Andy doesn't seem to be aware of the problems facing other people! He says this is not GCHQ. My experience was very much like GCHQ when I tried to take a picture of a blocked road which the police didn't like me taking. They made it plain they wanted me to stop until I pointed out how ridiculous it was.

Another photographer was surrounded by police cars and even had a helicopter circling overhead when he tried to take a photo in the Pudding Mill Lane area.

Andy refers to himself as working for a Tier 1 contractor so I don't understand how he thinks he is wandering around like other members of the public. It may well be there are workers on site who are taking pictures on an unofficial basis. That hardly puts them in the category of ordinary members of the public who, as I understand it, can't just wander around doing this. Maybe we are being misled about the security on site and can just wander round on a random basis!

He says he is in editorial control of his blog. This may indeed be the case. Andy says he has got 'swept along by it all' and certainly doesn't seem to include anything very controversial. He doesn't seem to include much text and on one blog says:

'The most important things are the hardest to say, because words diminish them.'

So just pictures. Not much to object to there!

On his 'Life in London 2012' site he says his views are his own. One story includes the following:

Art in the Park:

• The ODA’s arts and culture team commissioned a range of artists, local, national and international, to provide the Park with a range of voices, and all works have been absolutely specific to the site, where artists have been asked to respond to the physical, social and historical context of the area. All of the commissions have been appointed through a competitive process to ensure that the best and most appropriate artists have been selected to deliver the ODA’s ambition.

It reads like an ODA press release. That should certainly alarm the ODA, lOCOG or BT.

Andy also has a go at us for 'contextomy' which means using misleading quotes out of context. He seems to be citing one of our own statements alongside a comment about him, which seems pretty harmless, as proof of this.

An endorsement...
.... from 'Games Monitor', for those that dont know Games Monitor they seek to deconstruct the 'fantastic' hype of Olympic boosterism and the eager complicity of the 'urban elites' in politics, business, the media, sport, academia and local institutional 'community stakeholders'

Here's what they say about me:

"He is the only amateur photographer taking and publishing these stages of construction pictures from the inside."

Cheers chaps, dont you just love contextomy.

So have we misleadingly misquoted ourselves?

Or maybe our statement about his status is incorrect. As he is saying he works for BT does this mean he is not an amateur? Or perhaps because he has found other amateurs taking photos he is not the only amateur photographer on site.

Sorry for that.

Correction to the above, Andy is 'not the only amateur photographer taking picturess from the inside and may not even be an amateur in which case he is not the only professional photographer taking pictures from the inside'.

And we will make sure we do not misleadingly misquote ourselves in future.

Hi again. :)

No mention of the mistakes I quoted in my first reply, but another attempt to portray me as a secret ODA arse kisser..

Firstly, please quote me on where I say ordinary memebers of the public can wander freely around inside the site taking pictures.. They can (and have) however been allowed on site on the tour bus and freely been allowed to take photo's of the sites progress. a quick search on flickr will confirm this. I did state however That I wander frequently around the perimiter outside (as well as inside) the site photographing and videoing and have never been stopped, approached etc.

I am in editorial control of my blog as I state, thanks for that. And I dont include much text as it's a Photo Blog.. Hello, photo's are pictures, words are, well just that. And the quote from another of my sites, 'The most important things are the hardest to say, because words diminish them.' is from my personal website and is a quote from that master of American horror the writer Stephen King.. I hope you enjoyed looking at my personal website, it seems you've had a trawl though all my web pages, looking for dirt, right wing affiliations and the such, didn't find much eh? but aren't my kids cute :)(and my life rather mundane)

Back to my 'Photo Blog' Inside London 2012.. you quote from the entry 'Art in the Park'; "It reads like an ODA press release. That should certainly alarm the ODA, lOCOG or BT."

It's because... wait for it... It is !!!!!

Cut and pasted like a real pro from the media/press releases of the London 2012 site itself.

Now even I'd be up in arms if the ODA, lOCOG or BT came down on me for this, as excuse my ignorance but is not a press release exactly that? A release of information for media outlets / bloggers / members of the public to share. ?

Glad you enjoyed the contextomy by the way. :)

Oh and one last thing; 'As he is saying he works for BT'.. where? I dont work for BT. I work for a construction firm. I entered an online competition run by BT to find 100 Storytellers from across the UK to tell their story of the last year, up to and including the Olympic games. I was chosen.. I dont get paid by BT for content, I dont advertise BT. All I state is that I'm a BT Storyteller.

and in the words of Trevor McDonald: And finally..

Andy is 'not the only amateur photographer taking picturess from the inside and may not even be an amateur in which case he is not the only professional photographer taking pictures from the inside'. - Nice work in covering all the angles..

Cheers Big Boys :)

Much love, Andy. (Not a BT employee, or a professional photographer)

PS: Can I copy & paste this onto my blog? I'd really like to share this with a wider audience.. I do like to gain permissions and give attributions to my blog content you know.

Hi Andy

Actually I have answered some of your points re accuracy. We do operate independently and I did not consult with anyone before responding.

Re 2, I pointed out that the site is like GCHQ on the basis of personal experience.

