• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
    Register

Police called over man taking a picture of his daughter

Zet

Zet

7,690
Posts
16
Years
    • source
    A Facebook campaign is calling for people to boycott a shopping centre after claims a man was questioned by police for taking photographs of his own four-year-old daughter.

    Chris White took a picture of Hazel eating an ice cream in the Braehead shopping centre, near Glasgow.

    A security guard told him it was illegal to take pictures in the centre.

    A spokesperson for Braehead said it wanted to "maintain a safe and enjoyable environment" for shoppers.

    Mr White told BBC Scotland he was approached by a security guard after photographing his daughter "looking cute on the back of a vespa seat at an ice cream bar" at about 16:00 on Friday.

    He said the security guard asked him to delete any photos he had taken from his mobile phone.

    Terrorism Act

    Mr White explained that he had already posted two photos, in which his daughter was the only person in the shot, to Facebook.

    The police were called and Mr White was told there were "clear signs" saying no photographs were allowed.

    Mr White said that one officer claimed that under the Prevention of Terrorism Act he was within in his rights to confiscate the mobile phone on which the photos were taken.

    He said the police officers took his details and he was eventually allowed to leave.

    By Monday morning, more than 4,000 people had "liked" the campaign page which had been set up on Facebook.

    Supt George Nedley, of Renfrewshire and Inverclyde division, said: "I can confirm we have received a complaint regarding this incident and one of my senior officers has spoken to Mr White regarding this.

    "As a result a full review of the circumstances surrounding the incident and the allegations made is under way."

    A spokesman for Braehead said: "Staff at an ice cream stall in Braehead became suspicious after they saw a male shopper taking photographs at their counter.

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

    He added: "The member of security staff approached the man and politely asked if he had been taking photographs. Because of the nature of the incident, police became involved and also spoke to the man.

    "Our priority is always to maintain a safe and enjoyable environment for all of our shoppers and retailers. The member of our security staff acted in good faith.

    "We have a 'no photography' policy in the centre to protect the privacy of staff and shoppers and to have a legitimate opportunity to challenge suspicious behaviour if required.

    "However, it is not our intention to - and we do not - stop innocent family members taking pictures."
    Click to expand...
    4 year old girls always do make the best sort of bomb.
     
    Shining Raichu

    Shining Raichu

    Expect me like you expect Jesus.
    8,959
    Posts
    13
    Years
    • I think this anti-terrorism thing has gone way too far. This "they could be anywhere" paranoia has really gotten out of control when things like this happen. Sure, terrorists exist, but I'm pretty sure a shopping center in Glasgow is not high on their priority hit list.
     
    Esper

    Esper

    10,769
    Posts
    14
    Years
    • Why everyone wants to believe that their little, middle-of-nowhere town is the next target for terrorists I'll never know.

    I can understand having security around government buildings and stuff like that, but really. This is ridiculous.
     

    Guillermo

    i own a rabbit heh
    6,796
    Posts
    15
    Years
    • Shining Raichu said:
    I think this anti-terrorism thing has gone way too far. This "they could be anywhere" paranoia has really gotten out of control when things like this happen. Sure, terrorists exist, but I'm pretty sure a shopping center in Glasgow is not high on their priority hit list.
    Click to expand...
    Maybe a terrorist got ripped off of a really nice garment or turban and wants to take revenge on the shopping centre.

    Understandable the world is like "omg we have to be extra super dooper careful cause of terrorists nao we have apparently killed Osama" since yeah, common sense would tell you that there will be ramifications, but this is silly. Especially if it's a four year old girl, holy christ.
     
    Rogue planet

    Rogue planet

     
    3,509
    Posts
    15
    Years
    • Seen Nov 5, 2017
    It's not the law that's the problem here (although the law is problematic). It's the robots that are unable to interpret situations and adapt accordingly. Laws should be a guideline.
     

    assassinjay1229

    Im baaaack
    333
    Posts
    12
    Years
    • This is rediculous, if malls (i'm assuming that's what a shopping centre is XD) are starting to crackdown on amateur photography because of "terrorism" i've lost faith in people being free :<, BTW did this guy even seem remotely like a true "terrorist"?
     

    Saerith

    Fear My Glitter!
    316
    Posts
    12
    Years
    • Age 32
    • Seen May 5, 2012
    "We have a 'no photography' policy in the centre to protect the privacy of staff and shoppers and to have a legitimate opportunity to challenge suspicious behaviour if required.

    "However, it is not our intention to - and we do not - stop innocent family members taking pictures.
    Click to expand...

    he just contradicted himself right there lol not to mention several other places, basically a guy took a picture of a kid and they are trying to cover up they treated him like a pedophile without proof....
     
