Photographing your kids in a shopping centre

Status
Not open for further replies.
Laudrup said:
A spokesman for Braehead said: "However, it is not our intention to - and we do not - stop innocent family members taking pictures."
Click to expand...

and they haven't have they? he got his photos!! who else are the security meant to know what hes doing unless they stop and ask him? How the security or police handled it is his word only
 
DannyDMR said:
and they haven't have they? he got his photos!! who else are the security meant to know what hes doing unless they stop and ask him? How the security or police handled it is his word only
Click to expand...

If he wasn't breaking any 'rules' then why does it need the police and security guard to confront him?
 
DannyDMR said:
it down to discretion, have a look at the pics if all is fine, give him a telling off and be on his way. And this is what has happened. he got his photos even though be broke the rules. really cant see a problem with it tbh. would be a diffrent story if it had been on a public street
Click to expand...

I think the problem here (IF the story is true) is that security looked at the pics, asked him to delete them but they were already loaded up to facebook by the time security approached him. They then called the police. He only has the pictures now because they were already on facebook not because he was allowed to keep them.

Massively heavy handed policing of a fairly pointless rule in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
paulpdh said:
Problem is, the terrorists win, everyday we get stopped doing something.
Click to expand...
Nobody stopped me from making a cheese & onion sandwich for my lunch today. Striking back at the forces of terror, one savoury snack at a time!








Though t'missus might have something to say when I give her a dutch oven tonight. :whistling:
 
I find myself asking, how come the police were involved?
If it's private property then unless a crime has been committed surely it is a civil matter - or are things different up there :shrug:
 
Strappy said:
Nobody stopped me from making a cheese & onion sandwich for my lunch today. Striking back at the forces of terror, one savoury snack at a time!








Though t'missus might have something to say when I give her a dutch oven tonight. :whistling:
Click to expand...

LIKE :-)
 
DannyDMR said:
and they haven't have they? he got his photos!! who else are the security meant to know what hes doing unless they stop and ask him? How the security or police handled it is his word only
Click to expand...

Again same old story,do not question how the police or security handled it,its alway the photographer,who is in the wrong :(

Great to know,to you the public are always lieing :p
 
Last edited:
gramps said:
I find myself asking, how come the police were involved?
If it's private property then unless a crime has been committed surely it is a civil matter - or are things different up there :shrug:
Click to expand...

probably because the guy left out that he got uptight and a***y with the security guard. Thought he was in the right and wanted the police called.;)

spike
 
gramps said:
I find myself asking, how come the police were involved?
If it's private property then unless a crime has been committed surely it is a civil matter - or are things different up there :shrug:
Click to expand...

Yep it's different, the police huddle in the station scared to come out and only do so when health & safety allow them once a risk assessment has been done.
 
I live about 15 minutes away from this shopping centre, I bought my iPhone there and took a few shots to test the camera out I remember. Lucky the armed response unit wasn't around that day I suppose. I do think naming and shaming and hitting them in the pocket is the best way to hurt them. Especially in this economy.
 
SpikeK6 said:
probably because the guy left out that he got uptight and a***y with the security guard. Thought he was in the right and wanted the police called.;)

spike
Click to expand...


He was in the right though, as a spokesman for the shopping mall said that they didn't want to stop parents taking pictures of their chidren.
So, the result of this story is:
Overbearing, obnoxious security guard does not know his job, and does not like Joe Public standing up for his rights.
The crux of the matter seemed to be that the shopping mall was concerned that the bloke was taking random photos of other children not his own child. A simple question and answer session could have sorted the whole thing easily, unfortunately obnoxious people who have been given a bit of power do not like to back down.
 
Laudrup said:
I live about 15 minutes away from this shopping centre, I bought my iPhone there and took a few shots to test the camera out I remember. Lucky the armed response unit wasn't around that day I suppose. I do think naming and shaming and hitting them in the pocket is the best way to hurt them. Especially in this economy.
Click to expand...

