“In my line of work I photograph buildings regularly. The law is clear; if a building can be seen from a public right of way (regardless whether or not that public right of way crosses private property) it is classed as part of the streetscape and no restrictions can be applied. However if the photos are going to be published, all brand logos on the building should be hidden. Therefore I suggest that from now on, all the photographs of St Stephens in the press have the St Stephens, Next, Tescos and Holiday Inn logo pixelated.

Or better still, lets just not have any more pictures of Hull's ugliest building in the press as an example of good architecture because it just isn't. It's like the emporers new clothes, everybody I know thinks its a big bland grey box that only has one slighltly redeeming feature; the glass roof. A roof that can only be seen when you are LEAVING Hull on the train to go shopping in York or Leeds perhaps.

So in short if you have to photograph white elephants and you get arrested outside St Stephens, it will get laughed out of court. Or you could just photograph Hull's better looking buildings.”

“In my line of work I have to photograph buildings on a regular basis so I am very aware of the legal implications. There aren't many.
The law is very clear: if you are photographing part of the streetscape on a public right of way (even if this public right of way crosses private property) no restrictions can be applied.
However if the images are to be published you should blur out any logos that can be seen. So I suggest that from now on every time a photo of St Stephens is published the St Stephens logo, Next and Tesco's are all pixelated, that should keep them happy.

Or better still lets have no photographs Hull's ugliest building in the press because we are told far far too often how attractive it is, but it's like the emporers new clothes. Everybody really thinks its just a big grey box for tescos with a silly wavy roof that you can only see when you are LEAVING Hull on the train. Perhaps this is why they don't like people photographing the building; somebody might say " hang on a minute, that is actually quite ugly".

So in short, if you have to photograph a white elephant, St Stephens haven't got any control over you and if you do get arrested, it would get laughed out of court.”

“So where were you all at 2pm on Sunday 9th August then? I turned up out of curiosity at st stephens but didn't see any flashmob...”

“St.Stephens,obviously. Memo to self take more water with it!”

“I would have thought that any "terrorist" intent on blowing up any building in this City would have more photographs of these places that they can handle. They probably have every stage of the building of St.Stepehens to hand !”

“As the new centre manager at St Stephens it might be useful if I add some input to this debate.

A big part of our brief as the managers of the shopping centre is to ensure the safety of all our visitors. We like to do this by prudent security measures, bearing in mind guidelines from our Police colleagues, but coupled with some common sense and a friendly attitude to all our guests. In regards the incident with Carl Minns we could have done things better. However, I have had chance to chat this through with him since his photograhic visit and we have agreed a positive way forward. Indeed he and I agree on things like our pride in the city and also that the people who live and or work in this city will have many different views on the way it has already changed and the plans for future development. With this in mind we look forward to seeing those of you who are coming down to take photos on Sunday; you are most welcome. Also, if you are taking photos of St Stephens please feel free to send them in to me via the website (or if you are still a real film person then please use the post or hand delivery) and Carl Minns (he knows far more about photography then me) and I will sit down and look through the submissions. We will post the good ones on the website and for the very best shot there will be a bottle of champagne.”

“Found this quoted on Flickr, so thought I would share it here.

"1) there is a right of way, but it is still private property.
2) the edge of the centres property is a line of brass studs in the ground.
3) if you are on private property if you do not follow the rules of the owners, you could be affending under the law of trespass.

This is not a case of someone being stopped in the public street! "

"Like it or not, they can stop you taking photos and there's nothing you can do about it. Their property, their rules."

So just make sure you stand on the pulic side of the brass studs, and take as many photos as you like, and then when security come and try it on, just point to the studs and if need be telephone the police from your mobile.

But I must admit, now this story has been dragged into puplic view, you may find St Stephens have told their staff to be careful when harassing the public in future.”

“Why has the HDM not allowed any comments on the story of MP Di Johnson allegedly pocketing the office petty cash ?”

“There has been many complaints over the last couple of years about photographers being stopped from taking pics of st Stephen's. Perhaps if we do it on mass the dole scrounging, tax avoiding, SIA men in black coats will be over whelmed and unable to prevent us from taking a cheeky pic of H&M.”

“The security staff at St Stephen's look like a bunch of off duty undertakers.
Minns should have told the "security officer" to go stuff himself. He has no right to stop anyone taking photos and if he does he's breaking the law. He can ask but he can't demand.
As for calling the cops that's just plain silly ( and perhaps an attempt at intimidation). No crime has been committed. So It's none of their business.”