This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
On Sat 11th April I had climbed on the E Face of Tryfan and was descending Nant Yr Ogaf northwards towards Gwern Gof Isaf, intending to take the path back to my car at Gwern Gof Uchaf.
As I got close to the farm, it was obvious they were preparing for filming http://www.walesonline.co.uk/whats-on/film-news/hollywood-movie-king-arthur... but no actual activity was taking place. Suddenly there was a lot of shouting and two bouncer-type men started shouting at me to move; that I was not allowed to continue etc. One shouted into his radio "we have two trespassers here" and "they need escorting" and "I f***ing hate these people". I was still about 400m from the farm and continued down. Nearing the farm, I turned to take a photo of Tryfan prompting shouts of "no photos; you are banned from taking photos here".
Reaching the farm, another bouncer-type insisted on escoting us along the path to Gwen Gof Uchaf "for our health and safety" explaining "you should have known not to come here: it was all put on a website" - perhaps this dead link: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/movie-access-closures-in-snowdonia ?
All of which prompts several questions. Has that widely-used path been closed? Is that legal? If it is, shouldn't there be signs (there were none at any of the path entrance points)? Can you ban someone walking on wild land near a film site? Can you ban them taking photos of a mountain? Is the promise of a Wales-based movie franchise worth sacrificing such access? And most of all: I'm really angry about the way I was treated (like an offending trespasser). Who can I moan at?!
I'd be very interested to hear if anyone else had a similar experience.
3
In reply to Y Gribin:
I have done a bit of film security work, never worked with anyone with such a bad attitude as you experienced. In cases where I've worked on location on wild land we have never restricted anybodies movement unless they were about to come into shot during a take. Occasionally we would have to make them wait until after the take and then let them proceed along the path. Would usually only restrict photography if the stars requested so.
Seems unnecessarily heavy handed and doesn't tie in with my experiences of working in the industry.
> All of which prompts several questions. Has that widely-used path been closed? Is that legal? If it is, shouldn't there be signs (there were none at any of the path entrance points)? Can you ban someone walking on wild land near a film site? Can you ban them taking photos of a mountain? Is the promise of a Wales-based movie franchise worth sacrificing such access? And most of all: I'm really angry about the way I was treated (like an offending trespasser). Who can I moan at?!
> I'd be very interested to hear if anyone else had a similar experience.
I have done a bit of film security work, never worked with anyone with such a bad attitude as you experienced. In cases where I've worked on location on wild land we have never restricted anybodies movement unless they were about to come into shot during a take. Occasionally we would have to make them wait until after the take and then let them proceed along the path. Would usually only restrict photography if the stars requested so.
Seems unnecessarily heavy handed and doesn't tie in with my experiences of working in the industry.
2
In reply to Y Gribin:
I would suggest making a formal complaint to the National Park Authority about their conduct if nothing else. Though it does sound like the area around there was officially closed (though why they didn't just tape it off I have no idea).
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GXGMOWNVyrcJ:https://w...
I also object strongly to suggestions that people should stay off the mountain; if you want to film somewhere there won't be people, pick a more rural area. I did wonder if heavies would try to stop people.
As for photography, it is not their right to control that, neither of the mountain nor of anything or anyone else.
Neil
I would suggest making a formal complaint to the National Park Authority about their conduct if nothing else. Though it does sound like the area around there was officially closed (though why they didn't just tape it off I have no idea).
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GXGMOWNVyrcJ:https://w...
I also object strongly to suggestions that people should stay off the mountain; if you want to film somewhere there won't be people, pick a more rural area. I did wonder if heavies would try to stop people.
As for photography, it is not their right to control that, neither of the mountain nor of anything or anyone else.
Neil
Post edited at 21:25
1
In reply to Dr.S at work:
I don't know. I never came across a case where a polite request was unsuccessful in keeping the public out of shot.
I don't know. I never came across a case where a polite request was unsuccessful in keeping the public out of shot.