Quite agree, and possibly put the security guard on night duty for a while, well out of the way of people who are spending money and keeping the place going.
 
Taken from the Association of Chief of Police Officers Web site
26 August 2010


Dear Colleagues

Guidance for Photographers

I am writing to you in my capacity as Chair of the ACPO Communications Advisory Group which sits in the Presidential Business Area.

There have been a number of recent instances highlighted in the press where officers have detained photographers and deleted images from their cameras. I seek your support in reminding your officers and staff that they should not prevent anyone from taking photographs in public. This applies equally to members of the media and public seeking to record images, who do not need a permit to photograph or film in public places. ACPO guidance is as follows:

• There are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place. Therefore members of the public and press should not be prevented from doing so.
• We need to cooperate with the media and amateur photographers. They play a vital role as their images help us identify criminals.
• We must acknowledge that citizen journalism is a feature of modern life and police officers are now photographed and filmed more than ever.
• Unnecessarily restricting photography, whether for the casual tourist or professional is unacceptable and it undermines public confidence in the police service.
• Once an image has been recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate it without a court order.

If you require further guidance please refer to the ACPO website or contact my Staff Officer Robin Edwards at robin.edwards@btp.pnn.police.uk.


Yours sincerely



Andrew Trotter
Chief Constable
Chair of ACPO Communication Advisory Group
 
marky.b said:
the guy is live on radio 5 live now
Click to expand...

You mean he survived the ordeal!!! yeagh!!!

My only worry is that he semms to have turned into a man from a woman during this thread.... each to his own and all that but....
 
KIPAX said:
My only worry is that he semms to have turned into a man from a woman during this thread.... each to his own and all that but....
Click to expand...

You'd be amazed how efficient Thai doctors are these days!
 
andy700 said:
You just don't get it do you?
Do you ask permission to enter every shopping centre?
Click to expand...

To enter it? No.

To photograph it? Yes.

This is because I am aware that that permission should be sought before taking photographs on private property.

Quite simple really.
 
its glasgow, his man tits where probably confused for the real thing lol

KIPAX said:
You mean he survived the ordeal!!! yeagh!!!

My only worry is that he semms to have turned into a man from a woman during this thread.... each to his own and all that but....
Click to expand...
 
Lez
I'm not sure why you are trying to quote something irrelevant, its already been said, ad nauseaum, that a shopping center is not a public place, its privately owned.
The guidelines simply do not apply to it.
Secondly, the guidelines aren't that accurate, there being no mention of the Official Secrets Acts, which cover a lot more than just ANY military establishment, signed as such or otherwise.

So can we get back to the point please?

Simon
The photographer isn't always in the wrong, just as they are often not in the right either. The simple fact is that here we have, as we usually do, one side not both.
Having had to deal with security guards, I am not sure I'd accept the Centre's management explanation at face value either. From my experience in dealing with security Guards they work to process. ie everything they deal with has a black and white proccedure to deal with it.
If it says in their rules in those circumstances no photos in the shopping centre, and if someone argues call police, then thats what they do. Deviation from that means loss of job, so in their position, I expect you'd do the same too.
As I said previously, if the landlord, owner or their agent say no photos, then thats that. Its the same as it's always been, in that they are free to set up their own rules. No ones rights have been eroded, changed or removed.
Was it the same during PIRA's campaigns? yes, it was. I was certainly stopped and asked what I was doing during that time, I gave an explanation, and was allowed to get on with it. So, no rights freedoms or privileges at risk there. I've been stopped and asked what I'm doing 6 or 7 times over recent years, again, quick explanation, end of issue. I was then allowed to carry on, no restriction or removal of my so called rights there then either.
I know of no friend of mine that has been prevented from taking photos in public and where the OSA doesn't apply. Yes, I've read about people who say they have been. Are all of those telling the whole truth? I doubt it, some probably are, but not all. So this 'problem' is more perception then reality. In this case, I'm afraid, its hard luck, private property, you have not, and never have had a leg to stand on. Move on, there's nothing new here.
 
