Braehead In Anti-terror Photo Row, Police cite terror laws over family photo Options

[GG]

A father of a four-year-old child is seeking official apologies from both Strathclyde Police and Braehead Shopping Centre after he claimed he was questioned under anti-terror laws for taking pictures of his own daughter eating an ice cream in a shopping centre near Glasgow.

Chris White, a mental health worker, was approached by staff at Braehead Shopping Centre after he took a photograph of his daughter Hazel on Friday afternoon. Mr White was initially questioned by a centre security guard, who informed him that it was illegal to take photographs in the shopping centre.

Centre staff then called police following Mr White's refusal to delete the photograph from his camera. When officers of Strathclyde Police arrived, Mr White claimed that they were "threatening and intimidating" and warned him to pay attention when he attempted to comfort his crying daughter, whom he was holding in his arms.

According to the distressed father, he was then informed by police that they were within their rights, under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, to confiscate the mobile phone containing the photograph.

Mr White commented:

"The officer said that under the Terrorism Act he was within in his rights to confiscate my phone for taking photos within a public shopping centre. However, he [the police officer] then said on this occasion he would allow me to keep the photos, but he wanted to take my full details."

Later, Mr White added:

"Had I not had my daughter with me, and the fact that we are trying to bring our daughter up to respect and trust police officers, I may have exercised my right not to provide those [full personal] details.

The police officer said the security guard was within his rights to ask me to leave Braehead and bar me from the premises."

A spokesman for Strathclyde Police said:

"We have received a complaint about this incident. A full review of the circumstances and allegation is under way."

A Braehead spokesman said:

"Staff at an ice cream stall became suspicious after they saw a shopper taking photographs at their counter. The staff thought the man had also been taking photographs of them and they alerted one of the security staff.

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."

(Thanks to Jupiter and Ashfield for first raising this story.)

Update on 13th Oct 2011
Official Statement from Strathclyde Police

See also the 'Boycott Braehead' Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-Brae...288861364476077

GG.

[Heather]

I read about this in the newspapers today and could not believe that it went as far as calling in the Police. All because a dad took a picture of his wee girl eating an ice cream.

It was a downright disgrace, and the man certainly deserve's an apology from all those involved in that farce.

[wombat]

i voted yes,doubt he will get an apology though

[JAGZ1876]

I bet security would have turned a blind eye if it had been a group of neds taking photo's.

[**Kenny**]

Unfortunately shop premises (and therefor shopping centres) have the right to refuse anyone entry, they also have the power to set rules for those within their premises to abide by, it is not a public place. Having said this the shopping centre should publish these 'rules' clearly and in plain sight (not just on their website) if they intend on enforcing them. Even then this list does not have to be exhaustive, i.e you dont have to have a rull against slaughtering a pig in the forcourt should someone be slungout because they were doing it, breach of the peace can be anywhere

You would think that we, as members of the public, have the right not to be photographed, but you would be wrong, you have the right not to be stalked or harassed, but if someone were to take my picture even where capturing my image was its sole intent, isnt illegal. I would however have the ability to go to the police and/or to request that this picture be deleted. If you are in a public place, there is a right implied to photograph you, unless of course you are a minor. If you or anyone else feels threatened by the behavour of another person you should definately have the right to contact security/police and in this heightened state of alert where we are requested to be vigilant against those who seek to do us harm, then i was see an implicit requirement to make known anyone who appears to be acting suspiciously especially in an area that has children. Would the shopping centre not be accountable if this person was able to take photographs of a child and possibly harass a minor. Was he wearing a big DADDY sign above his head.

This brings me neatly on to my last point, yes he was taking photos of his child, yes this was all perfectly innocent, but i for one am on the side of the centre staff as well as the dad, because they have a DUTY to approach anyone who is acting suspiciously. I for one would question how this exchange took place and what was said when the disgruntled parent told the staff to mid their own beeswax, thent he dutyful security guard who then acted within their power to stick it to him, ... QUESTION EVERYTHING, NOTHING IS AS IT SEEMS!

