"Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-15236758

Security staff -and then the police - became involved when a man was spotted taking pictures of his own daughter at an ice cream stall at the Braehead shopping centre near Glasgow.

The security guard demanded he delete his photos and called in Strathclyde's finest when the man refused. After threatening to confiscate the phone under anti-terrorism legislation, the police eventually left him alone taking no further action.

However, the perhaps inevitable 'boycott Braehead' campaign has now gone viral and the shopping centre has a PR disaster on its hands. :D Bunch of flaming muppets.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Apparently it was all down to some muppet working at the Ice Cream stand that called security because a 'man' was taking a photo of a little girl. I mean come on, why suddenly is every bloke now a potential paedo! Its blooming ridiculous.

So if I go to Braehead at the weekend and take a photo of my 13yr old step daughter would I be reported? Makes my blood boil.

The security guard also claimed it was illegal to take photos in the centre, however they may have signs up asking you not to take photos, its not actually illegal in anyway.

The Police also acted in a really over the top way, citing the anti-terrorism laws. It used to be perfectly fine for photographers to go around taking pictures of anything but now its really scary.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

/Wonders whether Derek was involved ... :erm: :D

I have loads of photos of my children at Braehead, including my daughter at the Build a Bear workshop last year. And a video, for that matter. Didn't see any security guards, but I can't help thinking what might have happened had I been seen acting like a terrorist on a Sunday afternoon out with my family.

They really are a shower of morons and they richly deserve the publicity kicking they are getting right now.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Just noticed the BBC story has a few errors. Most noticabley the wee girl was referred to as Hazel but later in the story as Holly, lmao! Great proof reading there!

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Well, it's the most read story on the BBC, is adding about 20 'likes' per minute on the farcebook (almost 3,800 so far) and #BraeheadFail is racing up the charts on Twitter. So far, all Braehead has managed to do is to issue a rather pathetic statement bleating about being safe rather than sorry and completely failing to apologise in any way whatsoever.

The Braehead shopping centre is delivering a masterclass in how not to do crisis PR at the moment.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

I wish someone in govt would clear up once and for all what is and isn't allowed, I suspect half the problems are that no one really knows, so they err on the side of caution.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

A number of people have posted advice in the Boycott Braehead Facebook group. This is something that photographers now seem to face with depressing regularity. There is some good info here, including a cut-out-and-keep "know your rights" card the next time an over-zealous copper says he's thinking of dealing with you as a suspected terrorist whilst you're trying to enjoy a quiet ice cream sundae with your four-year-old daughter.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.ne...hts-in-the-uk/

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

I suppose the question then becomes whether or not Braehead Shopping Centre is a 'public space'. I suspect it's not, so it would potentially remain a grey area.

Well done to Mr. white though for sticking to his guns. I suspect many members of the public would simple have complied with the guard/police to avoid the hassle.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

As my son has found out, even if you've done nothing wrong, once a police officer mentions the terrorism act and you refuse to cooperate, you're risking being taken down to the station, held for several hours and intimately strip searched.

Photography in a public space can be a minefield. Although I carry a note similar to the one referred to above (thanks for the link), my wife sometimes gets very nervous when I get my camera out in the street and there's a possibility of people being in shot.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Oh no they didn't. ;)

I wasn't involved but Ive heard from a very reliable source the guys story has only a vague relationship with the truth.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

If any copper arrested me over this I would make sure that the child I was with would NOT leave my side, I'ld say "How do I know you are not going to put her with a Paedo, and that I don't give a dam about any so called 'checks' that have been done as they only say thay haven't been caught of doing anything wrong."

I reckon that I've had more security checks that the avearge PC. (I not only had a full background check, plus it included my family and familes family.)

