It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Shopping centre guard calls police over father taking 'illegal' photographs of his daughter

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
m.stv.tv...



A father who was allegedly questioned under the Terrorism Act after taking photographs of his four-year-old daughter enjoying an ice cream at a shopping centre has demanded an apology from Strathclyde Police.

Chris White claims a security guard told him that the pictures, taken at the Braehead centre near Glasgow on Friday afternoon, were "illegal".

The guard allegedly then asked Mr White to delete the photographs, taken on his mobile phone.

Mr White, a mental health trainer, said: "I told him I had taken two photographs of my daughter Hazel, and that since I had already posted them on Facebook there was little point in deleting the pictures.

"The guard then told me to 'remain right there' while he called police, which I chose to do."

According to Mr White, Hazel was in tears while they waited five minutes for officers to arrive at the scene.

He said he was then quizzed by two uniformed policemen who told him there had been a complaint about him taking photographs and that there were "clear signs" in the centre stating that the use of cameras was forbidden.



I'm sure we have all heard similar stories in the past, I think it's appalling that these laws exist in the form they do. Sure some are born out of protecting children but this was a case of anti terrorism. Those brave vigilant staff at the ice cream stall and the nerve of the guard to tell him to delete the pictures when not even the police have the right to do that without a court order.

Remind me never to go shopping at Braehead.




posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
I'd give the guard the finger and walk out...

He was only taking a photo of his daughter FFS...



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Sadly, while its perfectly legal to take pictures of anyone and anything in the UK, while on public land, from a legal and technial standpoint, Braehead Center is private property. As such, they can set their own rules (not laws), and if they say "no photography", then no photography is allowed.

While taking pictures isn't a criminal offence, it is a civil offence, as its against the center's rules. They can, therefore, request you leave immediately, and not return.

They cannot (legally) detain you unless they suspect you of a criminal offence, and make a citizens arrest. They cannot "inspect" your camera without permission. If they detained you, then you'd have a case for "false arrest", "false inprisonment", though it'd be a very hard fight, they have more money for better lawyers.

As wrong as it seems, they were perfectly within their rights to say "no photography" within the centers boundary (including external lands). Although I don't believe they were within their rights to detain them.
edit on 9/10/2011 by BMorris because: Missing word "they" made my post read like nonsense.



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by BMorris
 


To be honest, I'm a lot more concerned about the fact that this person was detained under an anti-terrorism act for taking pictures of his kid.

I'm also kind of concerned that the security guard felt that the appropriate action was to call police rather than simply asking the person to leave, which I feel would have been far more appropriate given the circumstances. Calling the cops on the guy turned a molehill into a mountain.



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   
That's brutal I an understand the policy however the shaved monkeys they use for security obviously don't have the brains to differentiate between something like this and a sexual predator. As the op says just speak with your feet and avoid Braehead.



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
And I wonder how many cameras are up and running in that shopping center. It has always irked me that they think they can record us, but if the cameras are turned on them they freak out...

What do they have to hide?

Now, I get that they may have been worried about the privacy of other customers here, but it is a picture if his daughter, eating ice cream.... No one else in the picture...At all..

And besides, if they are so worried about the privacy of their customers, maybe they should lead by example and remove any cameras they have.


Same goes for the laws that discourage people from recording cops.... They want to record us but we can't record them? Hmm.....



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
 


He should have asked the police under what grounds did they feel they had to become involved. The law changed in June and "Photographers" should not be harassed with iether a "Stop and search" or have to even give their name..

I teach a group of photographers and after meeting with the local head of police we drew up the following questions and answers to keep not only the photographer safe, but also to inform any law enforcement in the changes in the law....

Do I need permission to photograph someone in public?
No. If you are standing in a public space, you do not need permission to take their photograph

Do I need permission to photograph property?
No. If the property can be photographed from a public place you do not need permission.

What about if I am on private property?
You need permission to enter private property and the owner of the property can impose any conditions they wish on your entry. This could include a ban on photography or a fee for taking pictures.

Can a police officer require that I delete pictures from my camera or hand over the memory card?
No, not without a warrant.

Where can't I take photographs?
You need permission to take pictures in Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square if they are for commercial purposes (the permission is expensive). There are also some military sites where photography is banned, but these are well signed.

Don't people have a right to privacy?
In UK law there is no specific right to privacy in public places. The European Convention on Human Rights gives a 'right to private and family life' In UK law you do not have a right to privacy in a public place.

Can I be prosecuted for harrassment if I take pictures without permission?
Very unlikely. in UK law harassment is defined as a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another which the defendant knows, or ought to know amounts to harassment of another. Taking a single picture or even several pictures is unlikely to be considered a course of conduct.

Can I take pictures of children in the park?
Yes, and provided the park is considered a public place, you do not require the permission of the parents. Whether this is wise or not is up to you to decide.

This paragraph is printed on a card and carried by anyone on assignment. It is to be given to any police officer who might question what you are doing.....

