Man stopped by security for taking pictures in shopping centre

[nedchester]

Heard this on the news this morning:

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

then on Facebook a campaign to Boycott the shopping centre:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-Braehead/288861364476077

Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&feature=share&v=d5wxjLE9TdA

shopping centre backs down:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15251848

Typical boneheaded attitude by security and the police.

 

[Aictos]

I see a lot of comments are aimed at the local police and the shopping centre but not at the daft staff in the shop who raised the "issue" in the first place :roll:

 

[Yew]

I like it where it says "we do not atop innocent family members taking photographs". Quite obviously they do.

 

[Schnellzug]

I like how the Alarm was raised by the staff of the Ice Cream stall who apparently Grew Suspicious. Were they being Concerned Citizens, or nosy plonkers who really, really wanted to be detectives, but instead ended up working at an ice cream stall?

 

[IanPooleTrains]

Two words spring to mind here:

OVER.....REACTION!

 

[anthony263]

Two words spring to mind here:

OVER.....REACTION!

If your talking about the staff who reported this bloke then i have to say i agree with you.

The police shouldnt have even bothered, if they came up to me i would just tell them to get lost (As i did when 1 told meit was ilegal photograph my bus once, although i caused a laugh when the boss found out.)

The staff at this shopping centre have made themselves look like a bunch of idiots

 

[bAzTNM]

This happens everywhere now. I had this outside a football ground a few years ago. It was a Scottish Junior Football ground, Shettleston FC. The guy, who ran out of the club-house thing, was very intimidating.

ADDED: I also got asked TODAY what I was doing in Drumpellier Park. It was rather odd, absolutely nobody was about. I don't even think the guy was a park ranger. This guy comes out of nowhere, asks me how long I'll be there, gives me a sarcastic "Enjoy Yourself!" and waddles away.

 

[SS4]

Seems like another case of someone flagrantly disobeying the law and getting the media involved to force the store to back down.
The rules are the rules, it's only because this story concerns a child that the media have taken an interest! If it were a couple of teenagers the reaction would more likely have been along the lines of "bloody teenagers have no respect for rules these days"!

Perhaps it was heavy handed but I have grave concerns about the way the UK is going if people can use the media to disobey rules

 

[EM2]

Seems like another case of someone flagrantly disobeying the law and getting the media involved to force the store to back down.

Indeed. From the BBC story:

Mr White was told there were "clear signs" saying no photographs were allowed.

However, I will admit the police reaction does seem a little over the top.

 

[SS4]

Indeed. From the BBC story:

However, I will admit the police reaction does seem a little over the top.

I agree too although I'm not sure what else the police could do. If anything it was the guard who overreacted the most by essentially trying to scare the person into deleting the picture.

The way I see it the store has to be very careful about what they say since if they say the wrong thing they're up the creek without a paddle whereas this bloke can say pretty much anything he wants safe in the knowledge a biased media will back him to the hilt.

 

[nedchester]

Seems like another case of someone flagrantly disobeying the law and getting the media involved to force the store to back down.
The rules are the rules, it's only because this story concerns a child that the media have taken an interest! If it were a couple of teenagers the reaction would more likely have been along the lines of "bloody teenagers have no respect for rules these days"!

Perhaps it was heavy handed but I have grave concerns about the way the UK is going if people can use the media to disobey rules

Firstly it isn't against the 'law' to take photos however the shopping centre is entitled to make rules to not allow it (not laws)

Secondly despite the shopping centre having 'rules' you have to ask yourself as to why they have these rules. That is what the whole issue is about. Laws get changed when they become silly and this is what this issue is about. Whilst the shopping centre is allowed to make rules such as this they should for this kind of thing be rarely enforced and 'security' should use common sense. However, seeing as most security have little common sense then we get issues such as this.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree too although I'm not sure what else the police could do. If anything it was the guard who overreacted the most by essentially trying to scare the person into deleting the picture.

The way I see it the store has to be very careful about what they say since if they say the wrong thing they're up the creek without a paddle whereas this bloke can say pretty much anything he wants safe in the knowledge a biased media will back him to the hilt.

And why shouldn't the media be 'biased'? After all it shows a lack of common sense from the security guard.

 

[EM2]

Whilst the shopping centre is allowed to make rules such as this they should for this kind of thing be rarely enforced and 'security' should use common sense.

Security guards don't get given that amount of leeway. The reason they are there is to enforce the shopping centre's rules and procedures.
It is entirely up to the centre whether they wish to allow photgraphy or not. It is not up to the security guard whether he enforces that (unless he wants to face disciplinary action).

