11:31 on Sat,
12 Jul 2008, Jerry <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> remarked:
><snip even more ignorant clap-trap>
>
>No, I was talking about you, not myself...

When there's a slanging match like this, my natural inclination is to
support the person who isn't hiding behind an anonymous posting ID.
--
Roland Perry

In message <g5b6le$4fs$1@registered.motzarella.org>, at 21:55:22 on Sat,
12 Jul 2008, Jerry <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> remarked:

>>>there are enough Bylaws to stop any actions that the railway staff
>>>at the time want to stop - QED.
>>
>> If you are relying upon the "annoyance"
>
>Or obstruction...

That's just the same, if there's no actual obstruction of anyone taking
place. Indeed, it would suggest that photography in an empty station
could never be complained about.

>type clauses, then this is
>> pretty much like gangs of youths beating up people wearing the wrong
>> colour t-shirt, because it apparently annoys them.
>
>Or in the wrong place at the wrong time...

Like a railway station at the same time as a jobsworth.

> You are suggesting
>> that the railway staff can be judge and jury, and capriciously ban
>> things which "annoy" them, but don't annoy anyone else or have any
>> other detrimental aspects.
>
>Yes, as it's private property

Elsewhere you are keen on "signs" and "the law". If photography is
against a provision in the byelaws, it's up to the court to decide if
they were being infringed.

>, something that PC Plod can't do when
>using a camera in the street as the public do have rights when in
>public places, entering a railway stations are no more public than
>walking into a branch of WHSmiths or Marks & Spencers is - are you
>saying that you have a right to walk into either of those two (or any)
>shops and start using a camera?...

So did this all start when the railways were privatised?
--
Roland Perry

In message <g5b6q4$4fs$2@registered.motzarella.org>, at 22:00:14 on Sat,
12 Jul 2008, Jerry <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> remarked:
>> So you think a railway employee could capriciously instruct everyone
>> on a platform that wearing brown shoes was now banned?
>
>Yes, and if the owners of the station backed him up in his decision...

Are the owners that easy to find, to express an opinion?

ps You are doing a wonderful PR job for the railways.
--
Roland Perry