Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Braehead In Anti-terror Photo Row
Glasgow Boards/Forums > GG Discussions > Glasgow News Blog
Pages: 1, 2, 3
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.

Click to view attachment

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

A Braehead spokesman said:
QUOTE
"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."

Click to view attachment

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

QUOTE

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
rolleyes.gif i voted yes,doubt he will get an apology though dry.gif
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, ... smile.gif 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
smile.gif they're too busy taking footage of everywan else tae bother laugh.gif
TeeHeeHee
Right Wombat. The father should have said, "You started it!" laugh.gif
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. rolleyes.gif
wombat
QUOTE (wombat @ 10th Oct 2011, 11:14pm) *
smile.gif they're too busy taking footage of everywan else tae bother laugh.gif
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 smile.gif
Irene
I saw this on the news also and really wanted to just find somewhere where I could leave my own feelings on this as this is something I feel very strongly about. I think it is disgusting that an ordinary father should have been subjected to tactics by a state which you would associate with East German Stasi thugs. What world are we living in now? The whole place has went completely mad and now we have the heavy hand of the police on our shoulders telling us how we should behave with our own children who we are trying to bring up to respect the law.

Absolutely disgraceful! And to think that we should be expected to actually report our suspicions to clowns who just abuse their powers?

The only people to benefit from this are real criminals!!!
Alex MacPhee
QUOTE (*Kenny* @ 10th Oct 2011, 10:30pm) *
I would however have the ability to go to the police and/or to request that this picture be deleted.

What authority would the police have? The rules for photography in private places are not within the compass of criminal law(*), and the police have no powers whatever in civil law.
*duinemor*
I've seen this outlet with the gimmicky motor scotter seats - I won't be patronising it if this is how they behave.
Alex MacPhee
(*) Save where the photography itself is a criminal offence, as in obscene photographs of a minor, but that is a special case, and not applicable here.
GG
Here is Mr White in his own words:


GG.
Brian Miller
Well Braehead is now one destination that is now off of our list of places to take the kids at the weekend. It just would not feel right giving money to a place that has treated this man so nastily. I think we should congratulate a loving dad for taking a stand like he has. Well done sir!
droschke7
This whole thing is ludicrous, I've even seen a sign at the Clydebank Shoping Centre banning all Photography but they also still have CCTV Cameras all over. One thing that I can't understand is, what does any of this have to do with terrorism?
tamhickey
It seems to me that the police invoke the terrorism laws as a means to curtail our rights. It allows them carte blanche to stop and search without any obvious reason, as used to happen in Northern Ireland. I would have thought the police and security guards would have more to do making sure shoplifting wasn't taking place rather than harrassing a man taking innocent pics of his daughter.
I agree with the point that others have raised about CCTV cameras being used without asking shoppers for permission, yet for the rest of us, it seems it's not allowed. This makes you wonder why staff complained about one man taking photographs when they are being filmed constantly in whichever stores they work in. Also, I have been involved in filmmaking where people have to sign a release form in order to use their image in film, and you have to apply to the various authorities involved for permission to shoot. I wonder if the staff at Braehead are given the same courtesy. It certainly doesn't apply to customers, does it?
Jupiter
I think the father Chris should be applauded for his stance and for making the whole incident public.
I think,but Ive no facts figures or data,that many individuals,members of the public would have rolled over and accepted what the no brainer security guard and Police officer said.Chris,by his actions has done a great deal in restoring rights of the individual to go about their business without fear of harrassment from petty trumped up chimps.
Give me my camera,Im going to Braehead!
littlealison
Seems like no-one is allowed to be innocent these days.

My daughter yesterday was hauled in by security in Wilkinson's in Oxford, the man insisted she had been on their camera before and been banned from the shop. Of course it wasn't her, when they checked, and she will probably get an apology, but she feels humiliated - in front of neighbours - and I told her to ask for compensation.

I hadn't been aware of a camera there before this.....