 

[nedchester]

Security guards don't get given that amount of leeway. The reason they are there is to enforce the shopping centre's rules and procedures.
It is entirely up to the centre whether they wish to allow photgraphy or not. It is not up to the security guard whether he enforces that (unless he wants to face disciplinary action).

Ah right I see the shopping centre should just employ robots should they? It says a lot about where we are going as a society when common sense cannot be applied.

 

[EM2]

Ah right I see the shopping centre should just employ robots should they? It says a lot about where we are going as a society when common sense cannot be applied.

That's not what I'm saying at all and I'm sure you know it.
If a security guard says 'I'm not going to do that', then he's almost certainly going to find himself on the end of a severe dressing-down from his boss at best, and a P45 at worst.

 

[SS4]

Firstly it isn't against the 'law' to take photos however the shopping centre is entitled to make rules to not allow it (not laws)

Semantics but fair enough.

Secondly despite the shopping centre having 'rules' you have to ask yourself as to why they have these rules. That is what the whole issue is about. Laws get changed when they become silly and this is what this issue is about.

In who's opinion? Yours or mine are not valid due to unbalanced reporting.

Whilst the shopping centre is allowed to make rules such as this they should for this kind of thing be rarely enforced and 'security' should use common sense. However, seeing as most security have little common sense then we get issues such as this.

Perhaps the guard could have handled it better but why is it his fault for enforcing a rule? If he didn't he'd be liable to face disciplinary action. Is it the guard's fault or is it the centre's fault? Neither of course, it's the bloke who took the picture's fault.

And why shouldn't the media be 'biased'? After all it shows a lack of common sense from the security guard.

Because it is their job to report facts. Not opinion, fact. A fair press is the responsibility of a free press.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ah right I see the shopping centre should just employ robots should they? It says a lot about where we are going as a society when common sense cannot be applied.

Common sense as defined by whom? The guard tried to be reasonable about enforcing the rule but it was this bloke who was being obstinate.

 

[nedchester]

Because it is their job to report facts. Not opinion, fact. A fair press is the responsibility of a free press.

I think you'll find that the newspapers have plenty of opinion. Just look at the comments pages in most of them.

 

[SS4]

I think you'll find that the newspapers have plenty of opinion. Just look at the comments pages in most of them.

It is clearly advertised that the comments section is the contributor's opinion. The difference is that the journalists are passing off their own opinion as fact and are deliberately misleading people as well as not giving the full fact.

It is not for nothing that neutrality is one of the three core values of wikipedia

 

[Wyvern]

An artical in The Lawyer for your interest:

http://www.thelawyer.com/1009790.article

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Quoted from the above link.

Well done to the police, we need to see more responses like this!
I wonder why the media never reported it?

“It is because Mr White chose to seek publicity for his account of events and because of the planned demonstration that we feel compelled to take the unusual step of making our findings public.

“In reaching our conclusions, officers took statements from a number of independent witnesses and viewed the substantial amount of CCTV that was available in the centre.

“On reviewing all of this objective evidence, I have to tell you that we can find no basis to support the complaint which MrWhite has elected to make.

“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, which I am not in a position to discuss publicly, that they felt the need to report. It was because of this very specific concern that security staff became involved. They were right to raise their concern and we are glad that they did so.

“The security staff were the ones who asked for police involvement. Again, this was not because Mr White said he had been photographing his daughter, but was due to the concerns that they themselves had regarding this particular incident.

“When our officers became involved they did not confiscate any items, nor was Mr White questioned under counter terrorist legislation. It is wrong to suggest that the police spoke to Mr White because he claimed he had been photographing his daughter, or that officers made any reference to counter terror legislation.Mr White knows, or ought to know, why our officers spoke with him.

“Since Mr White chose to publish his version of events on Facebook, we have seen substantial traditional media and social media activity around the story. 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.

“Social media allowed this story to spread quickly around the world. I hope that the same media allows this part of the tale to move just as quickly.

“For the avoidance of any doubt, we have fully investigated this incident and we can say that none of the independent and objective evidence presented to us by either the members of the public or the CCTV backs up the claims made by Mr White.”

 

[Temple Meads]

I've never been approached/reproached for taking a picture because of my height, because I don't look particularly suspicious, or because I've just been lucky I don't know, but I'm going to get hassled if we keep going down this useless road, terrorists do NOT go around choosing their next target with their daughter in tow as far as I'm aware.
Quite simply, a huge fuss over nothing.

