Tuesday, 11 October 2011

I’m Not Entirely In Favour Of TwitterMobs And FaceBook Campaigns…

…but this one is actually worthwhile:
Chris, 45, took the snap of Hazel as she sat at an ice cream stall in Braehead.

Later, when he was carrying her through the centre, he was stopped by a security guard.

Chris added: "He said I had been spotted taking photos in the shopping centre which was illegal and then asked me to delete any photos I had taken.

"I explained I had taken two photos of my daughter eating ice cream and that she was the only person in the photo, so I didn't see any problem.

"I also said I wasn't that willing to delete the photos and there seemed little point as I had uploaded them to Facebook."
Naturally, this wasn’t a sufficient obsequious grovelling to the awesome powers of the tiny-penised bullyboy security guard. Oh, no. Bigger authorities were immediately summoned:
The security guard called police and two officers arrived within minutes.

Chris, a mental health trainer, of Glasgow's southside, said: "My daughter was crying by this stage.

The older officer was quite intimidating. He said there had been a complaint about me taking photos and that there were clear signs in Braehead saying no photographs were allowed.

"I tried to explain I hadn't seen any clearly displayed signs and that I had taken two photos of my daughter.

"As I was trying to explain, he said I was interrupting him and that I should remain quiet until he had finished speaking to me.
Until he’d finished reading his pre-prepared, mentally-rehearsed lecture, that is. Didn’t want anyone interrupting it with facts, clearly…
"At one stage, I was reassuring my daughter everything was OK, only to be told I wasn't listening by the officer.

"The police officer started to say that there were privacy issues around photographs, to which I said I'd waited until only my daughter was in the shot.

"I explained that I was happy to show him the photos although not sure under what authority he could ask me to delete the photos.

He said that under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, he was quite within in his rights to confiscate my mobile phone without any explanation for taking photos within a public shopping centre."
Except, as was pointed out on Twitter this morning by @flayman, he wasn’t within his rights at all.
Chris said: "I am appalled at how going shopping and taking a photo of your daughter can lead to being intimidated in this way."

Chris has complained to police about how they handled the situation.
And it seems a Facebook campaign against the mall is in the wind. But really, shouldn’t the greatest opprobrium be reserved for the police?
A spokesman for Braehead said: "Our priority is to maintain a safe and enjoyable environment for shoppers and retailers.

"We have a 'no photography' policy to protect the privacy of staff and shoppers.

However, it is not our intention to - and we do not - stop innocent family members taking pictures."
Clearly, this time, you did. And a Facebook campaign may well make you back down on your policy or even ensure the removal of the guard.

But the police? It seems they remain unaccountable.
at

22 comments:

  1. Anonymouslemming11 October 2011 at 11:30

    Better let Gadget know that the SMT are at it again, forcing innocent officers to abuse people.

    Oh, wait, they're not. ACPO has explicitly (and repeatedly!) issued guidance to the effect that photographers are not to be stopped just for taking photographs, and furthermore, even if they are, S44 should no longer be used. Of course, that's in England. I'm not sure if that extends to ACPOS, but I'd hope so.

    So what we have here is a jobsworth frontline officer (that Gadget wants us to believe is a paragon of virtue and only wants to serve) being an abusive bullyboy in the face of common sense and decency.

    I hope he dies in a fire.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous11 October 2011 at 12:21

    "I hope he dies in a fire."

    Unlikely when there are so many chiefs waiting to piss on him.

    ReplyDelete
  3. RantinRab11 October 2011 at 12:25

    The police officer sounds like a typical Scottish cop.

    Full of their own self important bullshit.

    Scotland is a lot further down the line towards an Authoritarian state. The nannying and bullying is constant.

    ReplyDelete
  4. RantinRab11 October 2011 at 12:27

    And anyway, what business is it of the police?

    It was a civil matter on private property.

    ReplyDelete
  5. SBC11 October 2011 at 12:32

    "And anyway, what business is it of the police?"

    It was a photograph of a CHILD. The policey men are not immune to the paedo-hysteria.

    And no doubt the Policey-Bosses have decreed any 'offence' reported involving the words 'child' and 'photo' has to be investigated immediately...preferably by Tatical Response.

    Gotta think of the CheeeEEEldren, haven't we?

    ReplyDelete
  6. dickiebo11 October 2011 at 13:30

    The manner in which this police officer attempted to intimidate the father is very reminiscent of the recent case of the cafe owner and the Bible Reading!
    I'm afraid that, more and more, my fears about our police no longer serving the public, are proved to be true.