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

It shouldn't be. There is nothing against the law when taking photos in public. You usually dont need people's permission unless you are taking a photo for business use or public display.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

I do hope that's the case. In all honesty I have difficulty understanding why the polis spent more than 30 seconds on this. Braehead is private property and once it was clear that no criminal disturbance was underway they should have just cleared off and let the centre's own staff deal with what is 'a civil matter'.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

What's more likely? That the Police got involved as the guy was being a twonk with security who were investigating a legitimate concern (not involving his daughter) and when he started getting "I pay your wages", put him in his place and left him to it or they got involved with an honest belief he was an undercover suicide bomber.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

He had every right to be a "twonk" - its about time people stopped sticking there noses in where they dont belong. If taking photos is legal, there was no need for anyone to have done or said anything.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Depends on what or who he was taking photos of. If your children were having someone take photos of them would you be happy?

And if the police or security asked the photographer what he was doing in a non aggressive, non confrontational attitude and the photographer kicked off would you be happy if they just walked away leaving him ranting and snapping photos?

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

What concern was there other than the photos of his daughter? As Paul said, he has every right to be a twonk, especially when faced by one (the security guard who lacked the brain cells to establish that the man was photographing his daughter on an afternoon out at the shops).

Having waited patiently for the police to arrive - which he was under absolutley no obligation to do - I would also have been pretty cheesed off if the officers attending had failed to very quickly establish that there was nothing happening worth their time and attention.

Unless the man concerned was demonstrably doing something completely other than what has been reported, it's truly difficult to see any other way of reading this story.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

I take it from that question you would not be happy. Can I ask why? I can understand people not being happy with photos taken of their kids at the beach or the swimming pool, but in full view of anyone with eyes in a public place, why not? It's this kind of faux, misplaced paranoia that causes all this bloomin' media frenzy, and the Police think they have a duty to uphold ridiculous complaints, often to be embarrassed by doing so.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Is this a trick question?

I don't care where it happens, if anyone tries to take a photo of a child of mine without asking me first I will happily get in their face over it.

However if I am seen taking a photo of a child of mine I have no problem being challenged over it but once I'd made it clear I am her father then security had better back down and leave me alone.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

The man in question has just given a very good account of himself on the BBC Scotland lunchtime news. He doesn't seem aggressive or obnoxious. Quite the opposite in fact. If it's any judge of character, he's also known to be a member of a knitting group that meets regularly at The Life Craft in Glasgow's West End, close to Byres Road, that well-known hotbed of agitation, skinny lattes and wholemeal cupcakes.

But who knows, Al-Quaeda could be developing a highly dangerous crochet-based explosive that goes critical when combined with strawberry ice cream. Nowhere's safe.

---------- Post added at 14:14 ---------- Previous post was at 14:10 ----------

... and now the Chartered Institute of Public Relations is holding up Braehead as an example of how *not* to do crisis PR.

http://conversation.cipr.co.uk/posts...edia-disasters

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Behave.
I acknowledge your rep is to be lofty and confrontational, but there's no need to be derisive. My question to Derek did not justify it.

OK, now why? You understand the scenario here is one of taking pictures of kids who happen to end up in or in the background of a photo and not someone walking up to stand in front of them and asking them to pose?
Let's not confuse what would be an uncommon situation with one that we're discussing - someone taking a pic in a public place where others may be caught in the shot.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Hmm. Seems to me that if you are out and about in a public place, you cannot avoid being photographed, nor do you have any right to stop someone from doing so. Being an adult or a child doesn't really come into it. I really don't understand the obsession over this. In fact, going about your daily business, you are quite likely to be filmed several times a day.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

My 'rep' is to be protective as a parent. I found your comment to be laughable.

You have not mentioned photos with 'kids in the background' until now. You just said in full view in a public place. If you mean a picture with children in the background then you ought to make that clear.

If a picture of any of kids was taken in that context I probably would not feel so strongly however I would need to judge the situation on its merit.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

The 'context' is within the thread, surely. The topic subject is what we're discussing. If you refuse to see that and insist on making comments based upon what you decide I have said or implied, then that's up to you. But you're splitting hairs here, and have egg on your face.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Can we perhaps not lose sight of the point here: the photos in question were of the man's daughter and nobody else. Any suggestion from the ice cream stall staff that the man may have been some sort of pervert or terrorist are utterly bogus because:

1. Presumably someone at the stall took payment from the man for the ice cream, so they knew he was with the child
2. There is demonstrably nobody in the background in either of the pictures that have now been splashed liberally across the entire internet
3. Even if the idiots behind the counter of the ice cream stall failed to grasp all of this, any security guard capable of delivering any meaningful security should have had the wit and intelligence to establish these basic facts within seconds of his arrival on the scene.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Really? Let's take a look.