    Her

    Her

    11,468
    Posts
    15
    Years
    • Seen May 10, 2024
    Poor guy. This is so unbelievably stupid. I can understand the paranoia in the post-Osama era, but I agree with Scarf. I've never even heard of Braehead, why would it be a place for terrorism to happen? It's not like Al Queda is planning anmother 9/11 on a small shopping mall near Glasgow using, god forbid, cameras!
     
    Mercurybro

    Mercurybro

    623
    Posts
    12
    Years
    • I think ice cream vendors are just crazy people who don't like getting their photographs taken, lest the cameras steal their soul.
     

    TRIFORCE89

    Guide of Darkness
    8,123
    Posts
    20
    Years
    • With flavours like fudge bomb and chocolate chip explosion how could you not be suspicious of what goes on in ice cream shops?
     
    Dawn

    Dawn

    [span="font-size:180%;font-weight:900;color:#a568f
    4,594
    Posts
    15
    Years
    • There are anti-terrorism laws that go too far, and then there's this.

    Taking pictures was not allowed. It was not a secret that it was not allowed. He was caught red handed taking pictures and asked to delete them. Seems pretty dang reasonable to me. It seems to be implied that one cannot delete pictures from Facebook. Is that even true? I could've sworn one could delete them. Regardless, somewhere along the lines, the guards decided he was trying to circumvent the rules and had to call the police.

    From personal experience, I've observed that places that have "No photographing" rules tend to have those rules broken unless there are guards to stop them. Nobody respects that rule, despite the fact that there are often reasons for it. Precious art? Nobody cares. Privacy? Nobody cares. People as a whole just don't respect that rule until they're in charge of enforcing it.

    People evidently need a reminder that these are rules, and to be very blunt the question is /not/ whether they should be there. They are, so we all /need/ to respect them whilst under that store's roof.
     
    Captain Fabio

    Captain Fabio

    12,201
    Posts
    18
    Years
    • I laughed when I saw this story in the paper this morning.

    It is power-hungry police who are the problem in this story, taking the law and putting their own perspective spin on it.​
    ​
     
    Lalapizzame

    Lalapizzame

    746
    Posts
    16
    Years
    • It makes me extremely skeptical to hear of a possible terrorist attack on a mall. Maybe something like a major financial neighborhood or place of global interaction, but certainly not a little mall.
     

    Saerith

    Fear My Glitter!
    316
    Posts
    12
    Years
    • Age 32
    • Seen May 5, 2012
    PkMnTrainer Yellow said:
    There are anti-terrorism laws that go too far, and then there's this.

    Taking pictures was not allowed. It was not a secret that it was not allowed. He was caught red handed taking pictures and asked to delete them. Seems pretty dang reasonable to me. It seems to be implied that one cannot delete pictures from Facebook. Is that even true? I could've sworn one could delete them. Regardless, somewhere along the lines, the guards decided he was trying to circumvent the rules and had to call the police.

    From personal experience, I've observed that places that have "No photographing" rules tend to have those rules broken unless there are guards to stop them. Nobody respects that rule, despite the fact that there are often reasons for it. Precious art? Nobody cares. Privacy? Nobody cares. People as a whole just don't respect that rule until they're in charge of enforcing it.

    People evidently need a reminder that these are rules, and to be very blunt the question is /not/ whether they should be there. They are, so we all /need/ to respect them whilst under that store's roof.
    Click to expand...

    Yes that is true but the statement did say the do NOT stop people taking family photographs right after they said we do not allow photographs so they are contradicting themselves. If it was not allowed completely I doubt it would be a scandal but to arrest someone who is clearly taking a family photo tell them they are not allowed to take photos, then come out with a statement saying they do allow family photos, that, that has probably caused the scandal.
     
    Lalapizzame

    Lalapizzame

    746
    Posts
    16
    Years
    • As Saerith said, they claimed they would not take action to prevent family pictures.

    However, the bigger controversy here is that this was justified with the Terrorism Act.
     

    Blue Nocturne

    Not THAT one.
    636
    Posts
    15
    Years
    • Age 28
    • Seen Mar 6, 2013
    I remember reading about this the other day. Gotta love the irony of restricting people's freedom to such a ridiculous extent because of a war being fought to protect those freedoms...

    Also, love the contradictions in the mall's policy on photographs. There are apparently signs saying "No Photography", they attempt to confiscate this Mr Whites phone, yet they claim at the end that "it is not our intention to - and we do not - stop innocent family members taking pictures." Hypocrisy, or blatant lies, at its finest.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top