Glasgow Guide Home

Whats On Glasgow Guide
  Glasgow What's On


    Glasgow Reviews


    Glasgow Gallery


      Glasgow Links
Discuss | Guestbook | Postcard | News | Weather | Feedback | Search | About | What's New
Glasgow Guide Discussion Boards

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )                >> View Today's Topics <<

9 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 7 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Braehead In Anti-terror Photo Row, Police cite terror laws over family photo
GG
post 12th Oct 2011, 07:35am
Post #61


Administrator
Group Icon
Posts: 9,125
Joined: 25th Jul 2003
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 1
QUOTE (Alex MacPhee @ 11th Oct 2011, 05:48pm) *
I've met this myself, and had a very full apology from Mothercare, after one of their employees objected to me taking pictures of my daughter buying a pram for her first baby, pictures destined for the Baby Book the family had been compiling. The excuse I was given when I challenged his reason for stopping me was, somewhat bizarrely, that I could be photographing the shelf display for a competitor. Yes, really, that's what he said.

Alex, again another instance where the employees were acting in defence of the rights/interest of the property owners, rather than the potential (to them) safety and wellbeing of the child involved.

A similar thing happened to me in the Buchanan Galleries when the kids sat on the automated massage chairs and wanted me to put 2 in each to get them to work. I said no, naturally, and they went into a huff and said that they would not move until I paid the cash. I whipped out the phone to take a quick pic of them huffing away. A security guard was on me like a shot and told me I could not take photographs in the centre. I thanked her and said that this was "good to know", then walked away, but not before asking if she could chuck them off the seats! It helped that they are old enough to have a good laugh about it for the rest of the day!

GG.


--------------------
Help: Register :: Login :: Forgot password? :: gg@glasgowguide.co.uk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jim D
post 12th Oct 2011, 08:06am
Post #62

Super City Key Holder
******
Posts: 781
Joined: 29th Jul 2003
From: West of Scotland
Member No.: 91
QUOTE (Jupiter @ 11th Oct 2011, 04:50pm) *
JimD,
I agree with what you say here however having listened to the man on tv I think he took the standpoint he did to basically highlight the absurdity of a situation which culminated in the involvement of two police officers absolutely needlessly.I thought this over and on the info I read I tried to work out the course of action I would have taken and I think it would have been along these lines;
Having been summoned by security and appraised of the situation and verified no crime or offence had been committed I would have told the security guard it was not a police matter but that I would accompany the man to the exit if he was barred in order to prevent a Breach of the Peace.Result:Advice given,assistance rendered,no further action.
In other words what happened here was a mountain out of a molehill and neither the security or the police came out of it too well.

I would have spoke to the security guard then the man with the child, established that the child was with him, made him aware of the Centres photography policy. I can just imagine the man being on his high-horse by this time. I would NOT make reference to any "powers" in relation to the image. I would also quietly say to the security officer to cut the man a bit of slack! He's enjoying time with his kids. One for the family album etc. I would then exit stage left. lol The thing was frought with danger before the police arrived. It had "complaint" written all over it.


--------------------
Jim D

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit - NO man is at all hours wise.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jupiter
post 12th Oct 2011, 08:23am
Post #63

Mega City Key Holder
******
Posts: 4,104
Joined: 27th Oct 2009
From: Home in the`burbs.
Member No.: 7,675
JD Spot on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
*calmac*
post 12th Oct 2011, 10:34am
Post #64






Many shopping centres have had a policy preventing photography within their premises for years prior to the Glasgow Airport terrorist attack. As they are on private property, the owners are perfectly entitled to impose conditions on the use of those premises, whether that's no photography, no dogs or no radios.

However, what has happened is that that incident has given them and every other person in a uniform a trump card to play when people ask why photography isn't allowed (the other one is paedophiles). After all, who could really argue against measures enforced for our own protection?

The threat from terrorists is exaggerated by hysterical reactions from the public and the type of security theatrics which some police and other officials employ. The spectre of terrorism is used to cover all sorts of abuse of our laws and restrictions on our freedoms.