    ReplyDelete
  7. petem13011 October 2011 at 13:36

    I'm appalled by the utter nonsense that is carried out by the police and people involved in security.

    The Terrorist laws were supposed to protect us from terrorists not turn us into potential terrorists. The attitude of the Police and people involved in security are appalling. Arrogant, abrasive and condescending.

    They do not profile people. Well they do but not as should be the case.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Antisthenes11 October 2011 at 13:47

    If a law is broken then it is reasonable that the perpetrator should receive the appropriate punishment. So I have no sympathy for Chris on that account. How the matter was handled appears to me to be the fault of both sides as indignation fed indignation. No I cannot sympathize with people who break laws when it does not suit them to obey them. That is the route to anarchy. Rail against what you consider to be bad laws not those who uphold them and rail impartially against poor behaviour not take sides when it is obvious that in this case it was half a dozen of one and six of the other.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous11 October 2011 at 13:51

    Apparently the shopping centre has now apologised and is saying photos are allowed from now on.

    ReplyDelete
  10. SBC11 October 2011 at 13:52

    "If a law is broken then "

    Precisely.

    No law was broken....did you miss that bit?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Antisthenes11 October 2011 at 14:34

    No law was broken....did you miss that bit?

    I did.

    However the principle remains the same.

    ReplyDelete
  12. MTG11 October 2011 at 15:06

    Outrageous plagiarism of a W Yorks police concept and copyright infringement.

    Here, police enact/ignore/repeal legislation (retrospectively when necessary) to suit any circumstances. Thus Parliament is spared any inconvenient sittings.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous11 October 2011 at 15:45

    The shopping centre may well have apologised, but it's HR department hasn't announced whether there will be a policy change to prevent the employment of morons in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Do as I say11 October 2011 at 17:44

    The man wasn't listening to the cop. really?

    As far as I can see (or hear) there is no evidence the man was not listening, and even if he was not concentrating on what McBobby said, so what? You are allowed to choose not say anything under the law as it stands so I presume you are also allowed to choose not to listen.

    ReplyDelete
  15. manwiddicombe11 October 2011 at 17:47

    Has this kind of thing become contagious?

    ReplyDelete
  16. microdave11 October 2011 at 18:13

    "I hope he dies in a fire."

    "Unlikely when there are so many chiefs waiting to piss on him."

    Ah, but they will have to carry out a risk assessment before entering a burning building, so the chances are your wish (and mine) will be granted.

    ReplyDelete
  17. SBC11 October 2011 at 19:28

    "Unlikely when there are so many chiefs waiting to piss on him."

    ..because the Farce are so well known for being able to *aim*..right? I forsee a urine drenched Brazilian Electrician...

    ReplyDelete
  18. NickM11 October 2011 at 19:45

    petem130,

    "The Terrorist laws were supposed to protect us from terrorists..."

    You honestly, seriously, think that's why they were introduced?!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Brian, follower of Deornoth11 October 2011 at 20:36

    The officer involved is quite clearly guilty of abusive and threatening behaviour. When is he to be prosecuted?

    ReplyDelete
  20. MTG11 October 2011 at 20:41

    @ Shinar

    "I forsee a urine drenched Brazilian Electrician..."

    Quite so, shinar. We almost overlooked the necessary corrections for paths of unintended consequences as amended by Murphy's Law.

    ReplyDelete
  21. JuliaM12 October 2011 at 05:33

    "ACPO has explicitly (and repeatedly!) issued guidance to the effect that photographers are not to be stopped just for taking photographs..."

    Quite! But I suspect the photographs were just the excuse; this guy challenged authority, and that can never be permitted...

    "The police officer sounds like a typical Scottish cop.

    Full of their own self important bullshit."

    I'm not sure how that makes them different from the average English cop!

    "..The police officer sounds like a typical Scottish cop.

    Full of their own self important bullshit."

    Yup! And I'm expecting the same flat-out denials.

    "The Terrorist laws were supposed to protect us from terrorists..."

    I'm afraid I'm with NickM there!

    ReplyDelete
  22. JuliaM12 October 2011 at 05:36

    "If a law is broken..."

    As SBC points out, no law was broken. That's unequivocal.

    "How the matter was handled appears to me to be the fault of both sides as indignation fed indignation."

    But only one person had the right to be indignant...

    "Apparently the shopping centre has now apologised and is saying photos are allowed from now on."

    That's good news, but it's the police response that's potentially more interesting.

    "Has this kind of thing become contagious?"

    Gawd!

    ReplyDelete