Photographing your kids in a shopping centre

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have but i have never left me willy hanging out whilst taking a pic though:LOL::LOL::LOL:
 
Maybe he was asking the assistant (in a form of sign language) if she would like to lick his lolly, or was it a ice cream? Can't remember.
 
And who said photographers arnt perverts :LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL:
 
Lomond Lad said:
Indeed Flash!

They are insinuating that he was questioned about this at the time rather than anti terror laws.

Who is creating the smoke screen? Him or the Police?

This one will roll a bit I reckon....
Click to expand...

In fairness, the police are the only ones obliged to tell the truth (or the facts as they know them) and as of yet, that's the first time anyone asked them what happened (if the report that's he's been reported to the prosecutor is accurate of course).

And it's interesting that police apologised for upsetting said perverts daughter but not said pervert!
 
Last edited:
It seem one of the member of staff at the ice cream stall reported,he had his zip undone,kind of take me back to thoses days,when their was a big storm,about Boots staff reporting photographer to the police about photos they had taken of their children.

This story get :LOL: by the day,good job he didnt have his back to the staff member,or he might have been reported for builder bum :D
 
This is what * happened (IMO as the facts slowly emerge of course)

He's sat there with his zip undone and taking pics of the girl serving at the ice cream stand, nursing a semi. Realises he's been reported and hurriedly deletes said pictures of ice cream stall girl, and takes a few rubbish snaps of his daughter eating her ice cream as a cover up and walks off. Then when challenged, shows pics of his own daughter and says "honestly officer, thats all I was doing!" then causes a fuss on Facebook in an attempt to bluster his defence and shakes his head as its blown out of all proportion.

Based on the original report from the ice cream stall girl police review the CCTV and this co-oberates HER story. Gets reported to the Procurator fiscal.


* might
 
Last edited:
Ah, the good old Boots 'advice' stickers. I once got some shots of stained glass windows back with a sticker on each of them advising me that they were underexposed because the walls hadn't come out.
 
odd jim said:
This is what * happened (IMO as the facts slowly emerge of course)

He's sat there with his zip undone and taking pics of the girl serving at the ice cream stand, nursing a semi. Realises he's been reported and hurriedly deletes said pictures of ice cream stall girl, and takes a few rubbish snaps of his daughter eating her ice cream as a cover up. Then when challenged, shows pics of his own daughter and says "honestly officer, thats all I was doing!" then causes a fuss on Facebook in an attempt to bluster his defence and shakes his head as its blown out of all proportion.

Based on the original report from the ice cream stall girl they review the CCTV and this co-oberates HER story. Gets reported to the prosecutor fiscal.


* might
Click to expand...

Maybe. BTW, it's Procurator Fiscal.
 
Thanks, corrected! I knew it was something like that...
 
Last edited:
Tell you what IF and I mean IF that is the way it is panning out then that makes it even worse doing that with his kid with him.

spike
 
SpikeK6 said:
Tell you what IF and I mean IF that is the way it is panning out then that makes it even worse doing that with his kid with him.

spike
Click to expand...

And unfortunately, and ironically and most disappointingly given the obvious views on here, adds weight to the no photography rules imposed in such places!
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
And unfortunately, and ironically and most disappointingly given the obvious views on here, adds weight to the no photography rules imposed in such places!
Click to expand...

I agree. Its ok to photo your kid I can see what people are saying with this but I think at times people forget that other people need protecting.

spike
 
odd jim said:
And unfortunately, and ironically and most disappointingly given the obvious views on here, adds weight to the no photography rules imposed in such places!
Click to expand...
Well, not really. That's a rule that's needed clarification and a dose of common sense for a while now.

It certainly adds to the 'no getting your cock out and waving it at the staff' rules though.
 
Strappy said:
Well, not really. That's a rule that's needed clarification and a dose of common sense for a while now.

It certainly adds to the 'no getting your cock out and waving it at the staff' rules though.
Click to expand...

But common sense is never applied, we know that well. It only takes one person to screw it up for everyone else.

And after one of their staff memebers was subjected to this, do you honestly think the shopping centre in question feels positive about reversing the 'no photography' rule. They dont, they probably feel that they have been made to look stupid on two counts and will probably reinstate the ruling, never to rescind it.
 
Last edited:
Statement from Strathclyde's Finest...

Statement re incident at Braehead, 7 October 2011
Rob Shorthouse, Director of Communications for Strathclyde Police said:

“It is absolutely right and proper that when a complaint about the police is made that it is fully investigated. The public need to know that their complaints are taken seriously and are acted upon promptly and professionally. This is exactly what has happened in this incident.