In reply to Y Gribin:
Given the scenario you've described, I would say that dialing 999 and reporting 'threatening behaviour' and asking for a police response would have been entirely appropriate. Though no-one ought to waste police time, we all pay for them to protect us from exactly this sort of thing.
Given the scenario you've described, I would say that dialing 999 and reporting 'threatening behaviour' and asking for a police response would have been entirely appropriate. Though no-one ought to waste police time, we all pay for them to protect us from exactly this sort of thing.
2
In reply to Skip:
Which, if the photographer is on public land, you would have absolutely no right to do. If they were on someone else's private land than that you were working on, you would similarly have no right to do so unless you had permission of that landowner to control activities on his land. I'm pretty sure one of those would have applied in this situation.
Neil
> Would usually only restrict photography if the stars requested so.
Which, if the photographer is on public land, you would have absolutely no right to do. If they were on someone else's private land than that you were working on, you would similarly have no right to do so unless you had permission of that landowner to control activities on his land. I'm pretty sure one of those would have applied in this situation.
Neil
Post edited at 07:40
In reply to Y Gribin:
Whilst the bouncers sound like tossers who should have behaved better, I can't get too worked up about losing some access on a very tempory basis.
Yes there should have been more signage it seems, but it was advised via BMC and a few threads on here and FB.
It's got to be worth it for the money and publicity it'll bring to our area.
Whilst the bouncers sound like tossers who should have behaved better, I can't get too worked up about losing some access on a very tempory basis.
Yes there should have been more signage it seems, but it was advised via BMC and a few threads on here and FB.
It's got to be worth it for the money and publicity it'll bring to our area.
In reply to jezb1:
Money and publicity? For whom? And how would that benefit most users of this forum?
Money and publicity? For whom? And how would that benefit most users of this forum?
In reply to Andy Morley:
Land owners and local business's will have profited from it. Some local guides/instructors were hired for it too.
Publicity in the terms that people will see stunning scenery in the film and might be compelled to visit. That's got to be a good thing for the area.
There are plenty of people on this forum, myself included, that could benefit from more people visiting Snowdonia.
> Money and publicity? For whom? And how would that benefit most users of this forum?
Land owners and local business's will have profited from it. Some local guides/instructors were hired for it too.
Publicity in the terms that people will see stunning scenery in the film and might be compelled to visit. That's got to be a good thing for the area.
There are plenty of people on this forum, myself included, that could benefit from more people visiting Snowdonia.
1
In reply to jezb1:
My experience of film crews is that they turn up, they nick things (canoes in my case) then they bugger off and everyone's glad. Mind you, in that instance, it was the infamous Jezza so maybe these ones were more cuddly? Doesn't sound much like it though. I guess the star-struck will put up with pretty much anything to get a distant brush with fame but I'm not impressed, personally.
My experience of film crews is that they turn up, they nick things (canoes in my case) then they bugger off and everyone's glad. Mind you, in that instance, it was the infamous Jezza so maybe these ones were more cuddly? Doesn't sound much like it though. I guess the star-struck will put up with pretty much anything to get a distant brush with fame but I'm not impressed, personally.
2
1
In reply to Neil Williams:
>> Which, if the photographer is on public land, you would have absolutely no right to do. If they were on someone
>>else's private land than that you were working on, you would similarly have no right to do so unless you had
>>permission of that landowner to control activities on his land. I'm pretty sure one of those would have applied in this
>>situation.
& OP:
>>Has that widely-used path been closed? Is that legal? If it is, shouldn't there be signs (there were none at any
>>of the path entrance points)? Can you ban someone walking on wild land near a film site? Can you ban them
>>taking photos of a mountain?
It's private property (as is virtually all land in the mountains) and the landowner has exerted his right to temporarily restrict the provisions of access land, and given control of the land concerned to the film company.
The council has also consented to the temporary closure of rights of way in the area for the period of filming.
> Would usually only restrict photography if the stars requested so.