And guess who is trying to achieve that?.. the terrorists. Regarding terrorists taking photos in the St Enoch Centre, I'm not aware of, and have been unable to find, any confirmation that the terrorists who attacked the airport were found to have any photos of shopping centres or even of the airport.

As for someone pointing a zoom lens at a toddler in a shopping centre, I should really call the police today to report that last week I saw, in my local weekly newspaper and in a multiple page, full colour pull-out section, photographs of every primary school child in East Renfrewshire who'd just started the new term.

Doesn't the council realise the country is full of perverts who'll get their jollies with that sort of thing?!

calmac
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
*WeeGraham*
post 12th Oct 2011, 05:32pm
Post #65






Seems like just another example of common sense and mutual respect being lost from today's society. Maybe we should all just stay in and watch the telly and never go out!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GG
post 12th Oct 2011, 06:45pm
Post #66


Administrator
Group Icon
Posts: 9,125
Joined: 25th Jul 2003
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 1
QUOTE
Scottish police praised after foiling Al Qaeda toddler ice-cream plot
Toddler ice cream plot at Braehead shopping centre


Strathclyde police have been praised by Government officials after foiling a plot by Al Qaeda terrorists to take photos of a three year-old eating ice-cream in Glasgow’s Braehead shopping centre.

The plot, which detectives suspect might have been in the planning stages for up to eight minutes, would have seen a photo of the small child circulated to literally dozens of Facebook users.

A Strathclyde police spokesperson told of his pride at the efficient way in which the potential atrocity was prevented, telling reporters that the officers concerned had reacted ‘just as they’ve been trained to’ in order to bring the incident to such a successful conclusion.

The spokesman told us, “It’s at times like this that you have to rely on your training, you have to ignore the adrenaline and let the auto-pilot kick-in.”

“Sure, the officers were frightened, but if they’d stopped to think this through there could have been several photos shared across multiple social media channels, and then the terrorists would have won.”

Full story here:
http://newsthump.com/2011/10/10/scottish-p...-ice-cream-plot

GG.


--------------------
Help: Register :: Login :: Forgot password? :: gg@glasgowguide.co.uk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rab-oldname
post 12th Oct 2011, 08:24pm
Post #67


Mega City Key Holder
******
Posts: 7,959
Joined: 28th Aug 2003
From: East Sussex.
Member No.: 413
QUOTE (Alex MacPhee @ 11th Oct 2011, 09:39pm) *
I don't believe that's the origin, it has been happening much longer than that.

There is an irony here. After the July 7th bombings in London, the police were appealing for members of the public to send them any photographs they had taken in the vicinity, that might lead to valuable clues to the identity and movements of the bombers. Suppose the photographer father, in this instance (thankfully not the case) had in his photograph an image of someone later deemed responsible for a terrorist or similar action?

The logic here is thin. If I wanted to take a photograph of a building, absolutely nobody would know about it. I certainly wouldn't use a look-at-me DSLR. I could be standing on the street making a call on my mobile phone. I could be using a small pen-shaped USB device to connect later to my computer. If I seriously wanted to take photographs undetected, there are too many ways to choose from.

What we seem to be seeing here is a kind of collective institutional hysteria, which can mean that the next generation will have no photographs of themselves growing up in their natural environments, doing ordinary things, because the Photo Nazis have been patrolling society's streets to prevent it, leaving us only with CCTV traces of our existence. Ironic, in a country that has more surveillance cameras per head of population than anywhere on the planet.


It is not the job of shopping mall 'security staff' to protect the public. We have police for that. Their job is to protect the goods and property of their employers. In the old days they were called floorwalkers, nightwatchmen, or janitors. 'Security' is a PR puff expression.

Excellent post Alec. Hear Hear!

