Father questioned over 'illegal' photographs of daughter

[LeaveYourDignityAtTheDoor]

here

Has anyone else read this?

Is this what our country has come to?

In breach of contract or not

"A member of staff at the centre's ice cream stall is said to have told officers that Mr White took photographs of her with his trouser zip open.

Mr White has denied any wrong-doing."

news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/274528-braehead-photo-row-father-reported-by-police/

quite literally a nob, then.

This one looks like it will run and run..... www.express.co.uk/posts/view/277415/Photo-row-father-to-sue-police

Sooo, the police claimed in a public statement that the photographer was suspect but couldn't say why for legal reasons. He's now revealed that they accused him in a letter of being drunk, having open flies and talking to himself. He claims to be teetotal, not aware of any zip problem, and says that he shouldn't have been allowed to leave with his daughter if there were any child protection concerns.

The police have now clarified that no offence was committed and that he's not been reported to the Procurator Fiscal - probably because their initial statement was so ambigious it led to press reports that the man had been charged with an offence. They've also clarified that their statement that Terrorism legislation was not cited was based solely on the policeman's account of the exchange. The photographer is now threatening to sue.

Now it could well turn out that the photgrapher is a mentally ill alcoholic flasher who was about to dunk his knob in the Mr Whippy had the police not rightly intervened. Or it could be that the police have dug themselves a bit of a hole in an attempt to avoid embarassment over one individual officer's overreaction. We shall see. However as a keen photographer I'm aware that there have been multiple cases of police/PCSO/security guard abuse of terrorism (and child protection and public order) legislation becuase of serious misconceptions around photographer's legal rights, something the Home Office and police bodies such as ACPO fully acknowledge and have attempted to address.

i just think it's brave new world stuff, this. new technology, new rules. he effectively sent his complaint in with 30,000 signatures and the world watching, i'm not sure that's the right thing to do as a first point of contact. if the police are releasing stuff about him (which technically they really shouldn't imo) they are doing so in response to his very public call-out. he's got himself into a world of pain, just for not being able to take a telling in the first place.

tbh i'm finding it hard to follow the story now... he said that he was told off for taking photos, and the police were called why? because he told the security guard that he didn't have the right?

whereas now the gist is that he was being checked out for acting drunk and having his willy out? that's quite a big turnaround. the cops must have him on camera doing something odd.

Strathclyde Police are very thinskinned, aren't they? Not to mention irresponsible. I can't believe they asserted he was up to no good but then primly drew back from saying exactly what it was meaning everyone's free to think the worst about this man.

A man exposing himself and photographing his victim's response seems very likely behaviour for a flasher but if that's what he did, why didn't they arrest him?

If he was drunk why wasn't he arrested for some sort of public drunkeness offence? Why was someone who'd been drinking allowed to leave with a child? Did the officer check how he was going to get home? Was he planning to drive?

There might have been pictures on his phone or on CCTV but even if not, they had at least one witness - the shop assistant who accused him. If I was her I'd be upset at the police for letting him go.

I'm not sure he's telling the truth but I don't think the police are either.

I'm loving the Strathclyde PD response actually.

I bet when this fella started drumming up his 15 minutes he didnt expect, for one second, that the police would play him at his own game.

And what an idiot he is, he knew that the police had talked to him about reports of him having his knob out....so why did he think he could get away with publicising the incident without anyone finding out he (was reported to have) had his knob out. Div.

well the thing is, surely, that the member of staff called over security because of the nob's suspected nob? and then some sort of exchange took place over the photos as well, where by his own testimony the man acted like a bit of a tosser, so the cops were called. the cop then decided that fuck all had happened and let him go. i don't really see the problem.

Can I say, JV, I lament the underuse of ''div''

And this fellow appears to fit perfectly the descriptor

div

if you watch that interview he seems most put oot that the cop told him he was 'allowing' him to keep the photos... jesus, *nob-head, just take a telling.

*hereby admits to strong cultural bias against people with those weird hybrid english/scots accents. just stick with the accent you were born with, nobbo.

couldnt agree more aitch

dickhead of the highest order

his problem is, imo, that the security guard and cop Had The Temerity to question him at all.

most likely he was doing nothing wrong, i might add, right until the point where someone earning six quid an hour dared to ask him to account for himself.

That statement by Strathclyde Police was designed to inflame the matter. If it wasn't, they're even more foolish than I thought.

They presumably think their officer dealt with the situation properly. That should have been the end of it.

Do they issue lengthy statements every time someone gets shirty with them? If so, how on earth do they find the time to keep the streets safe for decent people?

Most public bodies don't rush out defensive statements every time someone complains about them and lands them in the papers.

They usually do the sensible thing of letting it lie or waiting for an official complaint, investigating and then pronouncing.

brave new world, brave new rules, limitedperiodonly. i'm glad they're not just sitting back and taking a pasting in front of this nob and the global media. they must feel very confident of their case, though.

Limitedp - on the news last night they carried the story saying it was most unusual for the police to make such a comment etc etc. Contined the phrase'Mr X knows what we are talking about' [or similar] which seems an odd thing to say....

Aitch - agree about the accent thing! Can we call it Hybrid Accent Slippage?

aitch they may well be feeling very confident. But it wouldn't be the first time a police force has put out robust statements that they've later had to retract.

As catkins said time will probably tell. Which is why I think it's wisest to let these things lie.