>> Which, if the photographer is on public land, you would have absolutely no right to do. If they were on someone
>>else's private land than that you were working on, you would similarly have no right to do so unless you had
>>permission of that landowner to control activities on his land. I'm pretty sure one of those would have applied in this
>>situation.
& OP:
>>Has that widely-used path been closed? Is that legal? If it is, shouldn't there be signs (there were none at any
>>of the path entrance points)? Can you ban someone walking on wild land near a film site? Can you ban them
>>taking photos of a mountain?
It's private property (as is virtually all land in the mountains) and the landowner has exerted his right to temporarily restrict the provisions of access land, and given control of the land concerned to the film company.
The council has also consented to the temporary closure of rights of way in the area for the period of filming.
Post edited at 10:43
1
In reply to Y Gribin:
I found out the hard way also on friday. Stopped my nephew and I bouldering behing the uni hut near the camp site. Bit of a pain.
At first they acted all bad ass from a distance but as soon as they got up close were quite apologetic. I can only presume they were fed up when meeting you after that windy friday night haha!
It wasn't publicised well at all. Didn't see any notices posted around the area, so maybe that could have been done better.
I found out the hard way also on friday. Stopped my nephew and I bouldering behing the uni hut near the camp site. Bit of a pain.
At first they acted all bad ass from a distance but as soon as they got up close were quite apologetic. I can only presume they were fed up when meeting you after that windy friday night haha!
It wasn't publicised well at all. Didn't see any notices posted around the area, so maybe that could have been done better.
In reply to Ron Rees Davies:
Is there not a requirement to advertise footpath closures at the beginning of the path (rather than on a random website)?
Is there not a requirement to advertise footpath closures at the beginning of the path (rather than on a random website)?
2
2
Oh, not another King Arthur movie..
I am really surprised how people are willing to buy same thing so many times!
I am really surprised how people are willing to buy same thing so many times!
1
In reply to Andy Morley:
I'm not keen on paying the police to protect you from security men who are a little bit blunt or rude. I'd sooner they used their limited resources on more serious matters.
> Given the scenario you've described, I would say that dialing 999 and reporting 'threatening behaviour' and asking for a police response would have been entirely appropriate. Though no-one ought to waste police time, we all pay for them to protect us from exactly this sort of thing.
I'm not keen on paying the police to protect you from security men who are a little bit blunt or rude. I'd sooner they used their limited resources on more serious matters.
2
In reply to Y Gribin:
If they can't be bothered to put up signage above and below the restrictions, they can hardly get pissed off when folk walk down the path in question.
If Gwynedd Council and the national park have agreed some official temporary path closures, isn't there some requirement to place signage, or even advertise this on their website?
Here, for example? Unless it's tucked away somewhere and I've missed it.
http://www.eryri-npa.gov.uk/visiting/access/problems-on-footpaths
If they can't be bothered to put up signage above and below the restrictions, they can hardly get pissed off when folk walk down the path in question.
If Gwynedd Council and the national park have agreed some official temporary path closures, isn't there some requirement to place signage, or even advertise this on their website?
Here, for example? Unless it's tucked away somewhere and I've missed it.
http://www.eryri-npa.gov.uk/visiting/access/problems-on-footpaths
In reply to Oogachooga:
You would have thought it was courteous to inform the local MRT given that they are only over the road. Presumably one of the local guides/MICs/MIAs employed could have told them that
It looks like temporary stables have gone up in Capel Curig behind Ellis Brigham's outlet.
It's interesting that the BMC link has been pulled:
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/movie-access-closures-in-snowdonia
Maybe they realised that asking people to stay off Tryfan was more likely to attract people...
You would have thought it was courteous to inform the local MRT given that they are only over the road. Presumably one of the local guides/MICs/MIAs employed could have told them that
It looks like temporary stables have gone up in Capel Curig behind Ellis Brigham's outlet.
It's interesting that the BMC link has been pulled:
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/movie-access-closures-in-snowdonia
Maybe they realised that asking people to stay off Tryfan was more likely to attract people...