 

[GB]

I've never been approached/reproached for taking a picture because of my height, because I don't look particularly suspicious, or because I've just been lucky I don't know, but I'm going to get hassled if we keep going down this useless road, terrorists do NOT go around choosing their next target with their daughter in tow as far as I'm aware.
Quite simply, a huge fuss over nothing.

Im not saying terrorism has any part in this specific incident but terrorists will do what ever they need to do to effect their end goal. It wouldn't suprise me in the least for one to use their family as cover in the hope to blend in.

12 years ago not many people would have thought of suicide terrorists using planes as missiles or backpacks as suicide bombs. Terrorists attitudes change as do their methods and I think its only right our attitudes change to reflect that. I'm not saying people should be prevented from taking photos in public but rather not go running to the media (or purposely being difficult in the hope of more YouTube hits) if you get questioned.

There needs to be give and take on ALL sides.

It only needs a quick friendly chat then the Police should be on their way.

 

[jon0844]

Well done to the police, we need to see more responses like this! I wonder why the media never reported it?

The problem is that, just as we can't assume the man said the truth, how can we just assume the police aren't covering their backs by saying something that doesn't actually give any concrete info (they can't say) but leads the public to now assume that there WAS something more sinister?

It cuts both ways. Unless we were there, or saw the CCTV footage, it's just a game where both sides try and use the media to their advantage.

We've had many examples where the police PR departments have used spin to twist things. I would be as concerned about this as the original story.

 

[SS4]

Quoted from the above link.

Well done to the police, we need to see more responses like this!
I wonder why the media never reported it?

Presumably it doesn't fit in with the image they made of him (Amanda Knox being a rather more high profile case of this phenomenon)

 

[alexdodds]

Maybe the story went a bit wild and got picked up by too many websites. But at the end of the day it has produced a great result with CSC now allowing non commercial filming and photography in their centres with certain rules of what you can and can't photo/video of course.

 

[jon0844]

I'm going to Westfield (Stratford) today and am bound to take some photos inside. You may see me on the news later!

It would be so funny given the fact that only this week I was on a trip with Newham council looking at the centre from a viewing gallery (22 floors up to see the Olympic development) and being encouraged to take photos!

The council is, quite rightly, proud of the centre and the whole Olympic development in general so I bet they'd like as many people as possible to take photos in and around the place - and share with as many people as possible.

Here's just one photo - I wonder if I'll have the management company getting upset that I've got some of their roof exposed?

I also apologise for how ugly Stratford International looks from above (but it's no better at ground level!).

 

[455driver]

Lets just say that mr Whites version of events "flies" in the face of the actual truth.

 

[bAzTNM]

It supposedly wasn't even about his daughter, it was all about him acting suspiciously and taking a picture of the Ice-Cream (young lady) seller right in front of her face supposedly. The police stopping him had absolutely nothing to do with his kid. Nothing at all.

ADDED: From new information this appears to be wrong. It's something to do with him taking videos of his daughter trying on dresses in the changing rooms or something. Somebody reports him. Police tell him to hand over the phone, he refuses. **** kicks off.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

An artical in The Lawyer for your interest:

Well done to the police, we need to see more responses like this!

I'm not as enthusiastic about the Police response at all.
In fact, it appears to have been very skillfully and disingenuously worded.

Its structure and sequence appears to list some of the points made by Mr White, rebutting them one by one. But what they actually do is list some of his points with a rebuttal of something else.
for example:-
White "He [Police Officer] then said that under the Prevention of Terrorism Act he was quite within in his rights to confiscate my mobile phone "
Police "they did not confiscate any items" [but doesn't deny that White was told that his phone could be confiscated]

White "He then said I had been spotted taking photos in the shopping centre which was ’illegal’ and not allowed"
Police "It is wrong to suggest that the police spoke to Mr White because he claimed he had been photographing his daughter" [which refers to the reason for speakinh to White but not to what was said]

White "and then asked me to delete any photos I had taken"
Police [report doesn't respond to deletion] "none of the independent and objective evidence presented to us by either the members of the public or the CCTV backs up the claims made by Mr White"

I'm not sure if the Police really have refuted White's allegations, which they could have done in much simpler language if that had been their intention.

 

[jon0844]

I read the police response the same way. 'At a distance' it sounds like it's totally destroying the original claim, but the dodges actually support a lot of it in my opinion.

Of course, the police will have spent some time working on a response, getting it checked by PR and even legal people. As much time probably went into constructing that statement as Apple would put into a press release on a new iPhone.

 

[Prodigy]

The shopping centre would of been within their rights to question the man IF the photo was of another person, but even then if the man had consent from the person he isn't breaking any laws. Stupid security guard looking for a way to get brownie points.