Derek asked:

You then took the tone that anyone being annoyed or upset at that would be overreacting.

You apparently took Dereks' question to mean "a photo with the child in the background". I think the rest of us took it to mean a direct picture of the child. I realise that as you're not a parent you don't understand the protective nature of parenthood. If it was a 'background' picture I most likely would not care. But a direct picture? I have a problem with that.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

...and I still think we're losing sight of the fact that this is not what happened in this case. In this case, to quote the article from the CIPR:

http://conversation.cipr.co.uk/posts...edia-disasters

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

"The rest of us"? How do you come to that conclusion?
There's only me and you talking about it? Let's not do the 'get people on side' thing, please.

Well, either way, you now know what I meant.
If that wasn't obvious to you given the topic we were discussing, then that's unfortunate.
I am a parent. And I've been one for a lot longer than you have. Again, no need for those sort of words. I'm not rising to any further baiting Russ - I've seen how these things get out of hand and there's only ever one winner.

I'm with Chris, and taking his gentle nudge to stay within.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Seems to me that the CIPR have a lesson or two to learn as well:

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

(sigh)

The topic is about a photo taken directly of a child. You chose to take it a different direction. And if you really are a parent then you're the first I've ever encountered with that sort of approach.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Bah, PROs are as hopeless at spelling as anyone else. When I took my writing test prior to getting a job in a press office I found more errors in the 'badly written' media release than the department head thought she'd put in there. ;)

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Oh, absolutely (and we all make mistakes). However, as the self-proclaimed experts on PR they have no excuse :)

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

and I would happily tell you where to go.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

If that would be your stance after taking a direct picture of my child without permission then you and I would have a situation on our hands :)

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

:D

http://newsthump.com/2011/10/10/scot...ce-cream-plot/

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

I've been a parent for 27 years.Not once have I ever objected to anyone taking photos of my children as I did not view it as being perverted.Should I have done?And why should I have done?The actual act of taking a photo of a child is not in it's self perverted.

Of course it is what those photos might be used for that worries I suppose but then we could prevent people from doing all sorts of everyday things because of what could potentially happen.We could stop people driving because there maybe an accident.We could stop people sky diving because they might die.

It's about where you draw the line.Personally I think it should be when someone tries to photograph your teenage daughter when naked NOT when they are out and about in a crowd at the shopping centre or at the playground.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

It's paranoid idiotic stupid people that cause the media frenzy that puts the country in this state to begin with.

Common sense? what's that then.

With any luck enough media noise will rumble from this that some aspiring politician will pin this down once and for all.

Without doubt, enough media's becoming involved that it will very visibly highlight this issue it'll be interesting to see what (if anything) happens moving forward.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

If someone takes a picture of a public place, such as a shopping centre etc and my daughter just happens to in the fore/background then that is quite different and I see no real issue with that.

However that is not what this thread is about - it was a direct picture of a child, no ambiguity that she was the focal point of it just like 95% of all picture I take these days, my daughter features in them.

If someone took a photo of her without my permission, a photo where she is clearly the focal point then I would be asking why a grown adult (male or female) would find my child so interesting as to want to take a picture of her and why the need to be secretive enough to not bother asking me first.

