"Boycott Braehead" campaign over yet more anti-photographer stupidity - Page 5

**Chris** · 10-10-2011, 18:46

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 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek

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

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

Quote:

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

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.

danielf · 10-10-2011, 18:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek

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.

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.

**Chris** · 10-10-2011, 18:52

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

Quote:

Dear Mr White

I am writing to formally apologise for the distress that we may have caused you and your family when you visited Braehead last Friday.

As you may be aware, in light of your complaint and the public debate surrounding the incident, we have decided to change our photography policy to allow family and friends to take photos in the mall.

Once again, I wish to sincerely apologise for any distress we may have caused,

Kind regards

Peter

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

10-10-2011, 18:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

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?

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

**Chris** · 10-10-2011, 19:17

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

Quote:

We have listened to the very public debate surrounding our photography policy and as a result, with immediate effect, are changing the policy to allow family and friends to take photos in the mall.
We will publicise this more clearly in the mall and on our website, and will reserve the right to challenge suspicious behaviour for the safety and enjoyment of our shoppers.
We wish to apologise to Mr White for the distress we may have caused to him and his family and we will be in direct contact with him to apologise properly.

10-10-2011, 19:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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

**Chris** · 10-10-2011, 19:26

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?

10-10-2011, 19:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

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?

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"

,is that a typo and do they mean formerly ?

TheDon · 10-10-2011, 20:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek

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

And what matter would that be?

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

**Chris** · 10-10-2011, 20:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek

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

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

blackthorn · 10-10-2011, 21:11

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.

TheDon · 10-10-2011, 21:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthorn

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.

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.

10-10-2011, 21:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDon

And what matter would that be?

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

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

Gary L · 10-10-2011, 22:08

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.

KenK · 10-10-2011, 22:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek

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

Were you there, or are you just speculating? based on what information?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek

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

Why only female staff? Is it all right to take pictures of blokes at work?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

I speculate, but, from his accent I think he is English.

What on earth does that have to do with anything?