Photographing your kids in a shopping centre

Status
Not open for further replies.
acetone said:
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. ?
Click to expand...

Not muddled at all. The shopping centre is private property, to which the owners grant access to the public. You'd know this if you'd read any of the 10 pages of previous posts :naughty:
 
acetone said:
A strip club is the same, so should the artists also be prossicuted.
Click to expand...

Now you're being rediculous!

A strip club is entirely different. Strict conditions where you pay on entry for a particular type of entertainment. And you always end up spending far more than you ever envisaged.....
 
Last edited:
acetone said:
A strip club is the same, so should the artists also be prossicuted.
Click to expand...

No a strip 'club' is private. As in the word 'club' which has members. no giggling at the back please.

So when strippers appear in a 'pub' restrictions are made on entry to create a 'private' environment.

Surely if one is making the effort to look for an argument, there's something more challenging than that to try?
 
Phil V said:
So when strippers appear in a 'pub' restrictions are made on entry to create a 'private' environment.
Click to expand...
When I was a lad, one of the local pubs had a couple of strippers on a Friday night to bring in the punters. In order to stop it, the local council brought in a by-law forbidding stripping in public houses, so the landlord agreed with the girls that they'd come out naked and just dance instead. :D


And if you thought that was funny, you should have seen the look on my mate's face when it turned out that one of the strippers was a girl he'd had a crush on for a couple of years. :LOL:
 
So a complete nothing statement from the police.
Click to expand...

It tells you a great deal. But most importantly, it shows that the man was not telling the truth in his allegations about Security, Police and what happened.
It's a very good illustration of why next time one of these stories comes about, that just because someone says something happened, it does not mean it did.
Strangely, now it's time to withdraw their silly comments and apologises to the real innocent parties, those throwing the loudest and most insulting comment about have scuttled off......
 
Not withdrawing any of my statement,it all boil down to what was said between,the two party.

If their was a complaint about a man exposing himself,he should have been taken into custody,and question about,full stop,it seem only after he went public,did the police issues a further statement.

Now it's seem according to the BBC news no charges are to be made against the man.
Let not forget this story has not finished yet,the man involved has said he going to issues a statement later.

:)
 
Bernie174 said:
It's a very good illustration of why next time one of these stories comes about, that just because someone says something happened, it does not mean it did.
Click to expand...

From what was being reported on the BBC Scotland News it's looking as if those words may apply to the statement made by SP, rather than anything anyone else said or did......
 
KIPAX said:
Dear simonblue

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



To which you replied



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

NAGH NAGH!


Childish I know.... but :)
Click to expand...

(In light of recent revelations ) mean nothing let see where the police go from hear,either their enough, evidence to prosecute the man or not.

And dout this will go to court,because then those involved will have to stand up in court and swear under oath to what was said or seen.
Seem to me no one yet is telling the whole truth,and that is including the police,and any good defence council,would tear the police case apart :D
 
This may all be distilling down to a position where everybody on a photography forum can agree.

Ultimately, other than the voyeuristic and argumentative content, the issue raised here is about whether a blanket "no photography" policy in shopping centres needs be applied to the general public taking family/friends snaps. It is quite distinct from the need to protect IP and other product protection and a whole range of other illegal activities, including exposing genetalia, for which nobody has argued that prohibition is not required.

What is apparent is that there are many people who have never had a problem with shopping centre security when taking photos of family/friends. Irrespective, it seems that now shopping centres up and down the country have clarified their position and it seems that we have nothing to fear when we take snaps of our kids on amusement rides or eating ice cream etc. That is a good thing. Maybe, with the direction this story is taking now as not being an issue with photography by the general public, this could now be seen to unnecessary.

I'm left wondering why the shopping centre in question didn't issue a statement to the effect that, despite a no photography policy, they, along with many other shopping centres, are tolerant to general public taking photos and, in those circumstances, would not usually act on the photography ban and that, in this specific case, the issue was not to do with photography. Having said that (in a very long sentence), they may have been constrained by legal issues and police investigation.

Perhaps naively, I prefer, on balance, to side with the police. (Please don't let that become another debate). So, as to the content of the story itself, the father may well have taken on an incredibly high risk strategy to dig himself out of a hole.
 
gazzag said:
I'm left wondering why the shopping centre in question didn't issue a statement to the effect that, despite a no photography policy, they, along with many other shopping centres, are tolerant to general public taking photos and, in those circumstances, would not usually act on the photography ban
Click to expand...

I can perhaps think of one reason: ISO 9000 compliance.

If their written policy is strictly 'no photography' then to turn a blind eye when it's, for want of a better term, convenient, then they've just created a non-conformance issue.

If their security is provided by an external company, then possibly two non-conformances if the security firm are contractually obliged to apply the shopping centre's policies.

I've been through similar sorts of arguments about such things at my place of work. You end up with all sorts of knotty messes of logic.
 