If it was a case of them finding her 'cute' in an innocent way I would be cautious enough to insist that I appear in the picture with her.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

However, apart from common courtesy, there is nothing stopping someone from taking a direct picture of another person in a public place. You may not like it if it were to happen, but by being in a public place, you give others the right to take pictures of you, and the same applies to your daughter.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

I'm just sick of feeling uncomfortable of even taking a picture of my OWN kid in the park, school event or elsewhere that's public, because you're worried about what the people around you might think. Years ago (yes I am that old) this was never an issue, or even thought about, now you're walking on eggs all the time trying to find the right PC line. Makes me sick.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

I don't think I've suggested they'd be doing anything illegal.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Russ I don't know why you keep champing on. Do you seriously think some stranger is going to come up to you and your child and deliberately take a 'direct' picture of your kid, with you being there and not saying something/asking permission?

Really... How likely do you think that is?

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Derek mentioned it in post #16, I'm responding to it.

A few years back there was a story where a guy was in a cafe in Dublin with his one year old child in a pushchair. He turned around for a second and when he looked back some Fillipino bloke was standing in front of the kid taking pictures of her. The father grabbed the Fillipino and asked in no uncertain terms what he was up to, to which he replied "I like, I like".

Apparently in some Fillipino cultures taking unsolicited pictures of other peoples' kids is perfectly acceptable. I've no idea what happened to that guy but I find it very worrying.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Do you remember this guy given a fine for blowing his nose? :rolleyes: He got his 5 minutes on BBC breakfast and held up as an example of over zealous policing. He seemed perfectly reasonable and plausible as well.
He was talking pants of course and there was far more to the story than he said.

We have heard one side of the story, obviously the guy who started it isn't going to say he did anything wrong, and the Police can't come straight out and say he's missing big chunks out of the events.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

So much so that the case was dropped?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...st/8539682.stm

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

LOL not exactly the best case to use as an example.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Dropped by the PF despite protests by the Police who issued a press release clearly stating there was more to the story than had been reported.

Cases get dropped all the time for various reasons. My point stands, this has all come from one man whose version of events has been accepted without any question or corroboration.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Agreed, Wonder how long before they start the apologies and back tracking.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

It needs to be soon, everything further they have added thus far, is just digging the hole deeper.

This is the shopping centres facebook page:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Braehe...08688469185420

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Yes, and that's all we know, so it's not that obvious the guy was talking utter pants at all. All we have is a claim there was more to it, and the fact that the case was dropped does not give a lot of weight to that claim.

The fact that the fine was handed out by PC 'shiny buttons' Stuart Gray who earlier fined a man £50 for dropping a £10 note doesn't help credibility either.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/dri...cle7007172.ece

True, but I'm not so sure if the police grapevine is necessarily a more trustworthy source.

---------- Post added at 18:40 ---------- Previous post was at 16:56 ----------

Interview with Mr. White on youtube. As has been said: he seems eminently reasonable.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Corroboration is important in the Scottish legal system, but it doesn't reverse the basic principle that someone is innocent until proven guilty.

No corroboration, no conviction. Simple as. Mr White is under no obligation to corroborate his story. As the one against whom insinuations have been made he is under no obligation to say anything. Those that suggested he may have done wrong are the ones that need to either put up or shut up.

I have no doubt that a different version of events is doing the rounds on the police grapevine, but let's face it, if the pair of officers attending have got their fingers burnt by bad publicity because they jumped in with their size 10s rather than simply declining to get involved in a pointless fracas between a shopper and a moronic security guard, they have probable cause for telling the story in a way that paints them as the model of restraint.

---------- Post added at 19:19 ---------- Previous post was at 19:07 ----------

STV news interview

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-cen...-his-daughter/

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Shopping centers are not public places ,If the center in question has signs saying no photography then that is how it is ,they probably have signs saying no bikes or skateboards as well .Whatever the reasoning behind the camera ban (and it does seem a bit OTT to me) shoppers have to abide by it .How did the ice cream vendor know it was a father and daughter? ,how did the police ?they were just doing their job ,and we would vilify them if they didn't do it properly and a child was abducted or put on a peodo site because it was ignored .It could quite easily have turned out to be a case of abduction ,maybe if someone had paid a bit more attention then half the kids that are missing wouldn't be missing

It is a sad indictment of the world we live in that people are suspicious of a man and a little girl but it is the world we live in .And i have no doubt that the father was being a absolute twonk to the security staff

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

They could have asked....