Guest
These 'security guards' are nothing more than bored underpaid jobsworths. Why don't they spend their time sorting out the violent drunks instead of picking on dads trying to have a bit of quality time with their daughters. Sad.
irrie
Morning all. Braehead has now changed this policy pics are allowed. Cheers
TeeHeeHee
QUOTE (littlealison @ 11th Oct 2011, 06:13am) *
... I told her to ask for compensation.

I was leaving a store over here when all the bells started ringing and everyone turned to see who was making off with a stolen item. I just raised my hands, laughing, in a "DONT SHOOT" pose.
The cashier had missed a tag. rolleyes.gif
I was given a voucher for 5 (90 cents short of a packet of fags rolleyes.gif )
chas1937
It happens everywhere as 2 weeks ago I was at a Dog Agility Show in a centre in Bishopton and was stopped by Security.They wanted to know had I permission but when I told them it was just my friends dogs I was photographing it was OK.So it would appear that security is on a HIGH just now as that has never happened to me before.
thepaperboy
is it no aboot time the polis went oot and did there reel job,a would like tae know wit the polis really dae noo
jack j
i bet they would have said nothing if it had been a muslim or coloured family involved
jack j
it seems it's too much like hard work to chase real criminals these days
tombro
I saw this on the Daily Record site last night and now, tonight, I'm still looking at my calendar and wondering why it doesn't say 'April 1, 2011' !

Isn't it so sad that, despite protestations for political and PC reasons from a few above, a Dad can't take a photograph of his wee daughter enjoying an ice-cream ?"

Tombro huh.gif huh.gif
frank Hopson
I am a Scot living in Poole and believe me the cops are just as stupid down here, as are some of the English judges. The cops want an easy job. Heaven forbid if they were to face 'real hard men,' My son had a similar experience in Southampton whilst photographing a young female model. I think the two cops involved just wanted a close up of the young lady.
*greta*
What is the world coming to if a dad cant take a photo of his wee girl, crazy. After all it wasent a military establishment for goodness sake. Talk about big brother.
Alex MacPhee
QUOTE (littlealison @ 11th Oct 2011, 07:13am) *
My daughter yesterday was hauled in by security in Wilkinson's in Oxford

It should be remembered that these 'security guards' don't have any special powers of arrest or detention. They are just ordinary people, and have no additional legal powers over anyone. Any powers of arrest they have are no more than the so-called citizen's arrest power that any other citizen has. They have no power to arrest or hold 'on suspicion', only a police officer has that.

PAUL DAVIDSON
QUOTE (JAGZ1876 @ 10th Oct 2011, 09:27pm) *
I bet security would have turned a blind eye if it had been a group of neds taking photo's.

WELL SAID SIR/MADAM FOR ABOVE COMMENT.
Wee-Sprokit
I have read this story in the newspaper and thought it was Rediculous that this guy was stopped from taking his daughters photo enjoying an Ice cream, Its what parents do! In fact i was Stopped from Taking a picture of my then 7mth old Grandson at the swimming baths, He was sitting in a little round 6ft baby pond and was the only one in it, Since it was his 1st time at the Baths i wanted to take a Picture, being a Proud Granny!!! but security came over and told me to Stop!! he even took my camera away and said i would get it on the way out, (which it did get) I asked him WHY?? couldnt i take a Picture?? he said because of the Paedofiles going about, taken photo's of kids ect!!! He said im NOT saying your a Paedo, but if we let 1 person do it, we have to let them all,,,,, I said does that apply to the beach??? as you never know who's taking pics of your kid ect! just got told thats nothing to do with me!!
But this story of the guy taken a photo of his daughter, who i made add was fully clothed, and no-one else was in the picture!! I think they are taking things too far, Especialy when there is camera's all over the shopping centre talking photo's and film of us, plus we cant say or do anything about it, What a sad world we're living in now!!! sad.gif
Jupiter
Just in from Braehead,much finger pointing and laughing at ice cream stand but very few purchasing,mind you the price of the stuff is exhorbitant.
rolleyes.gif
Alex MacPhee
QUOTE (Wee-Sprokit @ 11th Oct 2011, 02:50pm) *
he even took my camera away and said i would get it on the way out, ( which it did get) I asked him WHY??

