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

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Paul M

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Derek

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.

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.

[Blackened]

Originally Posted by Derek

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

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.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Blackened

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?

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.

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

[Blackened]

Originally Posted by Russ

Is this a trick question?

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.

Originally Posted by Russ

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.

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.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Russ

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.

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.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Blackened

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.

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

Originally Posted by Blackened

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.

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.

[Blackened]

Originally Posted by Russ

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.

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.

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.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Blackened

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.

Really? Let's take a look.

Derek asked:

If your children were having someone take photos of them would you be happy?

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.

...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:

First he was detained by security staff and made to feel like a pervert. Next he was questioned by police and made to feel like a terrorist. Thirdly he was interviewed by traditional media and portrayed as a victim. Now he is being championed by social media and becoming a cause celebre.

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

[Blackened]

"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.

[danielf]

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

A lack of understating of digital and social media created a bone try tinder mix, so that all it took was a relatively minor flashpoint to set it smouldering.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Blackened

"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.

(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.