backtop


Print 90 comment(s) - last by Aloonatic.. on Oct 14 at 1:57 PM


The photo that Chris White took of his daughter Hazel in the Braehead shopping center  (Source: BBC News)
UK citizen Chris White took his daughter, Hazel, to the Braehead shopping center near Glasgow on Friday and ran into trouble when photographing her within the mall

The U.S. has had its share of photo-related issues when police officers were arresting citizens for videotaping or photographing them while on duty. But a recent incident in the UK took the prohibition of photography to an entirely new level when a citizen was told he was not allowed to photograph his own daughter.

UK citizen Chris White took his daughter to the Braehead shopping center near Glasgow on Friday and ran into trouble when photographing her within the mall.

According to White, he had photographed his daughter eating an ice cream while "looking cute on the back of a Vespa seat at an ice cream bar." He had uploaded the photos to Facebook.

White was then approached by a security guard, who told him to delete the photos he had taken. The security guard also mentioned that there were signs within the establishment saying that photographs were not allowed. Apparently, employees at the ice cream bar had told security that they were suspicious of White for taking pictures at their counter, and had thought that he was also taking pictures of them.

White told the security guard that he had already sent the two photos to Facebook, and that's when the police were called. They took White's information and noted that they could take the mobile phone as well under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. White was then allowed to leave.

A spokesman for the Braehead shopping center assured that the police were polite about dealing with the situation, and that the matter was handled correctly.

"Our priority is always to maintain a safe and enjoyable environment for all of our shoppers and retailers," said the Braehead spokesman. "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 behavior if required. However, it is not our intention to -- and we do not -- stop innocent family members taking pictures."

Superintendent George Nedley, of Renfrewshire and Inverclyde division, said a "full review" has been launched in regards to a complaint regarding White's photography incident.

Source: BBC News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: misunderstanding
By Reclaimer77 on 10/11/2011 3:58:44 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I am just as much concerned that they can do that as you.


You don't sound very concerned. At all.

quote:
Traditionally you would have to take someone to court and prove they violated some law or agreement. At which time the camera and photos would be confiscated. That is the way it should be.


Go to court because I took a picture of my own daughter? Man get the fuck out of here! Do you realize how ridiculous that is?


RE: misunderstanding
By BuckinBottoms on 10/11/2011 4:20:00 PM , Rating: 2
It's only ridiculous because you believe enough pink flowers, ice cream cones, and unicorns will somehow allow you to do something you know you can't do to begin with.

This isn't the land of fairy tales and fluffy clouds. Get real buddy.


RE: misunderstanding
By bodar on 10/11/2011 8:31:33 PM , Rating: 2
Did you seriously say that Reclaimer77 believes in "pink flowers, ice cream cones, and unicorns?" LOL, I don't think it's possible to be more wrong.

Listen, his point is simple. The mall is completely retarded for making such a big deal about this. If this doesn't make UK citizens question why they even have such laws -- especially if they can be extended so far -- there's something wrong. How far is too far? You can't just dismiss people who question whether these kinds of laws are overreaching and abused by saying, "Terrorists, paedos and bad guys, OH MY!" It's completely simplistic.

Hey, while we're at it we can stop libel by putting the press under control of the government. What could possibly go wrong?


RE: misunderstanding
By BuckinBottoms on 10/11/2011 10:43:35 PM , Rating: 2
The mall didn't make a big deal out of anything. Read the story again. They asked him to remove the pictures. A very simple request. He obviously didn't comply. He made the big deal out of it. Just delete the photo and go about your way. He knows he was wrong to do it. It was explained to him that he couldn't do that. He figured he could do whatever he wanted in someone elses place. Pretty piss poor decision for anyone to think they can do whatever they want on someone elses property. The police gave him an attitude because he gave everyone a hard time and was wasting their time on some petty crap. There is nothing wrong here. They put a little fear into someone that clearly doesn't respect the wishes of others and thinks his desires are more important that everyone around him.


RE: misunderstanding
By bodar on 10/12/2011 12:08:55 AM , Rating: 2
FTFA
quote:
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 behavior if required. However, it is not our intention to -- and we do not -- stop innocent family members taking pictures.


Do you hear how ridiculous you sound? They "put a little fear into someone" for taking pictures of his kid. The picture is right there at the top of the article. Hell, if anyone was wasting the cops' time, it was the mall. Quick, get some constables in here! There's a guy recording his positive experiences at our establishment and sharing them on the internet! Sounds more like advertising to me. What happened to discretion? Gee, I do hope it was worth the bad press.

What's wrong here is that sheep applaud laws like this and actually think they would stop anyone with even a bit more brains and motivation than the aforementioned sheep clearly possess.


RE: misunderstanding
By Fritzr on 10/11/2011 6:43:06 PM , Rating: 2
They aren't upset because he took a picture of his daughter

They are upset because he took a picture of the interior of the mall ... his daughter appearing in the picture had nothing to do with his problems.

His daughter appearing in the picture also does not make a picture of the mall interior around her not a picture of the mall, so the defense that "I was photographing a child" does not work when the charge is "photographing the place where the child was located."

The police warning effectively eliminated any future claims of "I am really sorry officer, but I wasn't aware that it is illegal" should they ever discuss this subject with him again. Really quite nice of them since he could be facing jail time if they have to discuss this subject with him in the future :P


"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki