Yeah the people who make Pot Noodle.

This is becoming a bit of a pet issue of mine, as this is something I have personally run afoul of in the past. Two incidents come to mind. The first was when one of our listener meet ups ended up at FAB Cafe in Leeds, only to be thrown out because it’s “illegal” to take photos in a nightclub, it isn’t. And the conflict continued as I took photos of the bouncers from the street, also not illegal.

Then there was the incident just before Charistms when somebody thought you can’t take pictures in a public place so much that they got into my car and tried to take my phone off me.

For some reason we seem to be living in a world where those of us who lack the ability to think are under the impression that taking photos is somehow a bad thing and is therefore illegal. They also forget that when they’re in public, then they’re in public and have absolutely no right to privacy. If you don’t want to appear on camera then stay home.

And so in following the above video I put in a call to Golden Wonder and got a lesson in how not to handle questions.

First of all I was given the name and number of the security company that supplies the guards. It’s a very common thing for companies like Golden Wonder to not directly employ their own security guards. It’s much easier for them to out source it to a private security company. Such companies exist because it’s such a common practice. Nothing wrong there. However by directing me to talk to Kingdom Security, Golden Wonder are essentially saying that they accept no responsibility for this matter as they don’t employ the individuals in the video. That’s all well and good, but I’d personally say that if somebody is on your company grounds, and is being payed to be there, and is carrying out the instructions of the company, then the fact that Golden Wonder doesn’t directly pay their wages is irrelevant.

After pointing out to GW that simply directing me to a different company is the same as not accepting responsibility for what happened I was transferred to the HR department. Then it got even more crazy. Just like the security guards in the video, there were a lot of contradictions.

First of all it was made clear to me that GW don’t have a problem with people taking photos of their factory and have invited the man in the video back to take all the photos he likes. That’s very big of them considering that that have absolutely no legal right to have a problem with people taking photos of their factory. I was also informed that the two security guards have resigned. Note, not fired, resigned.

Apparently GW are doing nothing more about this matter and have left it to their security company to do an investigation. Given that the two people in the video have apparently resigned I do wonder what that investigation with involve and what any possible results could be. To GW I have to ask why they are so caught up with this security company? Personally as soon as the video hit YouTube I’d have been on the phone to any other security company to replace the one I was using. Isn’t it that simple? If a company is providing you with a service that is not up to par, you use a different company. Yeah, it’s that simple.

GW also said that the incident needs putting in context because we don’t know what happened before the video started. They suggested that the photographer might have provoked the security staff in some way, might have set foot on their property, or attempted to stop cars entering the car park. I asked what hypothetical events might have occurred before the video started that warrented the response the man got from the guards, and got no answer. If he was stopping cars entering the car park, why weren’t the guards talking about that? If he was actually trespassing, why didn’t the guards talk about that? If he had done anything other than take photos, why was none of it mentioned in the video?

GW also seemed annoyed that the faces of the guards were visible in the video. They said that the BBC had played the clip on the news and had blurred out the faces of the guards, so based on that it was obviously a legal requirement to do so, and if it wasn’t, why did the BBC do it? Well, it isn’t in any way a legal requirement, for the same reason that it isn’t illegal for the photos to be taken in the first place. If you’re stood on a public street in the middle of the day you have absolutely no legal recourse against somebody either photographing or videoing you. It seems they haven’t learned their lesson, but seeing as they’re doing nothing about it themselves, that isn’t hard to believe. Perhaps the security company will learn that rule.

So in conclusion I’d say that Golden Wonder handled this about as badly as it could be handled. Perhaps they could do an investigation in to that.

When you’re out and about taking pictures, you’re entirely allowed to do that. You can take photos of people and buildings, even police officers and that’s all there is to it. Ignore everyone who tells you that you aren’t allowed to do it. The only situations that I’m aware of where you could very well be moved on from, is if you’re trying to take photos of milatry