Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'OT (OFF Topic) Forums' started by nick mercedes, Oct 10, 2011.
BBC News - Row over photo in shopping centre
The police have some strange priorities...
Nick - a Daily Mail style headline...
Not quite arrested, but still equally ridiculous. Having said that (and in all seriousness) I do think the Scotts follow the letter of any regulation far more so than down south.
Could be wrong.
Security staff should have used discretion and not wasted police time.
Police response having assessed the situation should have been a 'Get tae ....' to the private security staff.
The Met have been much criticised for several years over use / misuse / misunderstanding of section 44 with regard to photography.
There has been a long standing campaign to get them to sort out their internal guidelines.
That hasn't AFAIAA occured in Scotland. Not sure if that's because it hasn't been necessary or simply that London was more sensitive.
"A DAD says he was threatened by police under anti-terror laws - for taking a picture of his wee girl eating ice cream.
Chris White was pulled up by a security guard and police were called after he snapped his four-year-old daughter Hazel on his phone in Braehead shopping centre, near Glasgow.
Chris was asked to delete the photos and banned from the mall."
"Police also warned him they could confiscate his phone under the Prevention of Terrorism Act."
The question has to be, why would someone taking pictures of their own daughter be committing an act of terrorism?
Don't disagree Nick - but he was not 'arrested', just spoken to.
Well when I saw the headline I thought it was going to be simply an issue of modern society's obsession with not taking pictures of children.
Detained him and took his details it would appear:
"He said that under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, he was quite within in his rights to confiscate my mobile phone without any explanation for taking photos within a public shopping centre."
"The officers allowed Chris to keep his phone but they took down his details, including his name, place of birth, age, employment status and address."
Meanwhile the centre owners said:
"We have a 'no photography' policy to protect the privacy of staff and shoppers. However, it is not our intention to - and we do not - stop innocent family members taking pictures."
Given that they are so worried about the privacy of shoppers, is the centre free of cctv?
Read THIS particularly the PDF downloads then you'll understand why they are paranoid about photographs in major shopping centres. Keeping people safe in these public areas is a mammoth security operation and you would not believe the lengths our security services go to, to ensure our safety, so personally if it keeps me and my family safe then I have no problem with the no photography rules. Try taking a photo of your child at UK Immigration or a non European airport and see what happens
However like most things common sense needs to be exercised a photo of your child on a scooter at an ice cream bar is hardly a threat to national security, but the policies of these centers should be publicized and consistent.
Paranoid is the right word.
No need for any of this nonsense, despite what our Stasi like govt might think...
Ah, common sense. Those were the days.
It must have been someone else's turn for the brain cell when the security droid intervened.
twitter-Book is running a campaign to boycott the centre apparaently. I suggest every parent in Glasgow turn up with a few small children and take some pictures this Saturday afternoon.
There is vigilance and good practice. There is also needless over-reaction.
Is the UK Immigration no-photography rule about security?
They have some specific data protection and privacy issues .....
As for non-European airports .... let them set their own rules.
Looks like it's only a question of time before MOCAS and me end-up sharing a cell in Paddington Green Police Station... snapping embassy cars will be much harder to explain
A similiar thing happened to my 24Yr old daughter and myself while walking through a large shopping centre in the middle of glasgow one day. We were on our way to jessops camera shop and carrying our camera gear i had my Fuji s3 pro round my kneck and daughter was carrying her Nikon D1 and gear cases over our shoulders.
A very stupid security guard proceeded to run up to me ( i do mean run ) and grabbed my camera while saying you cant use that in here ( i had not used it no batteries in it ). Now what stupid guy didnt know was he just accosted a guy who practised martial arts for many years ( do you get the picture ) stupid ended face down on the floor with my foot on his kneck. Much shouting of people brought other security persons who when viewed their cctv footage called stupid very bloody stupid and was to be given some retraining, my daughter got flowers and i got an apology ( i wanted the flowers lol ) so they can go to far nowadays... George.
I live near the shopping centre in question and have never seen any signs about the banning of cameras.
I have seen some Neanderthal creatures stumbling around dressed as security guards.
As Dryce rightly states, there is Law and the 'proper' application of it.
The staff that reported the father, the centre security guards and the police that attended really ought to have a good look at themselves. They are all guilty of crass stupidity and acting without good reason.
Many shopping centres have signs up for years saying no photography. Ignore them and funnily enough you can be asked to leave!
Wow... so many contradictions in so few words.
'Mr White said that one officer claimed that under the Prevention of Terrorism Act he was within in his rights to confiscate the mobile phone on which the photos were taken.'
A spokesman for Braehead said:... "We have a 'no photography' policy in the centre to protect the privacy of staff and shoppers...
However, it is not our intention to - and we do not - stop innocent family members taking pictures."
OK... so the police say they have anti-terrorist concerns... the shopping centre say it's actually about privacy...
But before you even get a chance to make up your mind what it's really about, the shopping centre spokesman says that their 'no photography' policy should not prevent people from... taking photographs.
Pretend law vs real law though.
Yes it's totally about terrorism and anti terrorism measures. You are not even allowed your phone on in the Immigration queue. I have seen them confiscated on more than one occasion after giving the queue fair warning they confiscated the next ones to ring.