In reply to Y Gribin:
Not another rubbish film about King Arthur.
I wouldn't close the toilet door for that never mind a footpath....
Not another rubbish film about King Arthur.
I wouldn't close the toilet door for that never mind a footpath....
1
1
In reply to timjones:
I would, OTOH, encourage everyone who did find this to make a formal written complaint to the National Park in order that such activity is discouraged (or at least not supported with things like road closures) in future. I believe they are in favour of it due to the money it is bringing in, but that has to come with acting properly towards people, which would include properly signing the closures and being apologetic, not aggressive, towards those inadvertently infringing.
I would, OTOH, encourage everyone who did find this to make a formal written complaint to the National Park in order that such activity is discouraged (or at least not supported with things like road closures) in future. I believe they are in favour of it due to the money it is bringing in, but that has to come with acting properly towards people, which would include properly signing the closures and being apologetic, not aggressive, towards those inadvertently infringing.
Post edited at 12:20
In reply to richprideaux:
Organised mooning on Tryfan, perhaps? (Not that I'd do such a thing but I bet there are plenty who would!)
Neil
> Maybe they realised that asking people to stay off Tryfan was more likely to attract people...
Organised mooning on Tryfan, perhaps? (Not that I'd do such a thing but I bet there are plenty who would!)
Neil
2
In reply to richprideaux:
It's funny you should say that. Everyone we passed and spoke about it made some comment involving walking behind the scenes, just to make a point. Perhaps keeping it quiet will be the best bet.
Still, a big sign in capel curig and one again in ogwen explaining about restrictions would have helped us to understand. We got all of our info from the locals.
It's funny you should say that. Everyone we passed and spoke about it made some comment involving walking behind the scenes, just to make a point. Perhaps keeping it quiet will be the best bet.
Still, a big sign in capel curig and one again in ogwen explaining about restrictions would have helped us to understand. We got all of our info from the locals.
In reply to Neil Williams:
It's possibly worth complaining about the attitude of the security guards if that sort of thing bothers you. it's certainly worth complaining if there was inadequate signage.
As for road closures , they happen! Roads are also closed for many things such as parades, carnivals, marathons and cycle races. If you say that it's wrong to close for one thing where do you draw the line?
> I would, OTOH, encourage everyone who did find this to make a formal written complaint to the National Park in order that such activity is discouraged (or at least not supported with things like road closures) in future. I believe they are in favour of it due to the money it is bringing in, but that has to come with acting properly towards people, which would include properly signing the closures and being apologetic, not aggressive, towards those inadvertently infringing.
It's possibly worth complaining about the attitude of the security guards if that sort of thing bothers you. it's certainly worth complaining if there was inadequate signage.
As for road closures , they happen! Roads are also closed for many things such as parades, carnivals, marathons and cycle races. If you say that it's wrong to close for one thing where do you draw the line?
In reply to timjones:
I have more time for roads being closed for things that benefit large numbers of people and are open to those who wish to enter (such as races and community carnivals) than for making a commercial film for profit, which could have been made in a location and at a time where far less disruption would have been caused than a busy part of North Wales during the Easter school holidays.
If Gwern Gof Isaf Farm wish to have their campsite available for commercial instead of public use that's their decision, it's their campsite (though I expect as it's normally run on a "turn up and camp" basis and is rarely full I imagine there are people it would have caught out, particularly as it was not mentioned on the front page of their website but only if you tried to book online, which may have caused them a little ill will). But I think footpaths and main roads (public rights of way) should only be closed when there is a very good case for doing so that will benefit more than the pockets of a film-making company.
Edit: "Gwern Gof Isaf was the first farm in the area to diversify and welcome holiday makers. Open 365 days a year the campsite has only ever closed four times during its duration." - five now!
Neil
> As for road closures , they happen! Roads are also closed for many things such as parades, carnivals, marathons and cycle races. If you say that it's wrong to close for one thing where do you draw the line?