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Bollards, Marty.

There may be signs, but taking photos in defiance of them is worth a warning to desist at the absolute most.

If the concern was the taking of photos in defiance of a sign prohibiting them, then it is in absolutely no way, shape or form a police matter. For the police to attend the security guard must have suggested that a crime had been, or might be about to be, committed. For the police to continue questioning the man for 20-25 minutes as he says they did, they must have had some reasonable suspicion also.

Yet here we are three days later and there is no clarity whatsoever on exactly what Braehead thinks Chris White was up to, other than the disastrous press statement they issued this morning claiming that (despite their blanket photo ban) they don't mind *innocent* families taking pictures. Spot the disgraceful smear implicit in that remark.

Here's two of my children, photographed by me in Build-a-Bear Workshop at Braehead in 2010. Someone want to phone the polis?

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/at...1&d=1318271902

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

There also is the issue that (according to the STV interview) they actually let him leave without checking it was his daughter. So if there were any child safety concerns, they failed miserably at addressing those.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Again utter guff. For one thing Police where he work can't hand out fixed penalties for littering. Again this was one story where someone went to the papers and their story was taken at face value.
The real story there was guy dropped a tenner and other papers, he was handed the money back and blatantly dropped the paperwork as the cop was walking away.

They haven't got burned as their identities aren't widely known. Yet. :) If someone is causing a minor disturbance in a busy shopping centre and the Police are contacted by the security guards they can't very well ignore the request.
If they then intervene, tell the person exactly why they are there and he ignores them they might have to be a bit more forceful in their manner.

He wasn't arrested or detained, he was given words of advice. The cops at Braehead aren't rookies straight out of college, they know what they are doing and I believe them when I'm told their version of events.

The other thing that makes me think this guy is being a bit light on the truth is some of the stuff he mentions is based on English law and not Scots law, he might have just done some Internet based research before writing his letter but I'm still dubious.

Anyway what'll probably happen is the original complainer will get a few more media interviews, will get a big basket of goodies from Braehead and the Police will tell him they're sorry he felt the Police intimidated him and the officers have been spoken to.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

[

They probably did Russ :rolleyes: not that asking achieves anything people do lie you know especially the kind of people these rules are meant to deal with .At the end of the day as far as the police and the centers' staff where concerened he could have been anybody acting in a percieved suspicious way with a young child ,what else are they supposed to do ,ignore it and wait for "child abducted from shopping center" story then turn round and say "well we saw them having ice cream ,he was acting a bit suspicious but we just ignored it".We ask people like security guards and police to do these jobs and then go nuts at them when they do it .

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Yet, at no stage was the man asked, by security or by the police, if the girl was his daughter. This I imagine is because the girl was calling him 'daddy' and turning to him for reassurance whilst various uniformed goons made her life a misery.

Whatever this was about, it wasn't child protection - not her protection in any case.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Derek, what should he have done in this case?
I'm asking because it would be nice to have actual clarity about what the actual offence was..so we all know what to avoid in a similar situation.:erm:

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

20-25 minutes??? I hadn't heard that one before. Again his credibility isn't going up much. 5-10 is far, far realistic.

Nope. If there are other photos of the female staff inside that could be another matter...

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

I'm pretty Derek is professionally constrained from saying anything specific, even if he has a pretty good idea what the officers attending believed was going on. The top brass seem to be taking an interest in this story now.

---------- Post added at 19:46 ---------- Previous post was at 19:44 ----------

The claim is in his interview with STV, linked a few posts upwards.

I definitely have a picture with a young female member of staff in it. But my daughter and my parents-in-law are in the foreground so that makes it ok. :D

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Erm ok. I'm quite happy to accept that that story wasn't all it was made out to be (I actually tried looking for a reputable source for that one, I thought the Times wouldn't stoop so low). However, the fact remains that for the example you quoted, we only have a claim by the police that there was more to it than that. Apparently, the PF did not have much confidence in that claim as the case was dropped.

