Father’s photo of daughter in shopping centre sparks security dispute
10 October 2011, 03:38 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Father’s photo of daughter in shopping centre sparks security dispute
10 October 2011, 03:47 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its only a short step after that sort of nonsense to people snitching to the authorities about any thing you can think of which causes people to be instantly suspected of nefarious activity just like what happens in police states.
Cannot believe all concerned appeared to have their heads so well and truly up a black hole!
Les
Cannot believe all concerned appeared to have their heads so well and truly up a black hole!
Les
10 October 2011, 04:19 PM
#3
10 October 2011, 04:22 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: There on the stair
Posts: 10,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strictly speaking (playing Devil's advocate here) the guard was within his rights to stop the Father taking photographs in the Shopping Precinct.
The area would be private property and while you are allowed to take photographs of private property from Public land, you do not have that right when on private property.
However, as pointed out - the Police are not allowed to demand the photos be deleted as part of the Terrorism Act and to even cite it under these circumstances.... Also, the only thing they can do is make the person leave the premises, they can't confiscate the camera, or remove the memory card.
All this of course is only if the Land owner has clearly stated "No photographs" otherwise, they can go swivel.
The area would be private property and while you are allowed to take photographs of private property from Public land, you do not have that right when on private property.
However, as pointed out - the Police are not allowed to demand the photos be deleted as part of the Terrorism Act and to even cite it under these circumstances.... Also, the only thing they can do is make the person leave the premises, they can't confiscate the camera, or remove the memory card.
All this of course is only if the Land owner has clearly stated "No photographs" otherwise, they can go swivel.
10 October 2011, 04:23 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: There on the stair
Posts: 10,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The info found here:
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/u...hers-rights-v2
Is very useful in this case.
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/u...hers-rights-v2
Is very useful in this case.
Trending Topics
10 October 2011, 06:18 PM
#9
Staff at the busy shopping centre became suspicious after they spotted Chris White taking a photo on his phone of his 4-year-old daughter enjoying some ice cream at Braehead shopping centre, near Glasgow.
10 October 2011, 07:07 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10 October 2011, 08:39 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 3,447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It became a bit of a PR nightmare for the shopping centre
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Braehe...185420?ref=sgm
After a lot of public pressure and negative media they have issued an apology and changed their photography policy http://www.braehead.co.uk/Whats-on/N...-Policy-Change
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Braehe...185420?ref=sgm
After a lot of public pressure and negative media they have issued an apology and changed their photography policy http://www.braehead.co.uk/Whats-on/N...-Policy-Change
11 October 2011, 01:20 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the world coming to I wonder!
Les
11 October 2011, 01:21 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It became a bit of a PR nightmare for the shopping centre
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Braehe...185420?ref=sgm
After a lot of public pressure and negative media they have issued an apology and changed their photography policy http://www.braehead.co.uk/Whats-on/N...-Policy-Change
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Braehe...185420?ref=sgm
After a lot of public pressure and negative media they have issued an apology and changed their photography policy http://www.braehead.co.uk/Whats-on/N...-Policy-Change
Les
11 October 2011, 01:33 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 3,447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11 October 2011, 01:33 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Warrington
Posts: 4,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the BBC.
Not quite the same thing as "there were "clear signs" saying no photographs were allowed" 
Originally Posted by BBC
The police were called and Mr White was told there were "clear signs" saying no photographs were allowed.
11 October 2011, 01:59 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The info found here:
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/u...hers-rights-v2
Is very useful in this case.
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/u...hers-rights-v2
Is very useful in this case.
11 October 2011, 02:06 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strictly speaking (playing Devil's advocate here) the guard was within his rights to stop the Father taking photographs in the Shopping Precinct.
The area would be private property and while you are allowed to take photographs of private property from Public land, you do not have that right when on private property.
However, as pointed out - the Police are not allowed to demand the photos be deleted as part of the Terrorism Act and to even cite it under these circumstances.... Also, the only thing they can do is make the person leave the premises, they can't confiscate the camera, or remove the memory card.
All this of course is only if the Land owner has clearly stated "No photographs" otherwise, they can go swivel.
The area would be private property and while you are allowed to take photographs of private property from Public land, you do not have that right when on private property.
However, as pointed out - the Police are not allowed to demand the photos be deleted as part of the Terrorism Act and to even cite it under these circumstances.... Also, the only thing they can do is make the person leave the premises, they can't confiscate the camera, or remove the memory card.
All this of course is only if the Land owner has clearly stated "No photographs" otherwise, they can go swivel.
It's basically a common law matter.
12 October 2011, 03:10 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: My turbo blows, air lots of it!!
Posts: 9,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the security guard can differentiate between somebody acting suspicious with a camera (hence the terrorism act) and a bloke taking an innocent photo of his kid eating a bloody icycle?
This is what irks me today, too many namby pamby ******* trying to justify their jobs and existance.
This is what irks me today, too many namby pamby ******* trying to justify their jobs and existance.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
28
28 December 2015 11:07 PM
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
12
18 November 2015 07:03 AM
The Joshua Tree
Computer & Technology Related
30
28 September 2015 02:43 PM