Photographs have been prohibited on British airports for long before Lockerbie. I know, I worked at one. They were allowed with official permission - otherwise, how have press snappers been allowed to peddle their pathetic trade.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TeeHeeHee
post 13th Oct 2011, 03:08pm
Post #68


Mega City Key Holder
******
Posts: 14,923
Joined: 25th Jan 2009
From: German/French/Swiss border town on the River Rhein
Member No.: 6,448
QUOTE
The issue that few have spoken about is that the man was effectively suspected of wrong-doing simply because he was an older man with a young child. Even in shopping centres, it seems, we fear the bogeyman is coming for our children. Would staff have got involved had it been a woman photographing her daughter?


http://www.heraldscotland.com/bloggers/kat...enged-1.1128569


--------------------
"Destiny is a good thing to accept when it's going your way. When it isn't, don't call it destiny; call it injustice, treachery, or simple bad luck.”
― Joseph Heller, God Knows
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
d.c.
post 13th Oct 2011, 05:10pm
Post #69

Super Lord Provost
*****
Posts: 479
Joined: 27th Jul 2003
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 19
From Strathclyde Police:
http://www.strathclyde.police.uk/index.asp...&docID=8929

QUOTE
Statement re incident at Braehead, 7 October 2011

Rob Shorthouse, Director of Communications for Strathclyde Police said:

“It is absolutely right and proper that when a complaint about the police is made that it is fully investigated. The public need to know that their complaints are taken seriously and are acted upon promptly and professionally. This is exactly what has happened in this incident.

“Mr White complained to the police about the incident in Braehead. In his statement he set out a set of circumstances that has caused widespread debate, comment and criticism for those who he alleged were involved. Mr White chose to make his complaint public, to give interviews to the media and to seek debate on social networks.

“We are well aware that, as a result of this social media conversation, demonstrations are being planned this weekend at Braehead. We have also seen global media coverage of the incident – all of which has painted the shopping centre, this police force and, arguably, our country in a very negative light.

“It is because Mr White chose to seek publicity for his account of events and because of the planned demonstration that we feel compelled to take the unusual step of making our findings public.

“In reaching our conclusions, officers took statements from a number of independent witnesses and viewed the substantial amount of CCTV that was available in the centre.

“On reviewing all of this objective evidence, I have to tell you that we can find no basis to support the complaint which Mr.White has elected to make.

“The members of the public who asked for the security staff to become involved have told us that they did so for reasons which had absolutely nothing to do with him taking photographs of his daughter. They had a very specific concern, which I am not in a position to discuss publicly, that they felt the need to report. It was because of this very specific concern that security staff became involved. They were right to raise their concern and we are glad that they did so.

“The security staff were the ones who asked for police involvement. Again, this was not because Mr White said he had been photographing his daughter, but was due to the concerns that they themselves had regarding this particular incident.

“When our officers became involved they did not confiscate any items, nor was Mr White questioned under counter terrorist legislation. It is wrong to suggest that the police spoke to Mr White because he claimed he had been photographing his daughter, or that officers made any reference to counter terror legislation. Mr.White knows, or ought to know, why our officers spoke with him.

“Since Mr White chose to publish his version of events on Facebook, we have seen substantial traditional media and social media activity around the story. People have been very quick to offer their opinions on this issue and were very keen to accept Mr White’s story as the only evidence that was available. Clearly this was not the case.

“Social media allowed this story to spread quickly around the world. I hope that the same media allows this part of the tale to move just as quickly.

“For the avoidance of any doubt, we have fully investigated this incident and we can say that none of the independent and objective evidence presented to us by either the members of the public or the CCTV backs up the claims made by Mr White.”
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GG
post 13th Oct 2011, 06:41pm
Post #70


Administrator
Group Icon
Posts: 9,125
Joined: 25th Jul 2003
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 1
Thanks for posting this, d.c.

This statement has certainly raised the stakes, not to mention poured some oil on to the dying embers of the publicity fire surrounding the affair. I think that the language and tone used in the statement is going to attract criticism on a professional level, regardless of what transpires with the incident. Personally, I would have expected a much more stoic and dispassionate response from Strathclyde Police.