I can fully understand that your loyalties lie with the police, but I have to say as a regular member of the public (and not someone with an axe to grind over the police), this case and the example you quote do look a lot like overzealous policing, and I'm not quite prepared to not entertain that notion on the basis of what goes round on the police grapevine.

I'm sure you'll agree that if there was overzealous policing, this is not good for the police as a whole.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Chris White appears to have had a formal, written apology - this is on the 'Boycott Braehead' Facebook page:

'Peter', I assume, is the centre's General Manager, Peter Beagley.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Bollards yerself ,lets not be so naive as to think that members of staff at a shopping center will get involved in a situation such as this without just cause ,most people are just too damn lazy and fully fledged members of the "it's not my job" brigade so i have no doubt whatsoever that the staff felt justified in checking and when the father started being a twonk they phoned the cops because it's "not their job" to deal with unruly fathers who object to staff doing what they are told by their employers ,clearly a case of the father was shouting at the wrong people

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Au contraire, Blackadder - the claim is that the guard tried to tell the man to delete the pictures and got mightily cheesed off when he (quite rightly) refused. It is all too common for the uniform to go to someone's head. The guard should have just left it but obviously his ego wasn't about to let him do that. He just had to be the big man and as a result he's set in train a ridiculous series of events.

---------- Post added at 20:17 ---------- Previous post was at 19:56 ----------

Apology is now on the Braehead website:

http://www.braehead.co.uk/Whats-on/N...-Policy-Change

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Actually according to Mr White the guard got "cheesed off" when he was told that some of images had been uploaded to facebook which unless i am mistaken and given the percieved suspicion ,that immediately makes it a police matter who must investigate any suspicions ,and they did for about 20-25mins (more likely 10-15mins)obviously they found everything in order and left .Now the shopping center have realised that their photo policy is in conflict with there desire to promote family days and events so have changed it ,good news all round
Mr White ,in his interview says that he will never shop there again ,i bet he does though ;)

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

No, it is not a police matter when photos are taken in breach of policy in force at private premises. It is not a police matter when photos taken in breach of policy end up on Facebook, or plastered on the side of a double decker bus.

It would be a police matter if there was reasonable suspicion of an offence being committed. None of the above counts as an offence. The outstanding question is, what did security tell the police was going down in order to get them involved?

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

That is the question and one must assume that the police where told something that led them to believe a offence was being committed or they would have just told the staff that it was a civil matter .We live in a suspicious world Chris ,mostly of our own making and we really shouldn't whinge when the fruits of our own suspicion and paranoia bite us up the jacksy.
I am happy it all turned out ok ,i am happy that Mr White didn't turn out to be peodo,child abductor or terrorist and i am happy that the shopping center has changed it's policy on cameras to something approaching normality and i love the way the center has they will "apologise properly":D ,is that a typo and do they mean formerly ?:D

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

And what matter would that be?

You can legally take a picture of whoever you like in public.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

I speculate, but, from his accent I think he is English. He wouldnt be the first immigrant from down south. ;)

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

I work in an shopping outlet and we have a no photograph policy but staff are told to use a common sense approach to it. If we see someone with a couple of cameras strapped around them taking pics of the shops then we have a polite word pointing out the policy and the signs but we dont ask them to delete or anything, just to stop.
If we see families/fathers/mothers/ friends just taking general snaps then nothing is said.
Re the above policy concerning the shops themselves, the reason is you`d be surprised how many rivals send people out to photograph the displays and buildings.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Indeed, same reason it's hell on earth to do any sort of price comparison research in stores. People instantly think you're working for the competition spying on them if you so much as write a price down.

However their only legal response is to get you to leave the premises. They can't prevent you taking pictures, or have the pictures you've taken deleted. The only offence is one of trespass.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

shopping malls aren't public though so you would need the owners permission

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Just ignore all this crap. don't let them make you as paranoid as they are.
I make a point of taking pics of my niece in the park. and if anyone says anything I just swear at them and tell them to go away before I do smomething silly.

we're all being driven mad in this day and age, and I fear that it's only me that's going to pull through at the end of it all.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Were you there, or are you just speculating? based on what information?
Why only female staff? Is it all right to take pictures of blokes at work?
What on earth does that have to do with anything?

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

That's the second sensible post by Gary in as many months. Something is seriously wrong. :D

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

It's the End Of Days!!!!!:shocked:

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Yeah, but what have the Mayans ever done for us :rolleyes:

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

I'm feeling ok though, so it can't be that bad.

but seriously if they didn't lift the ban and everyone and their daughters and sons were to go in there and take photos, it would make a mockery of all this stupid taking photos of 'children' thing. that's all it is. either 'terrorism' or 'paedophiles'

and we feel guilty over it because society makes us feel guilty. we allow society to make us feel guilty.
if you're not a paedo or a terrorist then why are you scared to take your camera out? because you're a sheep?
what's the worst that can happen. you get a marker for having the police being called out because you don't tow the line of paranoia?

tell them to get stuffed before it's all too late. go out there and take pics galore. be a man for once in your pathetic little life! :)

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Careful now. There's a limit to the amount of sensibleness I can take from you :)

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Derek said earlier that the man had made some comments that sounded like his understanding of law was English rather than Scottish. He speculated that the man might have been Googling to get himself some legal understanding, but ended up reading English rather than Scottish legal pages. I suggested that, instead, given the man's accent, it might simply be that he is English.

Do try to keep up. ;)

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Says the scouser.... Admittedly, Liverpool is a lot nearer Scotland than the south of England, but it's still south of the border..

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

They aren't public property, they are however most definitely public places.

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a shopping mall, ergo photography is not illegal.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

which would be why I said it ... ;)

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

"The staff thought the man had also been taking photographs of them and they alerted one of the centre's security staff."

I'm not sure why there's been a discussion about taking photos of your child in public. Perhaps I'm going mad.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Another 'Chinese Whispers' thread.;)

I doubt we will ever really know the 'truth' of the matter.:rolleyes:

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Possibly because the content of the photos was established very quickly and yet the man was still subjected to a talking-to by an officious security guard and the police.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Things have taken a sinister twist:

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-cen...ted-by-police/

If proven to be false that member of staff ought to be sued AND prosecuted.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

So if you walk around with your flies undone you are automatically assumed to some sort of sexual miscreant?

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

I'm a bit confused, pictures of his daughter or of the member of staff? the quote is ambiguous

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

As I mentioned right back at the start of the thread. One person saying something doesn't make it the truth.

---------- Post added at 14:48 ---------- Previous post was at 14:40 ----------

Who says it's the member of staff that needs to be worried about getting prosecuted? Just saying...

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

I dunno, so lets say his flies were undone.. You know, sometimes I've not noticed my flies were undone, does that make me a criminal?

Unless his dick was hanging out, I reckon you'd be hard pressed to prove that his 'flies were undone deliberately' and if they were, what's the charge? 'flies undone' doesn't really cut it, its hardly indecent exposure.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Public order offence? You can pretty much get done for a public order offence if you wear socks that don't match, so that's always a safe bet.

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Chinese whispers thread..;)

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

[QUOTE=Derek;35314982]As I mentioned right back at the start of the thread. One person saying something doesn't make it the truth.

----------QUOTE]

I'm amazed that some posters in this thread (who should know better )have jumped to so many conclusions .We have seen it hundreds of times in past threads where a news story has been quoted and pretty much the opposite has been shown to be true ,i' not saying that is the case here but it was blatently obvious from the original story that there was more to this than originally printed

you might make the olympics if you jump to conclusions a bit higher :rolleyes:

remember other members of the public have complained as well


from Russ' link

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

Question.Did anyone tell him his flies were undone at any point?

Because I would have said something.;)

Re: "Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity
 

If it's suspect when a man taking pictures of his daughter has his fly open. does that mean the equivalent for a woman is having an extra button on her blouse undone, or will we go by her skirt being shorter than an agreed length?

and will the paranoid get confused and flappy if the child is the same sex as the defendant?