I'm not defending this person. He may well be a nob who likes flashing his nob, but if so I don't understand why the police officer didn't arrest him.

But I'm not attacking him either because I don't know what's happened and neither do you.

I'm puzzled that you think that someone questioning the right of an authority figure to do something is automatically guilty of acting with Temerity.

surely if he was drunk and flashing his knob the police wouldn't have let him leave with a 4 year old though?

i think it is totally unusual for them to do this... they must feel on v solid ground. good for them, if he hadn't made it into a global 'world gorn maaad' news story by emailing all the newspapers with his plight, they wouldn't have responded such.

total accent slippage is ideal, i think...

i do think this is just some man who felt chiefed out by people who were in the wrong (they likely were, if he was flashing at his dd he wouldn't pursue this) and who can't let go. but he should. big deal, someone thought he was waggling his willy at them, he wasn't. cop let him go, with photos and daughter.

so how was he mis-treated in any way? because the security guard questioned him? or the cop? i don't think so.

limited, you've not read my post, i said the security guard/cop had the temerity to question him.

and he WASN'T waggling his willy, that's WHY he was okay to go with his kid.

and he HAD taken photos of his dd, that's WHY he was okay to keep the shots.

he likely hadn't done a thing wrong... but nor had the security guard and cop in acting on what they had been told by the member of staff. (who was likely a youngish person, i've seen that stall).

what he should have done was not be a prick about it in the first place. everyone gets accused of the wrong thing now and again, but being a nob about it is only going to make things worse.

He obviously did nothing wrong. Or perhaps did nothing that could be proven at the time of questioning.

So th police let him go. Let him keep his pictures. All done, incident over. No problem.

Except this fucknuckle started a big woe is me hooha, spouting off to anyone with a camera or pen and pad that he'd been suspected of being a terrorist, a paedophile or whatever else while spectacularly fergetting to remember that he'd been asked about reports he'd had is knob out/acting suspiciously/taking photos of staff.

There was no incident. Police responded to report/s, he got shirty and then misrpresented the entire non-incident to the rest of the world. And sadly, too many people were all too willing to be offended on his behalf.

BALD - so agree about div. I forgot all about it but will be usnig it liberally from now on.

precisely, jezza. if it was my kid working at the ice-cream stall i'd be very heartened that the security guard took her concerns re some strange man seriously. (and he is strange, no doubt about that. but like i say, i am TAS-biased.)

From the Herald Online (need to register etc so in full). Not so much Be careful for what you wish for as Be Careful who you tell - cos once it's out there the story sure aint yours any more............

www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/embrace-digital-age-but-keep-eye-on-source-of-story-1.1129150?

^Embrace digital age ? but keep eye on source of story

COMMENT Eamonn O?Neill

14 Oct 2011

PRESIDENT John F Kennedy used to say: ?A lie is halfway around the world before the truth has got is boots on.?

If that was true 40 years ago, when telegraph and telephone was the fastest means of communication, then it?s certainly true now with digital communications. Journalists are now gatekeepers for information as well as sources of it.

The Braehead Shopping Centre story is a case in point. When the story surfaced on Facebook, the version of events came from the gentleman himself. He has been stopped taking pictures by heavy-handed security men and police and took to Facebook to vent his anger. His campaign soon became part of the story.

I was interested in the topic because I did an investigation into the issue of taking snaps of your children on council property for BBC Radio Scotland last year. I discovered that across the 36 authorities in Scotland the law was both an ass and a mess.

So, this week started with BBC Radio Scotland asking me to comment on the Breahead matter (I wasn?t able to because of work commitments) and an assurance from the producer when I asked the central question, ?But is it true?? with the reply, ?Yes, apparently so ...?

But by the end of this week, the story had morphed and allegations were followed by counter-allegations.

Stories often change. The summer Middle-Eastern secret lesbian-blog? Actually it was written by a student in Edinburgh. This week?s Iranian assassination plot in Washington? Well, let?s wait and see.

By all means, let?s embrace our iPhones, BlackBerries (if working), sources on Facebook and our Kindle content, but let?s make sure we check who the byline is from as well. The digital age may yet prove to be classic journalism?s finest hour.

l Dr Eamonn O?Neill is a lecturer in Journalism at the University of Strathclyde^

aitch I did read your post about Temerity and the also the one where you said 'Jesus, nob-head, just take a telling.'

Is 'know your place' in your vocabulary too?

I don't think it's clever to get shirty with anyone who is trying to do their job. It does depend on how they are doing it though. As I've said, we have no idea what happened apart from the fact that Mr White apparently hasn't done anything wrong apart from being a bit lippy.

Mr White may well be behaving like a hysterical, thin-skinned idiot but Strathclyde Police aren't doing too badly on that front either. I know who I expect to conduct themselves with more sense.

i genuinely don't know what you are trying to say to me, lp. could you explain?

Will Chris Smith be 'outed' as the first known Mr Whippy flasher.?

Does Strathclyde Police's Rob Shorthouse write fiction as a sideline?

Who are the mysterious "members of the public?"

Will we ever get to see Strathclydes alleged "...independent and objective evidence presented to us by either the members of the public or the CCTV...."

Which firm of lawyers will dare to take on this high-profile case "in the public interest?"

And can I put in an early bid for the book and TV / film rights please?

That's a very tempting offer aitch but I don't think I'll bother.