Advanced search

Father questioned over 'illegal' photographs of daughter

(103 Posts)
LeaveYourDignityAtTheDoor Mon 10-Oct-11 12:32:27


Has anyone else read this?

Is this what our country has come to?

JLK2 Mon 10-Oct-11 12:34:53

You can never be too careful. He's a man, he could have been a pervert.

Bloody ridiculous.

LeaveYourDignityAtTheDoor Mon 10-Oct-11 12:38:13

Ice-cream sellers, unsung heroes, the first line of defence against international terrorism and any creeping insurgencency of common sense.

Guarantee if this was a woman there would have been no issue.

JeremyVile Mon 10-Oct-11 12:40:51

Hard to tell what really happened, but i dont see any suggestion this was about him being a possible 'pervert'.

As much as i cant understand it, the shopping centre has a no photographs policy, but say they have no policy against, and wouldnt stop, family members taking pictures.

The article suggests the problem was that he was taking photos of staff, but when approached claimed to be only taking pics of his daughter.

Sounds odd.

HerdOfTinyElephants Mon 10-Oct-11 12:41:26

I think this is MOSTLY a case of crossed wires. Most/many shopping centres have a "no photography without prior approval" policy. This is because they are cagy about copyright and image protection rights, don't want professional thieves casing the joint, don't want commercial photographers shooting there without permission, and don't want snaps of embarassing signs or events winding up on Facebook. It's not necessarily a bad rule to have. But it sounds as though absolutely no one involved in this incident had any sense of proportion or common sense.

bruffin Mon 10-Oct-11 13:02:48

My DS then 14 got told off by security guards for taking photographs in Batavia Stad in the Netherlands. Its an open air outlet Mall

CustardCake Mon 10-Oct-11 13:11:00

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

chateauferret Mon 10-Oct-11 13:16:54

I was on one occasion all but ejected from a designer outlet place for "taking pictures of kids and posting them on the Internet". The device in question was an iPod touch which has neither camera nor mobile Internet connection. I am a bloke. At the time I was surrounded by women taking pictures of their kids at a party using all manner of devices from throwaway cameras to mobile phones. At no point was I allowed to get a word in edgeways.

JeremyVile Mon 10-Oct-11 13:20:37

Chateau - how did that work then? what did they say when you pointed out you didnt have a camera?

BadgersPaws Mon 10-Oct-11 13:23:51

And once again you see the police abusing the powers that they were given to fight terror. Yes the police could have taken his camera but they have to reasonably suspect him of terrorism.

No one, not even the police, have the right to order you to delete photographs on the spot. Only a court order can do this.

JeremyVile Mon 10-Oct-11 13:27:57

Badgers - wasnt the police though, they didnt take his camera and it was the security guard who told him to delete the pictures.

DuelingFanjo Mon 10-Oct-11 13:30:52

I wonder how clear the signs saying 'no photographs' were? Maybe he could take a picture of them?

BadgersPaws Mon 10-Oct-11 13:32:39

"wasnt the police though, they didnt take his camera and it was the security guard who told him to delete the pictures."

The Police did threaten to take his camera and cited the Anti-Terror laws when they did this, I don't think that anyone can seriously argue that the police had reasonable suspicion he was a terrorist.

JeremyVile Mon 10-Oct-11 13:35:34

Agree, so did the police officers, obviously, as they didnt take the camera.

The whole anti terrorist stuff is a pile of shite, but I dont think its the average PC who's to blame and I'm sure most resent this kind of call out.

Pendeen Mon 10-Oct-11 13:37:51

The shopping centre owners have the right to determine what happens on private property and some of the reasons given by HerdOfTinyElephants seem reasonable enough however it would be helpful if security guards learned the difference between "illegal" and "contrary to the site owner's policy".

Incidentally although anyone can ask you to delete photographs you are not obliged to do so nor can a security guard take your camera away. Even police officers cannot force you to delete images although 'm afraid more than a few believe they can.

BadgersPaws Mon 10-Oct-11 13:40:26

"Agree, so did the police officers, obviously, as they didnt take the camera."

But they threatened him with it, and that's crossing a line in my opinion. The anti-terror laws are meant to be there to stop terror not to be abused by a policeman who just wants a problem to go away.

"I dont think its the average PC who's to blame"

Time and time again it does appear to be the average PC who is to blame. There have been countless stories of the police abusing the anti-terror laws and this is just another one to add to the mix. Photographers in particular seem to be particular targets.

AbsDuWolef Mon 10-Oct-11 13:42:18

I think (from what I know) the anti-terror laws in relation to photography are really strict. I was very nearly involved in an artistic protest of this, where we were all going to go to public spaces and train stations and take photos; places where you used to be able to take photos, but can't freely do so any more due to anti-terrorism laws. But we got drunk instead.

I have seen people have their cameras taken off them, or asked to leave, when they start taking pictures in the tube stations or train stations. Though why anyone would want to take pictures of tube stations in general mystifies me (though hands up - did take a photo on the Metro in Barcelona but that was because I was amazed at a train arriving on time).

JeremyVile Mon 10-Oct-11 13:43:54

Badgers - you dont like the police, do you? wink Thats fair enough, I just dont think police wrong-doing is what this story is about.

Not quite sure what it is about, mind grin

chateauferret Mon 10-Oct-11 13:45:06

Jeremy - they said "You've been taking pictures and posting them on the Internet", rinse and repeat.

Pendeen Mon 10-Oct-11 13:45:29

The railway stations are private property and as such the owners can insist on 'no photography'. They are not public spaces.

BadgersPaws Mon 10-Oct-11 13:46:07

"I think (from what I know) the anti-terror laws in relation to photography are really strict."

There's a good guide here:

JeremyVile Mon 10-Oct-11 13:46:40

Chateau - at which point you showed them it was an ipod....then?

BadgersPaws Mon 10-Oct-11 13:49:49

"Badgers - you dont like the police, do you?"

Actually I do, and I also believe in the need for anti-terrorism laws.

However PCs abusing the law damage both of those things in my opinion. Support for the police and the law is whittled away when they go around do stupid things like threatening a man taking photographs of his daughter.

If the police demonstrate that they can't be trusted with certain laws, exactly as this PC has done here, then those laws could get taken away, and that's a worry.

"I just dont think police wrong-doing is what this story is about."

To me it's a main theme of the story, both the security guard and the police were abusing their positions of power and attempting to bully someone.

JeremyVile Mon 10-Oct-11 14:02:30

Fair enough, I just don't think it reads that way.

The bloke says he was just taking pictures of his child, the shopping centre say he was taking pictures of staff.

The security guard (if the man is telling the truth) was a bit of a nobber, I assume it all escalated and thats why the police were called.

They may well have mentioned that there are circumstances in which a camera can be confiscated. There's no context given re that comment.

Who knows what really happened, but reading between the lines I'd bet my last bakewell tart that the bloke was being a twat and then hid behind 'innocent father accused of being a perv for taking pictures of his own child' shitola.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: