Amazon Music Unlimited Offer: 3-Months For FREE!

'No go' for photo taken in Shopping Centre


Andy_Cundell 10 1.1k 5 England
10 Oct 2011 9:48AM
I've just read this article on the BBC website.

What do you think? I do agree, he was in the wrong and with 'No Photographs' sign's plastered around the place and being private property, he was definately in the wrong but can the copper take his phone off him? I think the Policeman may be overstepping the mark somewhere along the line.

I'm sure we have covered this type of thing again and again, but what could they do if like this gentleman had done, you've posted the photographs online straight away?

Bit extreme IMO!

Andy
MrGoatsmilk 12 1.5k England
10 Oct 2011 10:04AM
From the story
Quote: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."




Like most places they are not fussed if you are taking family snap shots and the like, I just wonder how this bloke was acting. Was he being aggressive, argumentative, etc etc It just reads like half a story and there has got to be more to it than is being told.
collywobles 17 4.1k 10 United Kingdom
10 Oct 2011 10:14AM

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


i think then answer is in this part of the statement.

I was stopped on the Southbank and told I must stop taking photo's as it was Private Property, which I know. I told the Security guy that if he went and said the same to every Japanese Tourist and the like from taking photo's - some of which was happening within our view - then I would stop taking photo's also. He left with a blank expression.
User_Removed 17 3.3k 4 United Kingdom
10 Oct 2011 10:20AM
If the story is correct you have a typical thick security guard who doesn't think he's done a day's work unless he's told somebody off, thrown someone out or has refused someone entry. He should have said "You really shouldn't take photos in here sir management don't allow it".

Instead he told the man a lie, that taking photos in the centre was illegal. Sticking notices up doesn't make things illegal. Then the policeman (who realises he's actually pretty powerless where this issue is concerned misuses the Prevention of Terrorism Act to intimidate the man).

This is then followed by a multi-page argument on ePz between those who believe in freedom and those who think the uniformed should always tell us what to do regardless of the law.
Andy_Cundell 10 1.1k 5 England
10 Oct 2011 10:29AM

Quote:those who think the uniformed should always tell us what to do regardless of the law.


Hehehe, that made me laugh! Grin
franken Plus
18 5.2k 4 United Kingdom
10 Oct 2011 10:36AM
If it's not public land and there are signs everywhere saying "No photography" then they have the right to enforce it.
JackAllTog Plus
12 6.3k 58 United Kingdom
10 Oct 2011 10:39AM
Just read this too on the Beeb website - Grrrr.

When security and the police lie about their powers to force deletion and confiscation to the public - they are the ones who should be prosecuted.
Any why were the staff bothered that they were being shot - what did they have to hide.

Yet constant CCTV of all the shoppers including that girl is allowed - double standards.

Next thing they will do is be having knife/camera arches for all shopper to walk through and a credit check to ensure they have money to spend if they do enter the shopping centre. Sure it will keep the yobs from longing around when its raining outside, but then poor pensioners too. Lets rip the heart out of our towns and exclude you if you don't like it.
I'd campaign for local councils to only grant large shopping licence planning permission if they demilitarize their public areas.

Good for the guy for standing up to them and making a point.
10 Oct 2011 11:19AM
Hah! Staff security reasons! Social security reasons maybe? Smile
Carrera_c 11 273 3 United Kingdom
10 Oct 2011 11:22AM
I've been in Braehead many a time and have to say that I've never noticed the no photography signs, not saying that they're not there, just that they're definitely not noticeable. Just to point out I've seen plenty of people taking photo's in Braehead without being harassed, I'm one of them...

Regardless of the signs, I can't see the issue with a parent taking a snap of their kid on a mobile phone. I don't expect much from 'Mall Cops' but the actual police really should have had more sense and I think the way they chose to continue to press the parent was shocking, especially when his child is clearly being distressed by the whole thing.

STV version of the story seems to go into a bit more detail: http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/273969-shopping-centre-guard-calls-police-over-father-taking-illegal-photographs-of-his-daughter/
kaybee Plus
17 7.7k 26 Scotland
10 Oct 2011 11:24AM
There were wrongs on both side.........
The man was in the wrong for taking the pictures
The security was wrong in telling him to delete
The police officer was wrong to use the Anti Terrorism card

However - the officer would have been right to seize the camera as evidence if he was going to put in a report
JackAllTog Plus
12 6.3k 58 United Kingdom
10 Oct 2011 11:28AM
I don't beleive he can seize the camera/phone without a court order.
66tricky 14 742 Scotland
10 Oct 2011 11:30AM
The father has created a Facebook page with a transcript of his letter to the press: here

This is turning out to be a very embarrassing PR issue for the shopping centre and the police. Let's hope a few heads are made to wobble or roll over this heavy handed nonsense.
66tricky 14 742 Scotland
10 Oct 2011 11:32AM

Quote:There were wrongs on both side.........
The man was in the wrong for taking the pictures
The security was wrong in telling him to delete
The police officer was wrong to use the Anti Terrorism card

However - the officer would have been right to seize the camera as evidence if he was going to put in a report



Surely the "wrong" committed by the man would be a civil issue and definitely not criminal. Therefore, the police had no place getting involved and heavy handed.
scottishphototours 17 2.6k 2
10 Oct 2011 11:42AM
Read the stv link above, and the last paragraph re the deleting of files and remember it, you'll need it one day...
Andy_Cundell 10 1.1k 5 England
10 Oct 2011 11:47AM

Quote:Read the stv link above, and the last paragraph re the deleting of files and remember it, you'll need it one day...


Very Good point!

quoted from the STV page:

Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 states that police officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras to discover whether the images constitute evidence that the person is involved in terrorism.

However, officers do not have the power to delete digital images or destroy film at any point during a search unless a court order has been granted.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.