Father questioned over 'illegal' photographs of daughter

[LeaveYourDignityAtTheDoor]

here

Has anyone else read this?

Is this what our country has come to?

what JV said.

Quote from Braehead spokesman:

"Our priority is always to maintain a safe and enjoyable environment for all of our shoppers and retailers. The member of our security staff acted in good faith.

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"

Well clearly on this occasion they have.

Quote from Braehead spokesman:

"Our priority is always to maintain a safe and enjoyable environment for all of our shoppers and retailers. The member of our security staff acted in good faith.

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 "

Well clearly on this occasion they have.

The thing about this is that there has been more than one statement from the shopping centre including one on their website and none of them appear to be able to agree as to why he was actually stopped.
One of them said that they had concerns about him being the parent, one of them cited anti terrorism laws etc etc.

So they themselves can't seem to decide exactly what it was they were complaining about so how the heck do the rest of us work it out.

New statement here

Can't say fairer than that!

sounds to me like the shopping centre security guard didn't handle it well and it would have all gone from there. mind you, i was there on saturday and it was hell on earth, so maybe it was a more confusing situation than it seems now.

Firstly I can imagine the security guard was getting overzealous and didn't use his common sense. I suspect the father in question probably wasn't the politest either when challenged. Add the two together and the police were called. Fair enough.

What has clearly gone wrong here is the police response. Sort it out by all means but threatening to use anti-terror laws where there are no reasonable suspicion of the father being a possible terrorist is an abuse of power.

The very draconian laws were given to the police to fight terrorism so should be used sparingly. Misusing them betrays the very trust the police need in order to keep the peace.

If the police abuse their powers then we are hardly going to be willing to give them more, the next time they say they need them. Just like RIPA, that was a law also designed for terrorists, not spying on parents who are suspected of blagging a school place outside their catchment area.

The common sense solution here would have been for the police to look at the photo, no staff/other shoppers, only his own daughter. No crime has been committed. Security have asked you to leave because it's their policy and you broke their (stupid) rules, the exit is that way sir. Have a nice life.

I live near Braehead shopping centre, and have been there many times, and I can honestly say I have never noticed the signs saying there's a no photography policy. In fact, I can't recall seeing such signs in any shopping centre. I suspect that these are the sort of things your eye slides past and you just don't notice them - it's not what you are in there to look at.

i can't think that i've seen them either.

I think it is fine to have a no photographs policy, simply because with the internet people are really rude and take pictures of other people looking stupid for a second and then publish them online. There are whole websites set up simply for people to post pictures and vidoes of people they have seen looking stupid in shops. There have also been cases of people zooming in to get details of peoples pin numbers, and then stealing their cards or also getting a picture of their card as they pay.
i suspect he was asked to stop and delete the photos, refused and then when the police came over he pulled the "i know my rights, I can take photos when and where I want" and the police pointed out that actually under the law they could take his photos from him. The shopping centre is a business and if it bars people from taking photos and you disagree, go somewhere else.

Braehead's initial statement:

"Following various postings on social media websites and stories in the traditional media, Braehead would like to set the record straight on an incident involving a man taking photographs of a child in the centre, on Friday October 7. Retail staff at an ice cream stall in Braehead became suspicious after they saw a male shopper taking photographs of a child sitting at their counter. The staff thought the man had also been taking photographs of them and they alerted one of the centre?s security staff. The member of security staff approached the man and politely asked if he had been taking photographs. At no time in the initial conversation was the member of our security staff informed by the man that the child in question was his daughter. Because of the nature of the incident, police became involved and also spoke to the man. Our priority is always to maintain a safe and enjoyable environment for all our shoppers and retailers. The member of our security staff acted in good faith. Like most shopping centres, we have a ?no photography? policy in the mall for two reasons. First, to protect the privacy of staff and shoppers. as we are sure shoppers would not want strangers taking photographs of them or their children while they were in the mall. Secondly and sadly, we live in a world of potential threats from terrorists and everyone is being urged by the police to be vigilant at all times. It is not uncommon for those intending to make some kind of attack to take photographs of their intended target as part of their planning before the event. However, it is not our intention to - and we do not - stop innocent family members taking pictures. Discretion is used at all times. Although Friday?s incident had nothing to do with a potential terrorist attack, the two retail assistants and the member of our security staff were faced with a situation they genuinely thought was suspicious. They witnessed a man taking photographs of a child, unaware that the man and the child were related. I?m sure people will agree it is better safe than sorry."

why would they assume the four year old girl was not in his care?

sounds like the icecream staff were paranoid, the security guard was an idiot on a power trip, and then the police stupidly treated it as a matter requiring the use of anti-terror legislation rather than a simple case of a man being thrown out of a shopping centre for breaking a little-known rule.