GG.


--------------------
Help: Register :: Login :: Forgot password? :: gg@glasgowguide.co.uk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
whatachef
post 13th Oct 2011, 08:46pm
Post #71

Unpacking
*
Posts: 7
Joined: 22nd Feb 2007
Member No.: 4,601
As far as I'm concerned, Braehead have shown themselves up as a bunch of eejits. Their no photo policy is a piece of rubbish. I'm glad that this matter has come to public attention just before Christmas. If the day ever arrives when photos cannot be taken in public, it'll be a sad one for us all. If you don't want innocent photos taken of you or your kids, stay out of public places. Braehead, you've lost my custom for this Christmas I can assure you. Personally, I hope your footfall and your profits go south big time! As for Strathclyde Police, it's just more of what we've all come to expect of them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
benny
post 13th Oct 2011, 09:24pm
Post #72


Mega City Key Holder
******
Posts: 1,734
Joined: 26th Jan 2010
Member No.: 8,059
As someone has already pointed out, Brahead is not "public", it is a privately owned shopping mall, and the owners are quite within their rights to ban photography there if they so choose. There is no law against taking photographs in the street, for example, because it is not privately owned.

The latest from Strathclyde police seems to muddy the waters even further. In addition to denying that "anti-terrorist laws" were invoked, they more or less state that the police involvement had nothing to do with taking the photograph, and that it was for some other,, unspecified, action on the part of Mr White. The mystery deepens.


--------------------
Derea derego fortibus es in aro
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rab-oldname
post 13th Oct 2011, 09:45pm
Post #73


Mega City Key Holder
******
Posts: 7,959
Joined: 28th Aug 2003
From: East Sussex.
Member No.: 413
I agree GG that the tone of this release is rather irregular, but in view of the bad publicity alleged against Braehead and the Strathclyde Police, it seem that the Police were putting their version of the facts as they saw them before the public which is surely what we would expect of them, considering the allegations made against them! Mr Whites actions have provoked a possible public order event to which the Police would have to respond. Their point of view is that Mr White has given a different version of events to that of the witnesses and the Police. Surely they are entitled to defend their decisions where such ambiguity occurs. The ball has been firmly placed back in Mr Whites' court - lets hope that he can adequately justify his position. Maybe its about time we had some robust and human responses to unjust allegations, if they were such in this case.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tamhickey
post 14th Oct 2011, 04:46am
Post #74


City Key Holder
******
Posts: 735
Joined: 14th Jan 2006
From: glasgow
Member No.: 2,833
So, Rob Shorthouse throws out unverified allegations against this man, who has been charged with no crime. Classic! The cops trying to make the victim look like the perpetrator. Also, how does he know for sure what the police in Braehead said to the man re terrorism laws? As the Herald article which THH helpfully provided shows, it's unlikely that anything like this would have happened had it been a woman taking the photos. Perhaps there is another side to the story, but Mr. Shorthouse, this isn't it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jupiter
post 14th Oct 2011, 06:52am
Post #75

Mega City Key Holder
******
Posts: 4,104
Joined: 27th Oct 2009
From: Home in the`burbs.
Member No.: 7,675
Most of you know my background with the Police.Like other members of the public I accept Chris White for what he is,a normal intelligent dad and parent.
What I see now is something that the Police are past masters at.They are effectively calling him out.
There would have been a high level discussion on how to turn this matter so they would be shown in a better light and they have amassed all their resources to do so.
It is a tatic I have encountered many times with low level complaints against the police.
All in all pretty pathetic because what they have done is tarnished the reputation of Chris White because the question now and always will be,"Well what did he do?"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

9 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 7 > » 
Fast ReplyReply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th Apr 2021

All material in the site Glasgow Guide is copyright of the Glasgow Guide Organisation. This material is for your own private use only, and no part of the site may be reproduced, amended, modified, copied, or transmitted to third parties, by any means whatsoever without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. All rights reserved.

Glasgow Hotels: book cheap hotels in Glasgow online now.