Security dispute over father’s photo of daughter

K_user

Another fine mess over a man taking a photograph...

A man who took an adorable picture of his toddler in a Scottish shopping centre was questioned by police after the photo apparently fell foul of anti-terrorism laws.

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.

According to Mr White, 45, a security guard ran over and threatened him - claiming that taking the photo of his own daughter Hazel was “illegal”.

But Mr White maintained that his young daughter, who was crying in his arms, was the only one in the photo.

Police were then called to the scene and threatened to confiscate his phone allegedly citing the Terrorism Act when Mr White – a local mental health worker - refused to delete the photos he had posted on Facebook moments before.

However, under the Terrorism Act 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.

The police allowed him to keep the images and no further action was taken.

The offended father launched a Facebook campaign to boycott the shopping centre soon after the drama unfolded on Friday at 4pm with thousands of people inundating the Facebook page with comments criticising the actions of the mall and the police.

Outraged, Mr White said last night: “I wonder how many shoplifters got away while they were dealing with my act of ‘terrorism’. Surely thousands of people have taken pictures inside shopping centres.”

Superintendent George Nedley of Strathclyde Police confirmed last week’s incident.

“My officers attended and gave advice and no further action was taken by the police officers. I can confirm we have received a complaint regarding this incident and one of my officers has spoken to Mr White regarding this.

“As a result, a full review of the circumstances surrounding the incident and the allegations made is underway.”

In response to the matter, a spokesperson for Braehead said it wanted to “maintain a safe and enjoyable environment” for shoppers.

And here is the offending, terrorist attack, photograph:



And what makes it worse is that the child was crying in her fathers arms while the security guards, followed by the police, made a fuss.

Monty Burnz

The war on terrorism has morphed into a war on just about everything. It's like the paedophilia panic that's been going on for years - all logic and reason goes out the window.

tricky D

Yet another ridiculous abuse of the TA and overly officious security staff. Discretion and public service ethos seems to be sorely lacking with so many of the authorities.

Splinters

To be honest that sounds like its being blown out of all proportion, you're not allowed take photos in any shopping centre. It makes no difference what the image was of. I used to work a security job while in college about 10 years ago. At one stage or another I was based in most of the big shopping centres in the city centre and south Dublin and its the same in them all. Its unfortunate for the father who Im assuming was genuinely unaware of this but hes not exempt from the same rules that apply to everyone else.

dirtyghettokid

why aren't you allowed to take photos in a shopping centre?

challengemaster

Unless there's signs up explicitly stating that photography is not permitted, you can take photos, and even if a photo is taken, nobody has any right to forcefully delete it

Tallon

In fairness, the tone and underlying contrast is Waaaaay off on the photo...

He should have used a tripod

smash

He's well within his rights to sue the shopping centre for harassment, public humiliation and stress.

who the fug

A reply from the shopping centre in question , looks like both sides left the the common sense option at home

magicbastarder

they claim he at no point told them she was his daughter - but they don't say he denied it. which would leave us with a conclusion that they neglected to ask?

magicbastarder

Splinters wrote: »

To be honest that sounds like its being blown out of all proportion, you're not allowed take photos in any shopping centre. It makes no difference what the image was of. I used to work a security job while in college about 10 years ago. At one stage or another I was based in most of the big shopping centres in the city centre and south Dublin and its the same in them all. Its unfortunate for the father who Im assuming was genuinely unaware of this but hes not exempt from the same rules that apply to everyone else.

do camera shops in shopping centres get exemptions to this rule?
must be awkward trying to tell punters they can examine cameras but not take any test photos on them...

Red Alert

dirtyghettokid wrote: »

why aren't you allowed to take photos in a shopping centre?

I heard rumours a while back that Dundrum don't like photography at all.

smash

I don't buy their story at all.