“Mr White complained to the police about the incident in Braehead. In his statement he set out a set of circumstances that has caused widespread debate, comment and criticism for those who he alleged were involved. Mr White chose to make his complaint public, to give interviews to the media and to seek debate on social networks.

“We are well aware that, as a result of this social media conversation, demonstrations are being planned this weekend at Braehead. We have also seen global media coverage of the incident – all of which has painted the shopping centre, this police force and, arguably, our country in a very negative light.

“It is because Mr White chose to seek publicity for his account of events and because of the planned demonstration that we feel compelled to take the unusual step of making our findings public.

“In reaching our conclusions, officers took statements from a number of independent witnesses and viewed the substantial amount of CCTV that was available in the centre.

“On reviewing all of this objective evidence, I have to tell you that we can find no basis to support the complaint which Mr.White has elected to make.

“The members of the public who asked for the security staff to become involved have told us that they did so for reasons which had absolutely nothing to do with him taking photographs of his daughter. They had a very specific concern, which I am not in a position to discuss publicly, that they felt the need to report. It was because of this very specific concern that security staff became involved. They were right to raise their concern and we are glad that they did so.

“The security staff were the ones who asked for police involvement. Again, this was not because Mr White said he had been photographing his daughter, but was due to the concerns that they themselves had regarding this particular incident.

“When our officers became involved they did not confiscate any items, nor was Mr White questioned under counter terrorist legislation. It is wrong to suggest that the police spoke to Mr White because he claimed he had been photographing his daughter, or that officers made any reference to counter terror legislation. Mr.White knows, or ought to know, why our officers spoke with him.

“Since Mr White chose to publish his version of events on Facebook, we have seen substantial traditional media and social media activity around the story. People have been very quick to offer their opinions on this issue and were very keen to accept Mr White’s story as the only evidence that was available. Clearly this was not the case.

“Social media allowed this story to spread quickly around the world. I hope that the same media allows this part of the tale to move just as quickly.

“For the avoidance of any doubt, we have fully investigated this incident and we can say that none of the independent and objective evidence presented to us by either the members of the public or the CCTV backs up the claims made by Mr White.”
Click to expand...
 
That pretty much confirms it and in my mind backs up my theory in post 257.

What a chopper (no pun intended) he deserves all the negative publicity he gets now.

This thread just got interesting!
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
That pretty much confirms it and in my mind backs up my theory in post 257.

What a chopper (no pun intended) he deserves all the negative publicity he gets now.

This thread just got interesting!
Click to expand...

It's certainly an own-goal for one side, only time will tell which though....
 
I think it's pretty obvious now who's in the wrong here now!
 
The plot thickens.

Like we always try to say on here, there is ALWAYS two sides to every story.

Going off on one based on what one person says is always wrong, and in this case there was alot more to it than was stated.

spike
 
It's almost unheard of for a police force to issue such statement, they are clearly confident they have their case.

And don't forget, this is after gathering the evidence and viewing the CCTV. We don't know the full facts but I'm pretty sure they do an their statement says it all without even being specific.

Normally I'd say yes, there are two sides to the story and let's give the fella a chance but after the fuss he made, and what he's likey tried to cover up and the silly facebook campaign her deserves little sympathy.

And like I said, he's reinforced the irrational stereotypes of photography in such places which is the worst aspect of this, arguing against their policy then seemingly giving them a very good reason why people shouldn't be allowed in with cameras. Sad.
 
Last edited:
They had a very specific concern, which I am not in a position to discuss publicly, that they felt the need to report.
Click to expand...

So a complete nothing statement from the police.

It wasn't do to do with photography, it was something else, something else we can't tell you about. Honest.
 
odd jim said:
It's almost unheard of for a police force to issue such statement, they are clearly confident they have their case.

And don't forget, this is after gathering the evidence and viewing the CCTV. We don't know the full facts but I'm pretty sure they do an their statement says it all without even being specific.

Normally I'd say yes, there are two sides to the story and let's give the fella a chance but after the fuss he made, and what he's likey tried to cover up and the silly facebook campaign her deserves little sympathy.

And like I said, he's reinforced the irrational stereotypes of photography in such places which is the worst aspect of this, arguing against their policy then seemingly giving them a very good reason why people shouldn't be allowed in with cameras. Sad.
Click to expand...