[Jupiter]

I read the reports today and sent an email to Braehead entitled,"Damage Limitation" suggesting the management review their policy on photography and also issue an apology to the man and his child and invite them back to the centre.Five minutes ago I see they have done exactly that.
I am delighted that they have finally bowed to public pressure.My remaining concern now is the stance the Police officers took.I think they may be too cosy with security staff there so it must be time for Police staff rotation.

[Alex MacPhee]

The police officer is talking balderdash. He has no powers to order the destruction of photographs. This requires a court order. A shopping centre can have a no photography policy if it is private property, however, this is a matter of civil law, not criminal law, and the police have no powers to enforce civil law.

Moreover, it is arguable that if the man was being held under terrorist legislation, and was instructed to delete the photographs, then that would be tantamount to destroying evidence, which is itself a serious offence.

[TeeHeeHee]

If an establishment concerned about security within it's premises doesn't wish photographs to be taken there, it should have a notice to this effect clearly displayed for all who enter to see.

[wombat]

they're too busy taking footage of everywan else tae bother

[TeeHeeHee]

Right Wombat. The father should have said, "You started it!"

[Jazzsaxman]

You couldn't write this stuff. Where on earth do they get these morons from.

[*Guest*]

Section 44 in relation to photographers

The most commonly encountered use of the Act was outlined in Section 44 which enables the police and the Home Secretary to define any area in the country as well as a time period wherein they could stop and search any vehicle or person, and seize "articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism". Unlike other stop and search powers that the police can use, Section 44 does not require the police to have "reasonable suspicion" that an offence has been committed, to search an individual.

In 2009, over 100,000 searches were conducted under the powers, but none of these resulted in people being arrested for terrorism offences. 504 were arrested for other offences.

In January 2010 the stop-and-search powers granted under Section 44 were ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights. It held that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated in the case of two people stopped in 2003 outside the ExCeL convention centre in London, which at the time was hosting a military equipment exhibition. The Court found the powers were "not sufficiently circumscribed" and lacked "adequate legal safeguards against abuse", over-ruling a 2003 High Court judgement upheld at the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords.

The government intends to replace the powers under section 44 with new powers in the Protection of Freedoms Bill, but in the interim Home Secretary Theresa May has made a remedial order under the Human Rights Act 1998 (the Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial) Order 2011), which has the effect of repealing sections 44, 45, 46 and most of section 47.
Problematic use of Section 44 powers has not been restricted to political protestors; according to reports, journalists, amateur and professional photographers, trainspotters, politicians and children have been subject to stop and search under suspicion of being involved in terrorist activities while engaged in lawful acts such as photography. The taking of photographs in public spaces is permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (freedom of panorama), and while the Terrorism Act does not prohibit such activity, critics have alleged misuse of the powers of the Act to prevent lawful photography.

Vernon Coaker, the Minister of State stated on 20 April 2009 that, "counter-terrorism measures should only be used for counter-terrorism purposes".

In December 2009, the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) issued a warning to police chiefs to stop using Section 44 powers to target photographers, whether tourists, amateurs or professionals, stating that the practice was "unacceptable".

See also Section 47A.

[andyguinness]

A police state is not far off. A friends son was stopped and asked not to take photographs outside a shop, he was doing a school project also one requires written permission to take wedding photographs in a public park.

[Heather]

Apparently there is a notice forbidden the taking of photographs, but as Jupiter said, it was announced on the 10'0'clock news tonight the shop manager has apologised and taking photographs will be allowed in future.

I wonder if it ever dawned on the owners of the shop that they have a CCTV system taking everyone's picture without their permission.

[wombat]

they're too busy taking footage of everywan else tae bother

heather sez:
I wonder if it ever dawned on the owners of the shop that they have a CCTV system taking everyone's picture without their permission.

i totally agree heather,mind you i dont mind having my picture taken me being so handsome

Attached thumbnail(s)