Re 3, Re ODA security, I have no idea who you work for. You said a tier one contractor. You also said you were doing stuff for BT, who are a top domestic tier partner. As this appears on the site where you refer to yourself as BT storyteller I conflated the two. My mistake.

It remains the case that you are on the Olympic site in your capacity as a photographer as a person with BT status. It seems you also have status as an employee of a 1st Tier contractor, so that means you are on the site on account of two companies! I had thought you were only there on account of one, BT. So even harder to see how you can view your presence as being in any way problemmatic for the ODA and its security.

Re 4 and 6, being a fan, editorial control and your status with the ODA, no I did not use any abusive terms of the kind you suggest. I simply said what you put up read like an ODA press release. I didn't even say it was a press release. But apparently it was! You just printed it. Maybe that is a sign of independent editing.

Likewise re posting photos without text as a BT storyteller hardly seems to present a security/editorial problem for the ODA. Seems a reasonable point.

Re 5, you said re people wandering around 'I have known of loads of people who were. Wry critical of the project wandering around inside. admittedly most were low paid labourers'. This refers to people doing exactly that. You say most were low paid labourers. But that leaves others who were not. Who were they? No mention here of people in buses.

Contextomy? None by us, only by you.

You say: 'I hope you enjoyed looking at my personal website, it seems you've had a trawl though all my web pages, looking for dirt, right wing affiliations and the such, didn't find much eh?'

I recall you quoted our site but seem offended by someone looking at your sites. Of course I looked at them. Why not? They are public. So checking a source is an example of snooping?

'Looking for dirt, right wing affiliations'! Sounds like you are alleging motives without evidence. Looking at a website is just that. I think I could be criticised if I didn't take the trouble to see who you were and what you had said.

Well either you are a paid photographer or you aren't. As you appear not to be then the original statement about your amateur status is correct. So again no contextomy! Martin reported your status correctly.

Big boys?

Hello.

Big Boys is just a term of endearment that my friends & I use to each other when we meet and depart. No offence meant and none taken I hope.

I work for a tier 1 Construction Contractor (SKANSKA PLC UK) they are different from a Tier 1 Sponsor (BT) I dont work for BT and the only affiliation is through their storytellers project.

My capacity on site is not as a photographer, I have no professional qualifications etc, I like to think of myself as an amatuer.

My point re: the others on site who are/were critical of the whole thing was that outsiders do get to go on site and take photo's and have done almost from the beginning, so my position wasn't/isn't unique, but I just had the opportunity to do it each working day..

I wasn't offended by you looking at my personal site, it was just that it seemed, to pull a quote from my very obvious personal site ( which has zero Olympic affiliations ) and intimate the lack of words on my InsideLDN2012 site was a failing (Intellectually?) by me, slightly crass and immature. A bit ner-ner-na-ner-ner playground stylee? Maybe I read too much into it..

as for the conextomy, this arises from my comments pulled from the original BJP blog where I replied to a person outside of the UK who was worried about bringing his cameras to capture London 2012 during the games and all I was doing was stating my situation, yes I'm lucky enough to be inside most of the time but I also roam the outside ( In civvies as it were ) taking and accessing places the general public can too, and never had any problems in 4 years of doing so. To then have them (selectively) cut and pasted into my own article on here, without my knowledge ( I'd have been happy to answer & correspond with you )and insinuate my fathers Military service & my own Civil service background excluded me from being approached by the G4S guys and put me above 'regular' members of the public was a bit much..

I have a sence of humour, and a sence of justice, and can understand why people like yourselves are anti-2012, I wouldn't like to have been forcefully evicted, have a building site right on my doorstep etc etc.. But lots of people are excited about this and i've just played a small service giving people an insight into whats been going on Inside ( from a construction point of view ) I've made zero ££ from it, i dont ( deliberately ) advertise on my blogs.

Anyway, Much regards,

Andy :)

Hi Andy, a couple of things:
1] Some of us contributing to GamesMonitor have been aware of your photographic work posted on the London2012 Flickr group since before the time of the Blue Fence enclosure.
2] We're also highly aware of experiences of other photographers outside of the 2012 site, some of us having ourselves been subject to intimidating Section 44 Stop and Searches and suchlike. We're by no means alone - you'll be very aware of the 'I'm a photographer not a terrorist' campaign. See also this particularly telling experience of a couple of local youngsters, trainee 'Social Media Journalists' with New Directions Headstart project: On the other side of the fence…
3] At time of writing Mike Wells, a contributor to GamesMonitor, whose work includes the unearthing of the contamination scandal on the 2012 site, is languishing on remand in Serco's HMP Thameside as the result of being assaulted by a JCB operator whilst documenting work on the controversial 'temporary' basketball training facility at Leyton Marsh.

Thank you..

Glad some of you have noticed my work since before the Blue Fence days..

I've had a link on my homepage of Insidelondon2012 blog to 'I'm a photographer not a terrorist' for quite a while, years in fact. I support fully what they stand for.

I've had 1 Section 44 in all my time photographing the games, one morning on the way into site with my camera's in hand, I wasn't taking pics but accepted what the Police were doing, it took no time at all and I was on my way to work fairly quickly.

