Topic: Man questioned by Scottish police for taking a picture of his daughter
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #13,408
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15236758
A Facebook campaign is calling for people to boycott a shopping centre after claims a man was questioned by police for taking photographs of his own four-year-old daughter.
Chris White took a picture of Hazel eating an ice cream in the Braehead shopping centre, near Glasgow.
A security guard told him it was illegal to take pictures in the centre.
A spokesperson for Braehead said it wanted to "maintain a safe and enjoyable environment" for shoppers.
Mr White told BBC Scotland he was approached by a security guard after photographing his daughter "looking cute on the back of a vespa seat at an ice cream bar" at about 16:00 on Friday.
He said the security guard asked him to delete any photos he had taken from his mobile phone.
Mr White explained that he had already posted two photos, in which his daughter was the only person in the shot, to Facebook.
The police were called and Mr White was told there were "clear signs" saying no photographs were allowed.
Mr White said that one officer claimed that under the Prevention of Terrorism Act he was within in his rights to confiscate the mobile phone on which the photos were taken.
I'm reading this as a pedo scare, but if the store has a no photo policy it seems pretty straightforward. Still, why would the police enforce it?Chris White took a picture of Hazel eating an ice cream in the Braehead shopping centre, near Glasgow.
A security guard told him it was illegal to take pictures in the centre.
A spokesperson for Braehead said it wanted to "maintain a safe and enjoyable environment" for shoppers.
Mr White told BBC Scotland he was approached by a security guard after photographing his daughter "looking cute on the back of a vespa seat at an ice cream bar" at about 16:00 on Friday.
He said the security guard asked him to delete any photos he had taken from his mobile phone.
Mr White explained that he had already posted two photos, in which his daughter was the only person in the shot, to Facebook.
The police were called and Mr White was told there were "clear signs" saying no photographs were allowed.
Mr White said that one officer claimed that under the Prevention of Terrorism Act he was within in his rights to confiscate the mobile phone on which the photos were taken.
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 42 seconds later[^] [v] #240,505
Oh meant to add my name, too lazy to repost it
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #240,523
> Still, why would the police enforce it?
Probably because:
> Mr White explained that he had already posted two photos, in which his daughter was the only person in the shot, to Facebook.
Is actually:
> Mr White swore loudly and abused the security officer, proclaiming smugly that he had already posted the pictures to facebook and the security officer could "fuck off"
It's always the same with the fucking Scottish.
Probably because:
> Mr White explained that he had already posted two photos, in which his daughter was the only person in the shot, to Facebook.
Is actually:
> Mr White swore loudly and abused the security officer, proclaiming smugly that he had already posted the pictures to facebook and the security officer could "fuck off"
It's always the same with the fucking Scottish.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #240,526
Nothing to do with a pedophilia scare. Our police really are that stupid sometimes.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #240,532
I'm confused as to why the police got involved at all. It seems distinctively out of their territory, seeing as how he did nothing illegal whatsoever. The shopping center had the right to get the police to kick him out, but that should have been the beginning and end of that story.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 42 seconds later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #240,534
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #240,537
@240,532 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
They almost got involved in a case of Santa denial once. There was also one case where a child taking another child's packet of crisps was fully investigated, interviews and all.
You'd be surprised how much trivial shit the police deal with on a day to day basis in some places.
They almost got involved in a case of Santa denial once. There was also one case where a child taking another child's packet of crisps was fully investigated, interviews and all.
You'd be surprised how much trivial shit the police deal with on a day to day basis in some places.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 49 seconds later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #240,538
@240,534 (B)
His conduct should have gotten him thrown out, not resulted in him getting his property confiscated and him interrogated.
His conduct should have gotten him thrown out, not resulted in him getting his property confiscated and him interrogated.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #240,539
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #240,554
@240,538 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
Disturbing the peace is a crime. Plus he apparently gave the policemen reasonable suspicion for terrorist activities.
Disturbing the peace is a crime. Plus he apparently gave the policemen reasonable suspicion for terrorist activities.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #240,556
@previous (B)
May I ask how you know that he "disturbed the peace" or gave any "reasonable suspicion for terrorist activities"? The only source provided doesn't lend any credence to either theory.
May I ask how you know that he "disturbed the peace" or gave any "reasonable suspicion for terrorist activities"? The only source provided doesn't lend any credence to either theory.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 51 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #240,562
@previous (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
> May I ask how you know that he "disturbed the peace"
He's Scottish.
> or gave any "reasonable suspicion for terrorist activities"?
> under the Prevention of Terrorism Act he was within in his rights to confiscate the mobile phone on which the photos were taken.
Police officer has to have reasonable suspicion for terrorist activities for Prevention of Terrorism Act to apply.
> May I ask how you know that he "disturbed the peace"
He's Scottish.
> or gave any "reasonable suspicion for terrorist activities"?
> under the Prevention of Terrorism Act he was within in his rights to confiscate the mobile phone on which the photos were taken.
Police officer has to have reasonable suspicion for terrorist activities for Prevention of Terrorism Act to apply.
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 44 seconds later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #240,563
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 49 seconds later, 53 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #240,565
@240,562 (B)
> He's Scottish.
Any reason that doesn't involve you being a racist prick?
> Police officer has to have reasonable suspicion for terrorist activities for Prevention of Terrorism Act to apply.
God knows, law enforcement officials never abuse their power.
> He's Scottish.
Any reason that doesn't involve you being a racist prick?
> Police officer has to have reasonable suspicion for terrorist activities for Prevention of Terrorism Act to apply.
God knows, law enforcement officials never abuse their power.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #240,571
@previous (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
> Any reason that doesn't involve you being a racist prick?
Have you ever actually been to Scotland?
> God knows, law enforcement officials never abuse their power.
So you've apparently decided that they're abusing their power rather than enforcing the law properly. For what reason?
> Any reason that doesn't involve you being a racist prick?
Have you ever actually been to Scotland?
> God knows, law enforcement officials never abuse their power.
So you've apparently decided that they're abusing their power rather than enforcing the law properly. For what reason?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #240,573
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #240,574
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #240,576
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #240,580
@previous (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
Sure. Go to Glasgow and then try and tell me that he wouldn't have been a rowdy asshole. I'll suck your cock if you're not bottled in the first ten minutes.
Sure. Go to Glasgow and then try and tell me that he wouldn't have been a rowdy asshole. I'll suck your cock if you're not bottled in the first ten minutes.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #240,689
I respect the store's right to ban photography, but don't support it. I support the boycott to force the store to change its ways.
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #240,690
Fuchs !!4KU9PSdLG joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #240,691
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #240,694
Fuchs !!4KU9PSdLG replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #240,697
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #240,698
Fuchs !!4KU9PSdLG replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #240,701
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 33 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #240,702
Fuchs !!4KU9PSdLG replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #240,705
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 8 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #240,706
@240,690 (marvin !H0G.H/BnJg)
prevent sexual harassment; prevent terrorism (l0l); prevent documentation of illegal actions by staff.
prevent sexual harassment; prevent terrorism (l0l); prevent documentation of illegal actions by staff.
Killer lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 38 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #240,707
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #240,727
This happened a while ago.