Musicman, yes, good points. Having said what I would have liked them to do, my "having said that" concedes that it might not have been possible and your points add to that.

I've never been an ISO9000 expert, but recall my Ops Mgr's mantra of "write down what you do and do what you write down" as far as policies are concerned. If that still holds, then it's a good thing that they are amending their policy.
 
Last edited:
Simon


If their was a complaint about a man exposing himself,he should have been taken into custody,and question about,full stop,it seem only after he went public,did the police issues a further statement.
Click to expand...

on the first point, not necessarily, depending on what the witness said, ie it may be that not enough of the elements of the offence were present, if thats what they were investigating, and therefore arrest wasn't justified. Alternatively, the witness may not have been willing to give evidence, and therefore without that, there's no point in arrest. However there'd be plenty of point in speaking to him. I'm afraid your statement flies in the face of the numerous guidelines on arrest, funny how you want those broken, by go on the attack when an incident happens, where the photography ones don't apply.
As for only releasing a statement in response to press clamour? Nothing different from normal. My neighbor was burgled, a man was arrested for it, and released as there was insufficient evidence, there's no press statement about that. There wont be unless there's a press question, why should there be?
 
Bernie174 said:
Simon




on the first point, not necessarily, depending on what the witness said, ie it may be that not enough of the elements of the offence were present, if thats what they were investigating, and therefore arrest wasn't justified. Alternatively, the witness may not have been willing to give evidence, and therefore without that, there's no point in arrest. However there'd be plenty of point in speaking to him. I'm afraid your statement flies in the face of the numerous guidelines on arrest, funny how you want those broken, by go on the attack when an incident happens, where the photography ones don't apply.
As for only releasing a statement in response to press clamour? Nothing different from normal. My neighbor was burgled, a man was arrested for it, and released as there was insufficient evidence, there's no press statement about that. There wont be unless there's a press question, why should there be?
Click to expand...

Sorry but somthing seem very wrong here to me,on the photography the man was not breaking any laws,only the rules set up by the shopping centre,which at the end of the day is a civil matter.
But as for the other complaint,it is agaisnt the law,so your if it is true,and man can expose himself in a shopping centre,with a small child with him,and their nothing the police can do,with all the cctv ?.

Very odd all of this,things just dont add up :(
 
simonblue said:
Sorry but somthing seem very wrong here to me,on the photography the man was not breaking any laws,only the rules set up by the shopping centre,which at the end of the day is a civil matter.
But as for the other complaint,it is agaisnt the law,so your if it is true,and man can expose himself in a shopping centre,with a small child with him,and their nothing the police can do,with all the cctv ?.

Very odd all of this,things just dont add up :(
Click to expand...

It's not that it doesn't add up, it simply means the evidence isn't strong enough to stand up to testing in court (from the press reports we know about). It doesn't mean he wasn't acting illegally.

But don't know the facts and never will so we can only guess.
 
odd jim said:
It's not that it doesn't add up, it simply means the evidence isn't strong enough to stand up to testing in court (from the press reports we know about). It doesn't mean he wasn't acting illegally.

But don't know the facts and never will so we can only guess.
Click to expand...

Given the furore he stirred up, I reckon Strathclyde's finest would have charged him if there was eve the hint of a crime having been committed. As has been said before on this thread, it's not up to the police to decide if the case will stand up in court, determining that is part of the PF's remit.
 
As has been said before on this thread, it's not up to the police to decide if the case will stand up in court, determining that is part of the PF's remit.
Click to expand...

True, but you are forgetting, or don't know that Police are there to investigate, and then only if there is sufficient evidence to prove a charge, to report that to the PF or CPS, in England.

Very odd all of this,things just dont add up
Click to expand...

Oh it adds up very obviously. An allegation was made, Police went to investigate it. That allegation wasn't capable of proof, and therefore no further action was taken. It happens all the time.
It seem though chummy wanted to try and make an issue out of it, and invented his story, which too many people fell for. Moral of the story is wait until you have both sides and or have some experience of dealing with that sort of thing.
 
Bernie174 said:
It seem though chummy wanted to try and make an issue out of it, and invented his story, which too many people fell for.
Click to expand...
Or chummy got home and daughter told Mummy about the policemen who spoke to Daddy, who had to come up with a story quickly...

Still, it's all speculation.
 
Strappy
Very possibly. The only thing that can't be in doubt, is the Police version. As has been mentioned before, they have no option but to tell the story as it is, albeit, with unfortunately regard for chummy's privacy. In other words, they are only able to correct his version of events, they aren't allowed to say why he was really brought to attention.
 
There has been one good thing come out of all the fuss and that's the issue of photography in places like shopping centres has been brought to the public/media attention.

Capital Shopping Centres has today issues all is centres with the same policy.

You may take photographs of and film (i) your family and friends (ii) other people who give you their express permission and/or (iii) the shopping centre generally (i.e. the public areas of the building and architecture, but not the non-public areas of the building or our security systems and procedures).