Splinters

challengemaster wrote: »

Unless there's signs up explicitly stating that photography is not permitted, you can take photos

Im afraid thats not true at all. This topic came up recently on here too...these arent public streets we're talking about, they're privately owned places of business where the management are fully entitled to stop you from taking photos if they so choose. If they havent provided you with sufficient notice then the security guards informing you that you cant take pictures is all they need to do. You're right about them not being allowed to delete the photo though. The most they can do is inform you of the rule and if you chose to ignore it they can ask you to leave the shopping centre.

If there was a particularly dodgy looking guy taking photographs of the placement of security cameras, or of the group 4 security guy coming to collect money or of the shop manager opening up nobody would question why security would be trying to stop them. I would have thought it was plainly obvious. Of course this particularly guy didnt appear to be doing anything wrong, but whos to say the next guy wont be. It may be over the top but its a rule that applies to everyone, and the subject mater of this guys photo doesnt make him an exception.

As for the legality of it, Ive no idea where the law in the UK stands on it but over here its just the policy of the the shopping centres. I was certainly never made aware of it being a criminal offence and never heard a mention of any anti terrorist laws however the reality is that the managements policy is enough in this case. If you're on their property then you're obliged to obey their rules or they reserve the right to refuse admission. It really is that simple.

Splinters

magicbastarder wrote: »

do camera shops in shopping centres get exemptions to this rule?
must be awkward trying to tell punters they can examine cameras but not take any test photos on them...

Thats actually a very good question. Im by no means and expert on it, Ive just worked in a lot places where this was enforced and as much as I didnt enjoy doing it in many cases I had to be the one enforcing it. Certainly my experience of it was only ever in the malls themselves not in individual shops. As I said earlier Im fairly sure there is no law governing this over here so its probably left at the discretion of whoever takes on the lease in each shop whether or not their own security enforces it but in the case of a camera shop Id imagine this would have to be agreed with the management of the centre.

smash

Splinters wrote: »

If you're on their property then you're obliged to obey their rules or they reserve the right to refuse admission. It really is that simple.

Surely they must have visible signs to state you can't take photos. If it's a rule but not advertised as such then it can't really be enforced. It's like saying "our staff have the right to hit you because you're on our property" and having it written in a small book that nobody knows about.

While it may come up for discussion here on the forum do you think the average Joe soap taking a photo of his daughter eating an ice cream knows about it?

Paulw

Splinters wrote: »

I was certainly never made aware of it being a criminal offence and never heard a mention of any anti terrorist laws however the reality is that the managements policy is enough in this case. If you're on their property then you're obliged to obey their rules or they reserve the right to refuse admission. It really is that simple.

There is no criminal offence here for taking a photo. They can ask you to stop taking photos, and if you continue, you can be charges with trespass. That's as far as it goes.

Splinters

smash wrote: »

Surely they must have visible signs to state you can't take photos. If it's a rule but not advertised as such then it can't really be enforced. It's like saying "our staff have the right to hit you because you're on our property" and having it written in a small book that nobody knows about.

While it may come up for discussion here on the forum do you think the average Joe soap taking a photo of his daughter eating an ice cream knows about it?

Its not really. Im not claiming they're allowed to do or enforce anything unlawful.

These shopping centres have tons of rules and regulations, and its unrealistic to think they could make every single consumer who walks in from the street aware of every one of them. Being realistic if you're caught taking pictures in a place like this the most severe it should come to is being told by a member of security you're not allowed to take photos. If you werent aware before you've now been told by an employee of the shopping centre. If you still choose to ignore it then they can refuse admission.

Splinters

Paulw wrote: »

There is no criminal offence here for taking a photo. They can ask you to stop taking photos, and if you continue, you can be charges with trespass. That's as far as it goes.

I thought as much. I doubt they'd even go as far as trespassing charges but certainly being asked to leave the centre if people continued to ignore the rule AFTER being informed of it.

BostonB

I never heard that you weren't allowed take photos in shopping centres. Do they many signs up. I've never noticed any.

