Rant Why I hate the police (more photography woes)

[DaGaffer]

BBC News - Row over photo in shopping centre

Braehead Row Puts Scotland on the Map for PR and Social Media Disasters - The CIPR Conversation

The message just isn't getting through, is it?

I've only just picked up on this whole Braehead thing; what a bunch of fucking idiots. The CIPR article actually alludes to something really important here; retailers are actively encouraging people to get their cameras out (QR codes in windows, ads etc. in-store check-ins and sharing), whilst the shopping centres are trying to enforce ridiculous bans. What a bunch of morons.

 

[Chilly]

Are these places not "public spaces" and therefore open for photography anyway? I know the buildings are privately owned, but it's obvious it's open to the public..

 

[DaGaffer]

Are these places not "public spaces" and therefore open for photography anyway? I know the buildings are privately owned, but it's obvious it's open to the public..

Its a "Quasi-public space", and no, they can pretty much set their own rules. It's remarkable how few rights you have in a shopping centre, although if the Freedom Bill ever get's passed there is apparently some change to the status of these places in that so the public have more rights (like the right to protest etc.)

 

[Shagrat]

I've only just picked up on this whole Braehead thing; what a bunch of fucking idiots. The CIPR article actually alludes to something really important here; retailers are actively encouraging people to get their cameras out (QR codes in windows, ads etc. in-store check-ins and sharing), whilst the shopping centres are trying to enforce ridiculous bans. What a bunch of morons.

Bit daft isn't it. There's no consistency which is another issue

 

[old.user4556]

I've only just picked up on this whole Braehead thing; what a bunch of fucking idiots. The CIPR article actually alludes to something really important here; retailers are actively encouraging people to get their cameras out (QR codes in windows, ads etc. in-store check-ins and sharing), whilst the shopping centres are trying to enforce ridiculous bans. What a bunch of morons.

Its a "Quasi-public space", and no, they can pretty much set their own rules. It's remarkable how few rights you have in a shopping centre, although if the Freedom Bill ever get's passed there is apparently some change to the status of these places in that so the public have more rights (like the right to protest etc.)

These.

The issue is around what's public and what's private. If it's out on the street, the police can bend down and chew on my bell-end. They could try to arrest you for a breach of the peace in Scotland (also retarted) but they'd release you without charge eventually. Shopping centres are a bit of a grey area, sadly they can put up their own rules (as Gaff says) and I do not see it changing soon.

It's all over the news this morning. It really has gone too far but none of it is new. I've been kicked out of a shopping centre (see my other thread from way back) for the same reasons and the security guard alluded to me being a paedo back then.

 

[Tom]

FATHER IN ANTI-TERROR MALL-PHOTO ROW - FULL INTERVIEW - YouTube

 

[old.user4556]

The officer that suggested he could have his stuff taken and images deleted should be put on a disciplinary for blatantly making up laws on the spot. That is just utter fabrication; they have no power to do that.

 

[Raven]

Ah, shopping centres. Ghastly places, surprised anyone would want to take photos in them.

 

[milou]

Liberation of Canary Wharf: cveitch's Channel - YouTube

 

[Clown]

I've never been approached while taking a picture and I've taken a few street shots and building shots around Canary Wharf. Funny that I've been stopped and searched for drugs when I'm at home though.

 

[Gwadien]

This that place in Glasgow? its on the beeb now.

 

[Appollo]

The bloke went wrong when he waited for rentacop to call the real rentacops.

 

[milou]

The officer that suggested [...] images deleted

So he wants evidence of innocence or guilt removed? \o>

 

[old.user4556]

I'm going to contact the guy through Facebook to offer my support. I'm tired of being vilified because I want to take pictures of abstract things like walls and ceilings.

If it made the mainsteam UK beeb then that can only be a good thing, this has to stop.

 

[eksdee]

Liberation of Canary Wharf: cveitch's Channel - YouTube

Haha. Absolutely brilliant.

 

[Will]

Scottish police praised after foiling Al Qaeda toddler ice-cream plot

 

[Zenith.UK]

Sounds to me like an act of public disobedience is required. Flashmobbing the ice cream stand and everyone taking pictures of everything, shops, staff, security, everything.
Let security try and delete everyone's images. By the time they call the real Police, the flashmob would have dispersed. It would show the centre management just how stupid, petty and unworkable their policy is.