I have more time for roads being closed for things that benefit large numbers of people and are open to those who wish to enter (such as races and community carnivals) than for making a commercial film for profit, which could have been made in a location and at a time where far less disruption would have been caused than a busy part of North Wales during the Easter school holidays.
If Gwern Gof Isaf Farm wish to have their campsite available for commercial instead of public use that's their decision, it's their campsite (though I expect as it's normally run on a "turn up and camp" basis and is rarely full I imagine there are people it would have caught out, particularly as it was not mentioned on the front page of their website but only if you tried to book online, which may have caused them a little ill will). But I think footpaths and main roads (public rights of way) should only be closed when there is a very good case for doing so that will benefit more than the pockets of a film-making company.
Edit: "Gwern Gof Isaf was the first farm in the area to diversify and welcome holiday makers. Open 365 days a year the campsite has only ever closed four times during its duration." - five now!
Neil
Post edited at 12:55
In reply to MG:
Yes. There is a legal process and a cost to the person applying, like any legal process, if it isn't applied properly, it can be challenged. Sounds like the process wasn't properly followed by the land owner or those acting for them in this case.
> Is there not a requirement to advertise footpath closures at the beginning of the path (rather than on a random website)?
Yes. There is a legal process and a cost to the person applying, like any legal process, if it isn't applied properly, it can be challenged. Sounds like the process wasn't properly followed by the land owner or those acting for them in this case.
In reply to The New NickB:
If that is true a complaint should certainly be made. I would be particularly interested in if the heavies attempted to stop anyone going up Tryfan where they were "asked not to" instead of an official closure procedure being used. I do hope not, but if they did I would encourage complaints to be made.
Neil
If that is true a complaint should certainly be made. I would be particularly interested in if the heavies attempted to stop anyone going up Tryfan where they were "asked not to" instead of an official closure procedure being used. I do hope not, but if they did I would encourage complaints to be made.
Neil
In reply to Neil Williams:
Roads get closed/acess restricted for the benefit of private comanies all the time. In a previous employment (private engineering firm) we closed roads to transport large items. I don't see why short temporary closures are that much of an issue.
I was aware of the filming via the BMC facebook page, I don't see short term usage of the land like this as an issue. Pretty poor conduct byu the security staff though, end of a long day?
Roads get closed/acess restricted for the benefit of private comanies all the time. In a previous employment (private engineering firm) we closed roads to transport large items. I don't see why short temporary closures are that much of an issue.
I was aware of the filming via the BMC facebook page, I don't see short term usage of the land like this as an issue. Pretty poor conduct byu the security staff though, end of a long day?
1
In reply to galpinos:
Sometimes this is unavoidable, but I would expect such closures to be timed sensibly (e.g. middle of the night in the case of a main road, or perhaps during the working day in the case of residential areas) to avoid disruption.
OTOH, making a film is completely avoidable and could have been done at a more sensible time of year, e.g. two weeks later than it was being done to avoid the school holidays. Or in the middle of nowhere in Scotland somewhere instead of a busy part of Wales.
I think we will have to disagree there, then, at least as regards using it during the busy period that is the Easter school holidays.
Neil
> Roads get closed/acess restricted for the benefit of private comanies all the time. In a previous employment (private engineering firm) we closed roads to transport large items.
Sometimes this is unavoidable, but I would expect such closures to be timed sensibly (e.g. middle of the night in the case of a main road, or perhaps during the working day in the case of residential areas) to avoid disruption.
OTOH, making a film is completely avoidable and could have been done at a more sensible time of year, e.g. two weeks later than it was being done to avoid the school holidays. Or in the middle of nowhere in Scotland somewhere instead of a busy part of Wales.
> I was aware of the filming via the BMC facebook page, I don't see short term usage of the land like this as an issue.
I think we will have to disagree there, then, at least as regards using it during the busy period that is the Easter school holidays.
Neil
Post edited at 12:59
In reply to Neil Williams:
We ended up shutting a motorway at 9.30am........