Splinters

BostonB wrote: »

I never heard that you weren't allowed take photos in shopping centres. Do they many signs up. I've never noticed any.

Plenty do yes. Its usually on a sticker on the door to the centre. Certainly Jervis, Ilac, Blanch and The Square have, or at least they had 10 years ago when I worked in them. It still suprises me more people arent aware of this.

BostonB

I've never noticed them. I'm curious to look for them now.

Splinters

For all the good they do...they usually are there. The point is even if your local shopping centre doesnt have a notice on display they more then likely still have it as a rule and are entitled to enforce it. Im actually just about to pop up to Jervis to grab some dinner so Ill have a look now and see if they're still there.....I may even be cheeky and stand outside the centre and take a picture of one for you all

az2wp0sye65487

"Like most shopping centres, we have a ‘no photography’ policy in the mall for two reasons. First, to protect the privacy of staff and shoppers. as we are sure shoppers would not want strangers taking photographs of them or their children while they were in the mall."

Don't they have CCTV?

ScouseMouse

This happened to my mrs in the blanchardstown centre. It was Christmas and they had an animated polar bear display by the main escalators.

Wife tries to photograph it and security says it's banned. Guy walks off and another security guy says no problems. Take a photo and I'll just hang on here for a sec....

Splinters

Nathaniel Muscular Schoolteacher wrote: »

Don't they have CCTV?

Of course, but how does that negate the reasons not to allow photography in these places? What if this guy actually was taking pictures of the position of security cameras and just being a little bit clever about it by having his daughter pose in front of them. I dont understand why people are having such an issue with this.

By the way Im not sure about the rest but both Jervis and Ilac no longer have a sign up. I noticed the lack of them in Ilac just now and curiosity got the better of me so I went up to Ilac and its the same there too. They've actually taken down all the notices, even the more obvious ones like no dogs (except guide dogs) and instead just have signs saying management reserve the right to refuse admission which covers them for anything so long as the security guard actually informs them of the rules before attempting to enforce it.

emanresu

Anyone could observe the position of security cameras or watch the security guards or shop staff and just remember what they saw or pass on information to partners-in-crime. They don't need to take photos to do this.

Splinters

True, might be more difficult for a paedophile to jack off to a description of a kid though.

Look Im not saying its fool proof, simply explaining from the point of view of somebody who worked in that field why the rule is in place. Personally I dont think its unreasonable at all and found whenever I had to ask people to stop taking pictures, if you do it politely and explain the reasons why, most people seemed reasonable and understood. The bottom line is agree with it or not, those places are privately owned businesses and are perfectly entitled to enforce whatever rules they like (within the law of course). If you dont agree, then dont use their place of business.

Bigtoe107

They witnessed a man taking photographs of a child, unaware that the man and the child were related. I’m sure people will agree it is better safe than sorry.

.

Love this, wonder would anybody have batted an eyelid if it was a woman?

Ridiculous to think that you should inform the security that it is your daughter, in an ideal situation this should be assumed.

magicbastarder

i suspect that the rules governing photography are there so the security guards can move someone along who *is* being problematic or a potential security threat, rather than an excuse to ban any form of photography whatsoever?

Splinters

The problem is how can you distinguish. Certainly a large amount of shoplifters I had dealings with were immaculately dressed and you'd never think they were suspicious to look at (admiedly some were painfully obvious). You cant have a rule in place which is meant to protect both the customers and business itself and be selective about who you enforce it on. By the same logic should we only get people in turbans with beards to go through the scanners at airports because that'd really be a whole lot less hassle for the rest of us?

As far as I can see this is being blown out of proportion by the father in the story. If the news story was instead about catching a paedophile taking pics of strangers kids or the police uncovering an organised shoplifting gang because they were caught taking pictures I dont think anybody would be getting up in arms about it.