 

[old.user4556]

The guy got a written apology:

Dear Mr White

I am writing to formally apologise for the distress that we may have caused you and your family when you visited Braehead last Friday.

As you may be aware, in light of your complaint and the public debate surrounding the incident, we have decided to change our photography policy to allow family and friends to take photos in the mall.

Once again, I wish to sincerely apologise for any distress we may have caused,

Kind regards

Peter

 

[Calaen]

The guy got a written apology:

Happy ending, maybe this will be the start of the other shopping centres using a common sense approach!

 

[old.user4556]

More from Facebook:

As you will have seen Capital Shopping Centres Group PLC have issued a formal apology and said that they have changed their policy on photographs and will allow family and friends to take photographs. I do intend to keep the dialogue going with Capital Shopping Centres Group PLC and clarify that this aplies across all of 14 of their shopping centres including The Trafford Centre and Lakeside.

Furthermore, due to the amount of similar stories that have been shared online and in the media I feel that there is good cause for people to continue to press for all shopping centres to review their policy of no photographs.

We need to return to a common sense approach in society. Various claims have been made in relation to this story. Was it about a terrorist threat? was it a child protection issue? Had another persons right to privacy been breached? These would all have been legitimate concerns and could have been handled so much better by security staff and the police. For example at one stage, Braehead issued a statement saying that they had child protection concerns - at no stage did the security guard or the police ask or check whether I was the father of a young child and I was then allowed to freely walk away from the shopping centre. That does not seem consistent with their child protection claims or statement that it is better to be safe than sorry.

The positives are that at least one shopping centre group have changed their stances on a "no photos" policy and there is now an opportunity to begin a sensible dialogue on a subject that has touch a public nerve.

Hopefully we can now move forward with a common sense approach into a situation that allows families to enjoy precious moments with their children, but at the same time ensure that such public places are areas where we can feel safe and protected.

I have been overwhelmed by the public response on this issue and thank everyone for their support.

 

[old.user4556]

And a policy change -

Braehead Shopping Centre

 

[Clown]

At the same time, I think that private building/land owners should be able to do what they want and that other people need to accept that if they don't like someone else's rules they should live with it or get out.

 

[old.user4556]

You're not wrong there Clown, but a lot of these 'private' areas have wishy washy signs up or act like Nazis when they see someone snapping.

Publicise that photography across the board is banned whether it's an iPhone or a D3X.

 

[Clown]

Obviously for customer service, they should have signs. I understand why it may be annoying, but if someone is acting on behalf of that establishment and they ask you to do something you don't really have a say in the matter.

This whole thing seemed to blow up into a PR issue which is why they amended the rules. I suppose they had to because they are in the business of bringing customers in rather than forcing them out.

 

[old.user4556]

It's going on more than you think, I've been subjected to it myself.

I'm a Photographer, not a Terrorist

 

[Clown]

Don't get me wrong, I know about many other examples where people are getting mugged off by police in the street. I can't say I have with regards to my photography.

I just dislike police for a whole other reason.

 

[Himse]

'I don't think you have the right' all the fucking time.

Just do what the officer asks, she wouldn't have a problem if she just showed him the film and gave some ID then moved on.

 

[ECA]

Why should a private citizen be forced to do that without any probable cause though?

This "if you have nothing to hide" argument is a load of shit.

 

[Krazeh]

At the same time, I think that private building/land owners should be able to do what they want and that other people need to accept that if they don't like someone else's rules they should live with it or get out.

I don't know, I think there has to be some element of compromise between what the owner wants and the rights of the public when the public are actively invited onto private land or into a private building.

 

[Himse]

Why should a private citizen be forced to do that without any probable cause though?

This "if you have nothing to hide" argument is a load of shit.

No I believe that is bullshit, but she is in a way bringing it upon herself by saying that kind of stuff.

If she probably said 'I'm an Art History student and i'm taking photographs for a project' then they wouldn't bat at eyelid.

I guess thought you should be able to photograph, or go about your business as you please and not be harrassed by police for taking a picture or making a video.