Row over photo in shopping centre

Row over photo in shopping centre

www.bbc.co.uk

A Facebook campaign is calling for people to boycott a shopping centre after claims a man was questioned by police for taking photographs of his own four-year-old daughter.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.facebook.com

More innocent people being abused by authorities in the name of terrorism.

How can this be stopped ?

Could those of you who still have a fb account please consider adding to the page set up to highlight this incident.

The story is being covered by the msm but still we have to show our revulsion to this kind of thing.

Besides anything it's a stupid rule that can't be enforced and is a waste of police resources.

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

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."

Yet they have... so what is their stance? Don't take photos if you are not 'innocent'?
I wonder if a woman was taking photos whether there would be such a problem?

Also being discussed here, although a different link.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by pazcat


Sorry m8. I did do a search but couldn't find anything.

Please folks go to the other thread, and mods close this one.

My bad

No it's cool. Your thread has more different information than mine, I don't see why it should be closed, I'm sure the two can coexist.

reply to post by bigyin


you do not have " freedom " to take pictures on private property - get over it .

Read something on a similar line in the telegraph (i think) at some point last year. The upshot, from what i remember, was that unless the right act was quoted at you, the Police have NO authority to take your phone or ask you to delete photos. Indeed, they actually have to prove a case against you. In practice, however, as soon as people hear the word 'Terrorism' mentioned at them, they tend to panic and become as compliant as possible.

In other words, the dad should have told the police and security guard to f*** right off and when they arrested him, brought a case for wrongful arrest, unlawful taking and destruction of property (which deleting the photos counts as), etc.

I realise, however, that in practice this would have been horrible for the little girl and her dad. In other words, he was thrust in a no win situation. I would like to see though, what would happen if loads of single people with no kids to worry about descended on this shopping centre on mass and started snapping away! Absolutely nothing the security guards or police could lawfully do and we all know how much the police hate a clued up individual!


By the way, as a totally separate rant, why is this posting system questioning my spelling of realise and centre? I am British and therefore these are spelled correctly!!

Originally posted by Lulzaroonie

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."

Yet they have... so what is their stance? Don't take photos if you are not 'innocent'?
I wonder if a woman was taking photos whether there would be such a problem?

I wonder if the security guard viewed the incident from a camera monitor recording everybody and everything happening in that spot at all times?