I had a look at Braehead's website and found this useful advice on child safety

but the best way to help a lost child is to try and prevent it happening in the first place:

•Encourage children to stay close to you
•Use reins or wrist links
•Don’t leave a child in an unsupervised play area
•Write a contact number on a wristband or tag
•Carry an up to date photograph•
Make a note of what the child is wearing
Click to expand...
Wasn't that what the chap was doing :)
 
DannyDMR said:
and they haven't have they? he got his photos!! who else are the security meant to know what hes doing unless they stop and ask him? How the security or police handled it is his word only
Click to expand...

simonblue said:
Again same old story,do not question how the police or security handled it,its alway the photographer,who is in the wrong :(

Great to know,to you the public are always lieing :p
Click to expand...

Interesting interpretation there. He points out that we've only heard one side of the story and you think he's saying that photographers are always wrong and that the public are always lying?

No wonder these arguments always perpetuate here.
 
I find this statement from Braehead management a little confusing.

"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."

(taken from this link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15236758)
 
jon ryan said:
To enter it? No.

To photograph it? Yes.

This is because I am aware that that permission should be sought before taking photographs on private property.

Quite simple really.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's unreasonable for a father to take a photograph of his daughter eating an ice-cream, wherever they are. It's about discretion and, from reading about the story, security and the police over-reacted. It's turning into a bit of a PR nightmare for the company by the looks of it. Good article on that here:

http://conversation.cipr.co.uk/post...-on-the-map-for-pr-and-social-media-disasters
 
Braehead's PR department must be spinning at their desks after tonight's little slot on the 6 O'Clock News!

As for their issued statement, well, talk about digging when in a hole.... :nuts:
 
fabs said:
Interesting interpretation there. He points out that we've only heard one side of the story and you think he's saying that photographers are always wrong and that the public are always lying?

No wonder these arguments always perpetuate here.
Click to expand...

Fair enough,but in the pass,when things like this have happen so often,their just closes ranks,the police & the shopping security staff.

So it just end up with you on your own,fighting theses big org.
 
Well looks like public opinion can have an effect:

"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."

taken from: http://www.braehead.co.uk/Whats-on/News/Photography-Policy-Change

Would like to see if others follow.
 
Saw him being interviewed on BBC news, seemed like a reasonable guy and certainly harmless pics - quick damage limitation exercise by the centre.
 
Laudrup said:
If he wasn't breaking any 'rules' then why does it need the police and security guard to confront him?
Click to expand...

gramps said:
Saw him being interviewed on BBC news, seemed like a reasonable guy and certainly harmless pics - quick damage limitation exercise by the centre.
Click to expand...

A "quick damage limitation exercise" would have seen Braehead deal with this without having to employ one of their staff deleting posts Twitter and Facebook pages for 3 days.

This has been a classic example of how not to handle a minor incident.
 
munch said:
Well looks like public opinion can have an effect:

"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."

taken from: http://www.braehead.co.uk/Whats-on/News/Photography-Policy-Change

Would like to see if others follow.
Click to expand...

Great to hear,some common sence :)
 
munch said:
Well looks like public opinion can have an effect:

"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."

taken from: http://www.braehead.co.uk/Whats-on/News/Photography-Policy-Change

Would like to see if others follow.
Click to expand...

Perhaps people can put their handbags away now and stop squabbling.
 
"Humble" and "Pie" would seem to be adequate words for those on here who were supporting the shopping mall's position in earlier posts.
Thank goodness the muppets were forced to climb down, or rather climb up out of the rather large hole which they had dug themselves into.
 
Braehead said "We have a 'no photography' policy in the centre to protect the privacy of staff and shoppers"

I wonder if they'll turn off all their CCTV in the centre to protect MY privacy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top