I hadn't considered the school holiday aspect (my daughter is too young for hat to affect us yet) and that's a good point. I guess the shooting schedule and the money involved won everyone over......
> (In reply to galpinos)
> [...]
>
> Sometimes this is unavoidable, but I would expect such closures to be timed sensibly (e.g. middle of the night in the case of a main road, or perhaps during the working day in the case of residential areas) to avoid disruption.
>
> [...]
>
> Sometimes this is unavoidable, but I would expect such closures to be timed sensibly (e.g. middle of the night in the case of a main road, or perhaps during the working day in the case of residential areas) to avoid disruption.
>
We ended up shutting a motorway at 9.30am........
> OTOH, making a film is completely avoidable and could have been done at a more sensible time of year, e.g. two weeks later than it was being done to avoid the school holidays. Or in the middle of nowhere in Scotland somewhere instead of a busy part of Wales.
I hadn't considered the school holiday aspect (my daughter is too young for hat to affect us yet) and that's a good point. I guess the shooting schedule and the money involved won everyone over......
In reply to Neil Williams:
I'll stick my neck out and hazard a guess that more people will watch the film than you will ever find at a smaller race or local carnival?
How about professional races where it is very much about the money?
Some people like films, some like sporting events and some like carnivals. Ultimately we all have to tolerate a bit of disruption caused by other peoples interests.
> I have more time for roads being closed for things that benefit large numbers of people and are open to those who wish to enter (such as races and community carnivals) than for making a commercial film for profit, which could have been made in a location and at a time where far less disruption would have been caused than a busy part of North Wales during the Easter school holidays.
I'll stick my neck out and hazard a guess that more people will watch the film than you will ever find at a smaller race or local carnival?
How about professional races where it is very much about the money?
Some people like films, some like sporting events and some like carnivals. Ultimately we all have to tolerate a bit of disruption caused by other peoples interests.
3
In reply to Y Gribin:
Given the BMC were involved in the original closure notices, it might be worth talking to the relevant access officer as it might influence how the BMC handle these things in the future. I don't want to deny the opportunity for locals to make a few bob out of it, but TV and filming operations do have something of a track record for high handedness, and having been involved in a few (MUCH smaller) operations in the past, I think that they massively overstate their driver as a boost for the local economy (with a few notable exceptions - like LoTR and New Zealand)
Given the BMC were involved in the original closure notices, it might be worth talking to the relevant access officer as it might influence how the BMC handle these things in the future. I don't want to deny the opportunity for locals to make a few bob out of it, but TV and filming operations do have something of a track record for high handedness, and having been involved in a few (MUCH smaller) operations in the past, I think that they massively overstate their driver as a boost for the local economy (with a few notable exceptions - like LoTR and New Zealand)
In reply to galpinos:
I'd question the wiseness of that.
Neil
> We ended up shutting a motorway at 9.30am........
I'd question the wiseness of that.
Neil
In reply to timjones:
Perhaps, but it could have been filmed elsewhere/at a better time. You'd have a job running the Sheffield half marathon anywhere other than Sheffield (!)
Depends on the disruption caused and what workarounds are offered to those affected.
To some extent. I'm afraid I disagree that this one was acceptable (in terms of closures of public rights of way during a busy time - Gwern Gof Isaf can of course do what they like other than that, though if I had gone there and found it closed without them having put it on the front page of their website (which they haven't) I would probably have considered seeking a different campsite next time). I think the Council/national park saw the filthy lucre (as it were) and allowed it on those grounds.
Neil
> I'll stick my neck out and hazard a guess that more people will watch the film than you will ever find at a smaller race or local carnival?
Perhaps, but it could have been filmed elsewhere/at a better time. You'd have a job running the Sheffield half marathon anywhere other than Sheffield (!)
> How about professional races where it is very much about the money?
Depends on the disruption caused and what workarounds are offered to those affected.
> Some people like films, some like sporting events and some like carnivals. Ultimately we all have to tolerate a bit of disruption caused by other peoples interests.
