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

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Strathclyde Police

People have been very quick to offer their opinions on this issue and were very keen to accept Mr White’s story as the only evidence that was available. Clearly this was not the case.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

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

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

[techguyone]

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.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by techguyone

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.

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.

Chinese whispers thread..

[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

Originally Posted by techguyone

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.

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

remember other members of the public have complained as well

“The members of the public who asked for the security staff to become involved have told us that they did so for reasons which had absolutely nothing to do with him taking photographs of his daughter. They had a very specific concern

from Russ' link

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

Because I would have said something.

[Gary L]

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?