You should be aware that he had no lawful authority or power to confiscate your camera, and no right whatsoever to take it from you. Unless there is reason to suspect your involvement in a criminal offence, even a police officer cannot do this. Next time something like this happens, refuse.
peter9000
The suggestion that this incident falls within a terrorist alert is simply the authoriies trying to justify their dreadful behaviour. The family involved were a 'soft' target and , as has already been said, would the same challenge have been made to a group of louts taking photos?

I think that Braehead centre will be aware that thousands of photographs are taken in the centre by patrons using cameras, phones, laptops and other media equipment. The police statement made following the incident was appalling - we need common sense as well as 'Common Law' to prevail.
Jupiter
Alex,Im glad you are taking the time to point out what can and cannot be done by these people.
I often wonder exactly what kind of selection process and training is involved.It seems to me that some firms hand out a uniform and radio and let them loose on a public who are only too happy to accept whatever they are told.
Jim D
There is a Police Office within Braehead Shopping Centre with a number of officers based there. The Police response times would have been impressive compared to anywhere else.

As for the Terrorism Act reference? It is an Act which is widely used for stop and search purposes in England and Wales and by British Transport Police. It is not as widely used in Scotland.

From what I read, the man was not DETAINED under ANY Act. He waited with security until the Police arrived. The officers made reference to the Terrorism Act and their powers in relation to them but stated they had no intention of invoking the powers - probably as they were not within their rights to use the Act on this occasion.

I find it difficult to fathom why the officer would make such a basic mistake as to refer to alleged powers to delete the image. Most officers are FULLY conversant with the powers of search in relation to this Act, especially as it has become more and more relevent. The officer would have the power to view the image under the Terrorism Act - not delete it. I suspect that the officer did not actually state he could delete it from the camera. I have heard Supt Nedley make reference to the incident but not to any misuse of Police Powers.

As much as I agree that the security officer was a jobsworth and the matter could have been dealt with differently, If I had been the person involved I would not have contacted the media under any circumstances and thereafter turn my day out with my child into a media frenzy.

frame
Give some people just a little power and they turn into dictators. The stupidity of these people who assume an authority they don't have is completely overwhelming at times.
As for constable plod and his mate who attended this farce... To be honest, I imagine most coppers are gifted with a lot more sense than these two.
I wonder what Taggart would have made of it all.
Jupiter
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.
Alex MacPhee
QUOTE (Jim D @ 11th Oct 2011, 04:28pm) *
As much as I agree that the security officer was a jobsworth and the matter could have been dealt with differently, If I had been the person involved I would not have contacted the media under any circumstances and thereafter turn my day out with my child into a media frenzy.

Different people will of course have differing perspectives on what would be the best course of action. But it is certainly clear here that the involvement of the media and the consequent bad publicity for Braehead has resulted in a very public change in and clarification of their policy on photography that is unlikely to have happened otherwise. You only have those freedoms you're prepared to defend.
Tommy Kennedy
I had a similar experience a few years ago. 'Roman soldiers' in Chester were puting on a display, surrounded by kids, including my 3 wee g/kids - me taking photos..
I was appproached by 'Park security'; telling me if it was a digi camera I would have to delete photos. I refused, said he'd send for cops - 'I'll wait' you gonna ask all these tourists taking photos to stop?'
No cops turned up
droschke7
QUOTE (Alex MacPhee @ 11th Oct 2011, 05:47pm) *
Different people will of course have differing perspectives on what would be the best course of action. But it is certainly clear here that the involvement of the media and the consequent bad publicity for Braehead has resulted in a very public change in and clarification of their policy on photography that is unlikely to have happened otherwise. You only have those freedoms you're prepared to defend.

this appears to be a bad case of "Traffic Warden Syndrom" otherwise known as "Little Hitler Syndrom"
Jupiter
Tommy,It wasnt the camera that drew their attention it was you dressed up as Nero with the toga and laurel crown. rolleyes.gif
Skeedaddle
It may appear harsh but there are perverts out there and sometimes overkill is the only policy that is left to the authorities to protect the rest of us, accept it, it is true.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.