To some extent. I'm afraid I disagree that this one was acceptable (in terms of closures of public rights of way during a busy time - Gwern Gof Isaf can of course do what they like other than that, though if I had gone there and found it closed without them having put it on the front page of their website (which they haven't) I would probably have considered seeking a different campsite next time). I think the Council/national park saw the filthy lucre (as it were) and allowed it on those grounds.
Neil
Post edited at 13:28
In reply to timjones:
Mrs C has on one occassion been required to arrest a security guard who thought he was allowed to injure a shoplifter. I'm quite content to see security guards held to account for their behaviour because some of them seem to think they have powers they are not entitled to.
Mrs C has on one occassion been required to arrest a security guard who thought he was allowed to injure a shoplifter. I'm quite content to see security guards held to account for their behaviour because some of them seem to think they have powers they are not entitled to.
Post edited at 13:30
In reply to cander:
That does seem to be the case. It's an odd one - the security industry in this country seems to be in no small measure about "rent-a-thug". Whereas if you encounter security guards in, say, Germany, the Netherlands or Switzerland, they are always pleasant and polite. You still don't get where you wanted to go if their job is to close it off, but at least they are nice to you while dealing with the matter.
I have no idea why over here they seem so often incapable of acting in that professional manner. Maybe as with many things we won't pay the proper going rate for a professional to do a job - you get it in many low-paid industries, not just security.
Neil
That does seem to be the case. It's an odd one - the security industry in this country seems to be in no small measure about "rent-a-thug". Whereas if you encounter security guards in, say, Germany, the Netherlands or Switzerland, they are always pleasant and polite. You still don't get where you wanted to go if their job is to close it off, but at least they are nice to you while dealing with the matter.
I have no idea why over here they seem so often incapable of acting in that professional manner. Maybe as with many things we won't pay the proper going rate for a professional to do a job - you get it in many low-paid industries, not just security.
Neil
Post edited at 13:32
1
In reply to Neil Williams:
But it's a marathon, it doesn't have to be in Sheffield
> Perhaps, but it could have been filmed elsewhere/at a better time. You'd have a job running the Sheffield half marathon anywhere other than Sheffield (!)
But it's a marathon, it doesn't have to be in Sheffield
1
In reply to cander:
Injury is serious, but if being a bit discourteous requires police action I can think of a few shop assistants and barmen that I should have reported
> Mrs C has on one occassion been required to arrest a security guard who thought he was allowed to injure a shoplifter. I'm quite content to see security guards held to account for their behaviour because some of them seem to think they have powers they are not entitled to.
Injury is serious, but if being a bit discourteous requires police action I can think of a few shop assistants and barmen that I should have reported
1
In reply to Oogachooga:
A lot of the 'locals' I spoke to this weekend didn't find out until Friday.
I suspect that there was an element of secrecy/discretion going on - it isn't unusual with filming. I'm working on two television filming sessions this month, and have been handling some of the access permissions etc. The producers have asked for people to keep things quiet where possible to prevent disruption on the day.
It sounds like this one could have been handled better, and I don't like restriction of access - but Snowdonia and North Wales as an economy CAN benefit from filming and large events. Just hope that somebody told the RAF and they don't get Hawks coming through every 45 minutes during filming
> Still, a big sign in capel curig and one again in ogwen explaining about restrictions would have helped us to understand. We got all of our info from the locals.
A lot of the 'locals' I spoke to this weekend didn't find out until Friday.
I suspect that there was an element of secrecy/discretion going on - it isn't unusual with filming. I'm working on two television filming sessions this month, and have been handling some of the access permissions etc. The producers have asked for people to keep things quiet where possible to prevent disruption on the day.
It sounds like this one could have been handled better, and I don't like restriction of access - but Snowdonia and North Wales as an economy CAN benefit from filming and large events. Just hope that somebody told the RAF and they don't get Hawks coming through every 45 minutes during filming
In reply to Andy Morley:
At the point I was first shouted out, I was above the farm on wild land, but not on a public path. As I reached the farm, the bouncer-types insisted on escorting me along the formal footpath which runs between the two farms, until I was out of sight of the farm.
Many thanks for all the advise so far: I have written to the Rambers and BMC about possible access issues. I should emphasise that there was absolutely no filming taking place: had there been, I wouldn't have minded making a small detour. I am not militant about access issues (I accept a level of compromise). But I was most cross about the instruction not to take photos, the aggression shown, and the fact that the apparent footpath closure was so poorly implemented.
At the point I was first shouted out, I was above the farm on wild land, but not on a public path. As I reached the farm, the bouncer-types insisted on escorting me along the formal footpath which runs between the two farms, until I was out of sight of the farm.
Many thanks for all the advise so far: I have written to the Rambers and BMC about possible access issues. I should emphasise that there was absolutely no filming taking place: had there been, I wouldn't have minded making a small detour. I am not militant about access issues (I accept a level of compromise). But I was most cross about the instruction not to take photos, the aggression shown, and the fact that the apparent footpath closure was so poorly implemented.
Post edited at 22:57
1
In reply to Y Gribin:
As a professional working in the private security industry (door supervision, crowd control and close protection) I find the attitude of these so called security operatives disgusting.
Yes there are times when discretion fails and a more direct approach is called for but had i been there on the date in question instead of last Thursday i would have told them to fornicate elsewhere and if they still wanted to get all agro then 999 would have been the way to go.
These morons should be stripped of their licences.
As a professional working in the private security industry (door supervision, crowd control and close protection) I find the attitude of these so called security operatives disgusting.
Yes there are times when discretion fails and a more direct approach is called for but had i been there on the date in question instead of last Thursday i would have told them to fornicate elsewhere and if they still wanted to get all agro then 999 would have been the way to go.
These morons should be stripped of their licences.
1
In reply to Y Gribin:
I'd love to know if they have notified the RAF. Certainly yesterday (Tuesday) there was the usual midweek training activity above where I live, and the usual return route to Valley is straight down the Ogwen valley. I can just imagine Arthur rallying the knights and looking for signs from above, when a couple of hawk trainers scream over at best part of 300mph.
I'd love to know if they have notified the RAF. Certainly yesterday (Tuesday) there was the usual midweek training activity above where I live, and the usual return route to Valley is straight down the Ogwen valley. I can just imagine Arthur rallying the knights and looking for signs from above, when a couple of hawk trainers scream over at best part of 300mph.
In reply to cisco:
There were definitely Hawk trainers zipping through the valley on the day of this incident......so any filming would have been practically impossible.
There were definitely Hawk trainers zipping through the valley on the day of this incident......so any filming would have been practically impossible.
In reply to Y Gribin:
There was fast jet activity (sounded more like F15s) in the area today but the only air traffic in Ogwen was part of the filming effort.
I was working in Cwm Tryfan and didn't notice any disruption to my enjoyment of the day, but the security are still being quite vigilant in their management of access along the footpath. I know of at least one person who has lodged an official complaint with the SNP amd council regarding improper notification of footpath closures (no signs or wider notification etc).
Lots of local businesses were informed of the filming but there seems to be little direct benefit to the local economy. Some locals have been employed as runners, and a local movie horse trainer is involved, but the main beneficiaries are the landowners.
Back to normal in a week or so...
There was fast jet activity (sounded more like F15s) in the area today but the only air traffic in Ogwen was part of the filming effort.
I was working in Cwm Tryfan and didn't notice any disruption to my enjoyment of the day, but the security are still being quite vigilant in their management of access along the footpath. I know of at least one person who has lodged an official complaint with the SNP amd council regarding improper notification of footpath closures (no signs or wider notification etc).
Lots of local businesses were informed of the filming but there seems to be little direct benefit to the local economy. Some locals have been employed as runners, and a local movie horse trainer is involved, but the main beneficiaries are the landowners.
Back to normal in a week or so...
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...