You are reminded that under UK law, there are no restrictions on taking photographs in a public place or on photography of individuals, whether they are adults or minors. A photographer could be asked to refrain from taking photographs on private property, but should not have to divulge a name or address.

There is no right to privacy in a public place, although photographers are of course subject to the usual libel laws in the same way as any other citizen and should observe them. Equipment or film may not be confiscated, or images deleted by any person or officer unless a warrant for such action is issued. Any attempt without a warrant is considered assault under UK law.

Respects



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Someone should bring this to the attention of the Amateur Photographer magazine, they are very proactive on cases like this.

They are also very influential, and have a huge readerbase.



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Then someone should go into the shopping center after-hours and set fire to everything. Burn it all down. I'm sure they have at least 100 cameras in that building, so it would be doing the facility owners a favor because clearly someone went and broke their own rules.

Preserve integrity.

What kind of ignorant human-trash do you have to be, in order to harass a father taking a picture of his daughter. What kind of useless meatbag. I mean really, is this not completely insane?
edit on 9-10-2011 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
anti-terrorism measures have done ALOT more to restrict us then the actual terrorist. if these were the type of reqs for one to perform their duty as cops and security, it's not worth it.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
reply to post by BMorris
 


To be honest, I'm a lot more concerned about the fact that this person was detained under an anti-terrorism act for taking pictures of his kid.

I'm also kind of concerned that the security guard felt that the appropriate action was to call police rather than simply asking the person to leave, which I feel would have been far more appropriate given the circumstances. Calling the cops on the guy turned a molehill into a mountain.


This is what annoys me the most, fair enough it's the centers policy but it's a bit if not totally uneccessary. I mean have a look at where Braehead is on the map, I'd imagine that shopping centers owner has some serious power issues if he feels this type of rule is needed. And while the security guard was just doing his job, it's also his job to fully understand the rights of people and the laws he is supposed to be enforcing.
Sometimes it just takes a little bit of thought to quash a situation.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Do shopping malls in Braehead get a lot of terrorist activity??




We have a 'no photography' policy in the centre to protect the privacy of staff and shoppers and to have a legitimate opportunity to challenge suspicious behaviour if required. "However, it is not our intention to - and we do not - stop innocent family members taking pictures."


If they don't stop people from taking photos, then why do they have the signs up? "It is not our intention to - and we do not - stop innocent family members taking pictures" But they did. So what gives? Because he was a man taking a photo of a young girl, who happened to be his daughter? If it was a woman taking photos, would it have been such an issue?
Also, shopping malls have plenty of CCTV, they would only have to check their footage to see he had come in with his daughter anyway...
edit on 10-10-2011 by Lulzaroonie because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by captiva
What about if I am on private property?
You need permission to enter private property and the owner of the property can impose any conditions they wish on your entry. This could include a ban on photography or a fee for taking pictures.




And thats pretty much it really.
A lot has been made of the fact that he was photographing his little daughter, but thats rather beside the point.
Any photograph of anything is not allowed on this private property, which customers agree to enter after reading the rules posted at the door.

Most people dont read the rules though, and whine after they break them.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
People are jumping to a wrong conclusion here. The police have stressed in this case that they never mentioned anti terrorist laws...why? because the law was changed this year. The european court of huma rights said it is illegal to stop any photographer on public grounds under the flag of anti terrorism laws.. Thats why the police are denying they used the words. Its in the press today.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by captiva
 


From the article......



He claims that one of the officers then said that under the Terrorism Act he could confiscate Mr White's phone and delete the photographs


Sounds as if police stressed otherwise.

It says the same thing in this article too.
www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by pazcat
 


What's the problem? If it is illegal to take photographs in the mall, and it is posted, then don't do it. Simple. If you disagree with the law, then don't go to that particular mall. Vote with your money!! When nobody frequents spots with these overbearing laws, then the laws will go away. But don't ruin your daughter's time by doing something illegal and then arguing with the authorities about it.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


when the law has no respect for humanity... humanity should have no respect for the law... I would not be surprised if someone posts up that security gaurds info online... he would deserve it...



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
There is quite a good analysis here.
conversation.cipr.co.uk...

Sure laws are laws but there is always different ways of going about it, the response from the management fly's in the face of what actually occured.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


when the law has no respect for humanity... humanity should have no respect for the law... I would not be surprised if someone posts up that security gaurds info online... he would deserve it...


Why?

He needs his job right? He has his own family to support right? He is enforcing the rules he was hired to enforce.

If we don't like the laws then stop doing business with the idiots making the rules. Don't punish the guard.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


He was trying to enforce the rules in a way he had no right to do. He should at least know the in's and out's of his profession.
Fair enough though, I hear what your saying I just don't care for it much. Some people are content with their lot, I get that.
I do take some solace in the fact though that at least 4000 people and growing on facebook feel outraged enough to speak their mind of the situation. Who knows the store might even rethink their draconian policy.
edit on 10-10-2011 by pazcat because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join