Such photographs and films must only be taken in public areas and be for your personal, private, non-commercial and lawful use, and must otherwise comply with this policy. You cannot take any other photographs or films without our prior permission.

Please respect other people’s privacy. You must not photograph or film people who are not your family or friends unless they have given their express consent. We understand that other people may appear in the background of photographs of your family and friends and other people who have given their express permission. We do not object to this, provided those other people are not the focus of the photograph or film and you have not deliberately included them. The shopping centre is a public and family place, so the nature and content of any photographs and films must respect that.

If you want to take photographs or make films for commercial purposes or for purposes other than your own personal and private use you must first obtain our permission.

Whether you can take photographs or films in or of each individual store (e.g. a shop or restaurant) is a question for the store. Some stores may have different policies to us. If in doubt, you should ask them before taking photographs or films in or of their stores but, as a minimum, you should comply with this policy.
Click to expand...
 
Bernie174 said:
Strappy
Very possibly. The only thing that can't be in doubt, is the Police version. As has been mentioned before, they have no option but to tell the story as it is, albeit, with unfortunately regard for chummy's privacy. In other words, they are only able to correct his version of events, they aren't allowed to say why he was really brought to attention.
Click to expand...

Why can't the police version be in doubt,the police have never made up a story before.
Also a quick update some of the staff are now recanting their statement that they made to the police.
 
simonblue said:
Why can't the police version be in doubt,the police have never made up a story before.
Also a quick update some of the staff are now recanting their statement that they made to the police.
Click to expand...

Where did that last update come from?

And yes, the police have no interest to make anything up (and despite popular belief they won't and can't). The chump with the cameraphone and loose fly's on the other hand does.
 
Strappy said:
Or chummy got home and daughter told Mummy about the policemen who spoke to Daddy, who had to come up with a story quickly....
Click to expand...

:LOL::LOL:

this has been at the back of my mind from the start

Mummy...' have a nice day at the Mall ''

wee'un.....WOW !!! lotsa Polis came after Dada waved Mr Pee-Pee at the lady...

Mummy... play upstairs, while I have a wee blather with Daddy

:exit:
 
The plot thickens

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u..._amid_lawsuit_threat_news_310043.html?aff=rss

AP said:
The shopping centre photo row is set to deepen with news that amateur photographer Chris White may take legal action after police yesterday publicised a 'specific concern' reported to them.

NEWS UPDATE: SHOPPING CENTRES REVEAL NEW PHOTO POLICY

White has tonight confirmed to Amateur Photographer (AP) that he has lodged a complaint with the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland and will talk to his lawyer next week with a view to suing Strathclyde Police.

In a candid interview with AP, White - a mental health trainer - said: 'If I do not defend myself - even though there is no criminal charge - it potentially has a massive effect on my work prospects.'

He said he has received a letter from police claiming officers were told he had been seen talking to himself, under the influence of alcohol and taking a photo of a female shop assistant with his trousers undone.

'My last drink was on Burn's Night 2000,' said White who denies he was talking to himself.

'At no stage was I aware my zip was undone.'

He said police have also claimed his daughter 'appeared to be distressed'.

Police have so far refused to elaborate, publicly, on the details of the 'specific concern' mentioned in their statement.

White questions whether police would have allowed him to walk out of a shopping centre drunk, with his trouser zip down, talking to himself and with a child in distress.
Click to expand...
 
odd jim said:
Where did that last update come from?

And yes, the police have no interest to make anything up (and despite popular belief they won't and can't). The chump with the cameraphone and loose fly's on the other hand does.
Click to expand...

Read below,it's getting silly now,the only thing is for the IPPC,to get involve,and to go thought every statement and see where the truth lies.
 
I think it is now in the public interest that a clear statement of facts is published, with so much FUD around this incident.

As an aside the Police in the past have asked for the publics photographs to assist them with incidents in 'public' places, now if other people had been taking photos at Braehead it may be a little clearer as to what actually happened. Photos are not always a bad thing.
 
Trouble is though he could still have been in trouble for taking pics even under the new rules of the shopping centres as he took pics of his little girl INSIDE the ice cream shop and said icecream shop might not have allowed pics.

Just being pedantic :p:D
 
simonblue said:
Read below,it's getting silly now,the only thing is for the IPPC,to get involve,and to go thought every statement and see where the truth lies.
Click to expand...

The ipcc may not even get involved, they'll only review it if they think a complaint is valid.
 
SpikeK6 said:
Trouble is though he could still have been in trouble for taking pics even under the new rules of the shopping centres as he took pics of his little girl INSIDE the ice cream shop and said icecream shop might not have allowed pics.

Just being pedantic :p:D
Click to expand...

There isn't an 'inside' to the ice cream shop, it's just an open kiosk in the middle of the shopping centre concourse with some seats at one end.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top