I was unaware of the Mike Wells situation. Please pass my regards on to him and keep me informed of any developments.

Cheers, Andy. :)

Andy,
In your BJP comment that piqued Martin, you wrote:

"I regularly walk the edges taking pictures and video and again never been stopped."

Above you write:

"I've had 1 Section 44 in all my time photographing the games, one morning on the way into site with my camera's in hand, I wasn't taking pics but accepted what the Police were doing, it took no time at all and I was on my way to work fairly quickly."

What happened, you flashed them your SKANSKA ID and all was instantly good?
[Emphasis in quotes mine]

I have never been stopped walking the edges.

But "on the way into site with my camera's in hand, I wasn't taking pics" I was.

I was entering the North Plaza Security walkway when stopped.

I was stopped, searched given my slip of paper, I then entered the site.

Hi Andy

Re taking material from your 'very obvious personal site'. Well actually I didn't see it in that way. It is the top site on Google Search and I got to the other site, which I originally thought was the BT site but then realised was another of your sites through that site on the search. So no it was just a blog which was the entrance to your work. They are publicly accessible sites so I don't really get your defence of one as being kind of off limits.

You used a quote to illustrate something about your attitude towards photography, which I think makes it fair for me to use it. You quoted us and, frankly, ridiculed what we put on our site. We haven't criticised you for that. It's a public statement and it is fair for you to poke fun at it. But I don't see why you should feel upset at me for using your quotes. And yes it did fit with the press release. If you choose to use ODA material uncritically then you can't be surprised if this is picked up on. You call me crass and immature. That's ok, I can take it! Earlier you accused me of trawling your sites for material to discredit you. I didn't get upset at you for that.

Frankly, yes you are reading too much into it.

Re the contextomy, actually I sympathise! I agree I don't see any relevance in the military and civil service connections. My dad was also in the army and I doubt anybody would either know it or pay any attention even if they did!

Obviously we are not going to agree on stuff like the allegedly derelict state of the area. There were places that needed a clean up but actually it was not an urban desert as it was recently described by the ODA's Head of Exclusion and no I don't think the Olympics will bring benefits nor do I think that the area wasn't going to be developed if the Olympics hadn't come. That's the rich tapestry of disagreement that is the Olympics!

We're going round again...

If you read what I wrote i said it SEEMED to me to be Crass & Immature.

anyway, others are starting to pick at every word I seem to be writing in the hope that I'll trip up myself or something ( allegedly ) ;)#

Im a one man band, who happens to work on the site, I earn a modest wage, like photography, saw a niche, took it and have had no adverse situations while doing it, either inside or outside the site.. As I state I had a section 44 once but that was in the North security plaza as i was entering work and not because I was taking pictures, although i had my cameras with me, as I do every day.

regards,

Andy

Andy

In my last comment I sympathised with you and I said it was fine for you to poke fun at us. Instead all I get back is 'we're going round again...

So I will close with a reminder of what you said in your original comment on the Journal of Photography site:

'Jeez

Why trawl around the Olympic park and then take pictures outside the security screening area of the north plaza if not to deliberately get a reaction.. Yes they were on public land but were taking pictures of the security check point.. Why? To provoke this reaction that's why..'

So you were accusing these photographers of bad faith, of not really being interested in photography but of acting 'to deliberately get a reaction'.

You make a judgement about other people. You have no evidence that people are doing this just to annoy the guards. To say they are just looking for a reaction suggests that this was their only interest not actually taking photographs. Photographers have a right to take pictures from public land so for security guards to try to stop them is illegal, isn't it? So the issue is the legality of the actions of the security guards.

I certainly didn't take a picture for this reason. I saw something that was funny and was taking a picture only for the police to turn up!

Julian Cheyne

Jeez Julian

You really have a burr in your behind dont you..

The only reason they were there was to provoke, the only thing that can be seen from there is a retaining wall, the media car park and the top of the temp riverbank arena and THE SECURITY PLAZA...

...really nothing of interest to take any pictures of really, nothing, they were there to prove a point everyone but you can see that. why else stand there and make a song and dance waving cameras around until someone noticed then convieniently film each other while an incident happened. Yes its public land. so is the view tube, brilliant pictures from there, so is the canal path, brilliant pictures from there, so is westfield, brilliant pictures from there, so is Warton road, brilliant pictures from there, so is ruckholt road, brilliant pictures from there, to name a few,and all PUBLIC LAND but no, lets stand on a traffic island at the security plaza, with nothing of interest to take pictures of until the security come out and then film each other and cry about it and say all the guards are thugs etc etc. Look at the smirks on the coppers face who come to the incident, bet he thought, here we go again.. I know far far far many more people, who dont work on site and stand at public areas and take pictures, i feature many on my site, none, not a one has complained about being hassled, but they dont stand on traffic islands outside the security pointing there camereas at them until a reaction is gleamed, to prove a point..

Ive tried to be witty and sympathetic in my responses but you just cant see it, blinkered.

until your next round of cut and paste, regards, Andy :)