I would have been irritated in the man's position, and also given priority to consoling my child rather than massaging the ego of morons.

So if the ice-cream staff thought this man was taking pictures of a random child where did they think the child's parents' were? Why would you not assume that he was in fact the parent?

when I was ripped off recently, I phoned the police, they said it was a civil matter, and they could not get involved

so an individual being ripped off by a company = civil matter

but a company can rely on the police to get involved if an individual breaks the rules of their establishment?

JLK2 Mon 10-Oct-11 12:34:53 You can never be too careful. He's a man, he could have been a pervert.

How can you say that?

Why can you never be too careful, hes a man??

Why is it that any different from a woman taking a picture?

No its not.

I may be wrong, but I believe that JLK2 was being sarcastic.

kelly2000, "under the law" police could examine his photos if they suspected he was a terrorist. There's no indication that they had even the vaguest reason to suspect that. Or if they believed they contained evidence of the commission of a crime (ditto). And no one had any right to delete his photos.

Sometimes, when photographing buildings or general urban scenes, I have been asked an individual not to take pictures of them.

I was not, so explained politely that I was a Architectural photographer and usually this was the end of the matter but occasionally someone became aggressive and demanded that I remove the film / delete the image.

Then it can become awkward.

In these cases the police have a difficult job because although the law is fairly clear (no general restriction on photography) there is sometimes a Public Order concern i.e. my 'conduct' could lead to a breach of the peace. It's then down to the individual police officer, my attitude and the attitude of the complainant.

I am always quiet and firm but polite. I suspect if I was truculent and "stood on my rights" the outcome could be what happened in Braehead.

all the guy had to do was tell them she was his daughter, presumably. the kid was old enough to confirm this. i suspect he reacted like a bit of a nob and that's what escalated things.

actually if you watch the film it does sound a bit odd. he says 'at no point did they ask me if i was the child's father'... er how about volunteering that intel? and he seems to have taken it badly that the cop told him 'on this occasion i am allowing you to keep the photos' but that he could be barred from the shopping centre. he further makes the point that they let him leave with his daughter, implying that they shouldn't have done so if they had child protection concerns.

but presumably they had no such concerns any more, because they knew he was her dad and that it was legitimate for him to be taking photos. so what's he done starting a FB page and going on the news about it for, then? it was all resolved fine.

i say nob.

"I suspect if I was truculent and 'stood on my rights' the outcome could be what happened in Braehead."

So if someone is "truculent" the response from a Policeman isn't to possibly use public order against them but to threaten them with anti-terror legislation?

Is that not just a tiny bit wrong?

BadgersPaws

I agree the attitude of the police offices is also important.

It seems to me that no one in the Braemar incident exactly covered themselves in glory.

so really, your complaint is that the cop quoted the wrong legislation when saying 'actually i do have the right to ask you to do x, y or z'. maybe the cop thought that threatening to do him for a public order offence would make things worse.

meh, i don't care. we had doctors driving 4x4s into our airport... if everyone wants to be a bit cautious in Glasgow i am all for it, tbh, so long as nothing illegal happens. and the bottom line is, for me, that it was clearly sorted as the man was allowed to keep his photos and walk off with his kid.

like i say, i think nob.

"your complaint is that the cop quoted the wrong legislation "

My complaint is that the Police seem all too willing to abuse the powers given to them under the anti-terror legislation (and photographers are a particular target). As you say those powers are very important and if the police repeatedly demonstrate that they can't be trusted with them they could end up being taken away, and that could be a huge problem heading forwards.

I'd also like to see the Police have a few more powers, but if they abuse what they have right now there's now way that they're going to be believed when they say "Oh if we are able to do X then we promise we'll only do it against terrorists and not the normal person in the street.