It's interesting though that the police saw no reason to arrest the man at the time, if they had evidence. Bear in mind they are now saying that they attended the incident after members of the public raised concerns about Mr White's "trouser-related" actions, where previously they stated that they were there at the behest of the Braehead security officer/s in regard to him taking photographs.
 
gingerjon said:
So a complete nothing statement from the police.

It wasn't do to do with photography, it was something else, something else we can't tell you about. Honest.
Click to expand...
Or possibly it's because the case has been referred to the Procurator Fiscal and to say anything more at this point may prejudice any prosecution on the grounds that the accused won't get a fair trial if it's widely reported through the media beforehand.

It's standard practice.
 
Dear simonblue

On page 1 of this thread.. indeed the 4th post..the day this story broke in fact... I wrote.

KIPAX said:
OMG I can't believe people fall for every word written on facebook...
Click to expand...

To which you replied

simonblue said:
So you dont belive this happen,or are one of those photographer who belive anybody taking photo outside,is wrong,or maybe you just dont take photos,just like to have a camera.
Click to expand...

In light of recent revelations I would just like to take this opportunity to say

NAGH NAGH!


Childish I know.... but :)
 
gingerjon said:
So a complete nothing statement from the police.

It wasn't do to do with photography, it was something else, something else we can't tell you about. Honest.
Click to expand...

I think that tells us a lot more than you think.
 
gingerjon said:
Has it?

Missed that part, sorry.
Click to expand...
Hang about, I've just re-read the STV story, which has been updated and now states:

STV said:
STV News understands police have reviewed CCTV footage from the time and have been in close liaison with the Procurator Fiscal Office however no formal report has yet been submitted.
Click to expand...
So no formal report yet. Apologies to you, Jon.
 
Quite.

I don't know why people are acting so gleefully and bandying around offensive terms.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
It's interesting though that the police saw no reason to arrest the man at the time, if they had evidence. Bear in mind they are now saying that they attended the incident after members of the public raised concerns about Mr White's "trouser-related" actions, where previously they stated that they were there at the behest of the Braehead security officer/s in regard to him taking photographs.
Click to expand...

They didn't review the CCTV until later on by the sound of it and reading between the lines this will likely be the only independent evidence they have, aside from the girls statement. But the police are liasing with the procurator fiscal which means he'll likely summoned to court to explain himself so that's academic now but still a valid point.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
They didn't review the CCTV until later on, and reading between the lines this will likely be the only independent evidence they have, aside from the girls statement. But he's been reported which means he'll be summoned to court to explain himself so that's academic now but still a valid point,".
Click to expand...

No.

a) STV have updated their story. Contrary to the earlier version, no report has yet been made to the Procurator Fiscal.

b) Even if it is reported to the Procurator Fiscal, it's up to the PF to decide whether there's sufficient evidence to prove that

i) a crime has been committed and
ii) that the accused is the perpetrator

For example, in 2006-2007, 922 reports of rape were made to police in Scotland.

These resulting in 515 reports to the PF, which produced only 172 charges of rape being brought to trial (of which 53 resulted in convictions).

http://www.copfs.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Publications/Resource/Doc/13547/0000580.pdf
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
They didn't review the CCTV until later on by the sound of it and reading between the lines this will likely be the only independent evidence they have, aside from the girls statement.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. However no mention was made of the girl's statement/allegation as being the reason that the officers attended the centre. This only came to light nearly a week later and only after one of the officers was accused of improperly telling Mr White he could be charged under the Terrorism Act.
 
Musicman said:
No.

a) STV have updated their story. Contrary to the earlier version, no report has yet been made to the Procurator Fiscal.

b) Even if it is reported to the Procurator Fiscal, it's up to the PF to decide whether there's sufficient evidence to prove that

i) a crime has been committed and
ii) that the accused is the perpetrator

For example, in 2006-2007, 922 reports of rape were made to police in Scotland.

These resulting in 515 reports to the PF, which produced only 172 charges of rape being brought to trial (of which 53 resulted in convictions).

http://www.copfs.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Publications/Resource/Doc/13547/0000580.pdf
Click to expand...

Yeah I know all that and I edited my post before you submitted that so it's all square.

I still think given the statements issued, there's more to this.

Rape is a bad example BTW, it's the offence that yeilds the lowest prosecution rates for reasons I won't go into here. burglary would be a better example.
 
Last edited:
This is were things get a bit muddled :

He can not take photos because it's private property, but in the same place he can comit an offence of exposing himself in public. ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top