Kenny Logins

Red Alert wrote: »

I heard rumours a while back that Dundrum don't like photography at all.

I wonder how they'd handle a boards photowalk?

the_tractor

The Victoria centre in Belfast has a no photography policy, and the thing is that with a large glass dome with views over the whole city, it is one of the most photographed shopping centres in the country.

In reality nothing much happens, but I have heard a few people being asked to leave just cause they have a 'professional looking camera''.

The official policy is that if you want to take photos, you have to inform management before hand, and give them a copy of all the shots you took.

I suggested a photowalk to there, were we all inform management, and then fill as many memory cards as you have of photos of anything and everything, in RAW format only of course, and then give the management copies of 100G worth of useless crap to see how long they enforce that policy. :-)

K_user

Splinters wrote: »

As far as I can see this is being blown out of proportion by the father in the story. If the news story was instead about catching a paedophile taking pics of strangers kids or the police uncovering an organised shoplifting gang because they were caught taking pictures I dont think anybody would be getting up in arms about it.

I'm sorry but the above statement makes little or no sense!

There are vast differences between a father photographing a child and a paedo snapping at whatever child tickles his fancy!

And a father has every right to protest if he felt that he was embarrassed or harassed in a public place, in front of his child. Imagine how you'd feel if you were singled out, in a shopping centre, for photographing a child. Imagine what it would feel like to have a hundred people walk past, watching as you were questioned first by Security and then by the Police, for photographing a child. Reputations in towns could be ruined by something like that.

Personally I've taken a lot of photographs of my kids in shopping centres. And rarely have I used a camera phone, or a compact. In fact the last time I used a 300mm lens!

I think its rare to walk through a city these days without seeing someone photograph something, in the oddest of places. And I'm sure that this often breaks a law, or the permission, of whatever place you are in. But there are ways of dealing with it in a dignified way.

Now there are two sides to every story. But this man obviously feels that he was mistreated, in front of his child. And if its true that he was asked to delete the photographs, then those dealing with the issue were over stepping the law themselves. Whats important to remember is that this man committed no crime. He just broke policy. A word in his ear should have been the end of the matter.

chisel

The truth here is that the security guard obviously either completely over reacted, or else was directed to over react. See how quickly the shopping centre could change its policy when it thought that sales would be hurt! Seems fairly clear that the original "no photo" policy was completely ill conceived. Most likely brought to the centre by someone who copied the policy manual from somewhere else, like say a swimming pool or something.

Photography Policy Change 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.

K_user

Says it all really!

pacquiao

surely there's a case for mental retardation?

smash

I've taken photos in Dundrum shopping centre before and never had issues.

Homer

smash wrote: »

I've taken photos in Dundrum shopping centre before and never had issues.

You just haven't met the right "jobsworth" yet

Splinters

Thats a pretty ****ty way of looking at it. I used to enforce that kind of rule when I worked that job because I had a boss who would constantly monitor the cameras and come down on you like a ton of bricks if you didnt enforce the managements policy. As a poor student at the time I couldnt afford to be let go from a job for not following a very straight forward procedure. Its a ****ty low paid job where a lot of people working it have limited career options...they can hardly be blamed for doing what they're told. If you've an issue with it, take it up with the management who create the rule.

melekalikimaka

theres two sides to evey story and i'mm sure we are seeing just one here

Adrian.Sadlier

The other side just showed its hand

"Capital Shopping Centres issued the policy change after thousands joined a Facebook campaign to support Chris White...". He received a formal written apology! Article on AP http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Photo_policy_Uturn_victory_for_common_sense_news_309964.html

EmmyPixel

I used to work in a shop that sells cameras in Dundrum.

We definitely took pictures. Usually they were deleted fairly quickly because we use the internal memories of the display cameras (which take a few shots only), but the photos were usually inside the store anyway. There's no point showing someone a camera they can't use. They have a big sign at the front doors that states they use cctv but nothing about no photos.