Photographing your kids in a shopping centre

[whiteflyer]

And yes, the police have no interest to make anything up (and despite popular belief they won't and can't).

Ask Wayne Darvell and Paul Darvell or any innocent person targeted my West Midlands Serious Crime Squad.

The Police to a fantastic job and 99% would never lie or alter evidence, but to blindly say they won't and can't is naive beyond belief.

 

[odd jim]

Ask Wayne Darvell and Paul Darvell or any innocent person targeted my West Midlands Serious Crime Squad.

The Police to a fantastic job and 99% would never lie or alter evidence, but to blindly say they won't and can't is naive beyond belief.

You're talking serious corruption there, from quite a while ago, and I'm well aware of the history and current make up of the UKs police forces. Well aware.

This relatively minor incident isn't something any serious crime squad will deal with, and certainly nothing someone would be prepared to lose their job over.

Let keep some perspective on this shall we?

 

[DemiLion]

You're talking serious corruption there, from quite a while ago, and I'm well aware of the history and current make up of the UKs police forces. Well aware.

This relatively minor incident isn't something any serious crime squad will deal with, and certainly nothing someone would be prepared to lose their job over.

Let keep some perspective on this shall we?

I generally support the OB Jim, but they do occasionally get it wrong and also lie about it.
Case in point Jules Mattsson v Insp. Bloggs at Romford 2 years ago, currently in legal proceedings.

 

[Davie]

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

Well someone's telling porkies and looking at the guys last statement he's either got balls of steel (possibly caught in a zip) or telling the truth

 

[simonblue]

The ipcc may not even get involved, they'll only review it if they think a complaint is valid.

I just think would good to get a clear picture.

 

[odd jim]

Well someone's telling porkies and looking at the guys last statement he's either got balls of steel (possibly caught in a zip) or telling the truth

That's already been covered, there are potentially many reasons why he wasn't arrested and we'll never know why.

What we do know, and can't deny, is that the truth is unlikely to be as zip man first bleated out on facebook.

 

[odd jim]

I generally support the OB Jim, but they do occasionally get it wrong and also lie about it.
Case in point Jules Mattsson v Insp. Bloggs at Romford 2 years ago, currently in legal proceedings.

I agree, there are mistakes (and always will be as with anything) and there has been corruption in the past, but when you read the facts of the Jules Mattsson case, it's a fairly serious case (which is an extreme case of a journalist being manhandled) as you know, its not some blown out of all proportion facebook / low flying zip incident. I don't think they'll be engaging in MI5 led cover ups!

 

[odd jim]

I just think would good to get a clear picture.

But they might not get involved. Not everything that's referred to them gets investigated by them. In fact a large proportion of complaints get referred back to the forces "professional standards unit" (but don't get me started on them) to deal with, though they might pick this one up due to the media attention IF on first glance it looks as if the complaint fulfils their remit.

We can only wait and see, I doubt the media tit for tat will carry on anymore now so it'll probably die a quiet death.

 

[gingerjon]

the police have no interest to make anything up (and despite popular belief they won't and can't).

Yes, officer.

 

[odd jim]

Yes, officer.

...my point was they are the only ones obliged to stick to the facts.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

...my point was they are the only ones obliged to stick to the facts.

May I refer you back to the statement made by Sir Ian Blair at the time of the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, would you say he stuck to the facts there?

 

[odd jim]

Honestly, I cant remember what statement he made at the time.

But again my point is being missed. I'm not saying people dont, or wont lie. They do, thats not part of being in the police, or being accused of stonking off at the ice cream counter, its human nature. All I'm saying is out of the three parties - the guy himself, the shopping centre and the police - the police service is the only one obliged to stick to the facts. For sure, the police may think this "crime and situation was so serious and the police service made the biggest error ever so lets cover it up" but I seriously doubt it. But yes I concede there are people that will abuse their position and lie, that cant be denied. But over this? I doubt it. And if the "police" lie, they can be brought to account, private individuals cant.

The guy with the broken zip and overactive Facebook account has more reason than anyone to make up a cover story to serve his own interests. The other parties have nothing to gain from making anything up. It has to be seen in the context of THIS incident, not a potential terror attack.

A debate about de Menezes, police corruption, corporate corrupton etc would best be served on another thread as the relevant points raised are being over debated now!

 

[SpikeK6]

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.

Like said just being a little pedantic, or even trying to lighten the mood or start another debate I do not know the shopping centre personaly

spike

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Honestly, I cant remember what statement he made at the time.

But again my point is being missed. I'm not saying people dont, or wont lie. They do, thats not part of being in the police, or being accused of stonking off at the ice cream counter, its human nature. All I'm saying is out of the three parties - the guy himself, the shopping centre and the police - the police service is the only one obliged to stick to the facts. For sure, the police may think this "crime and situation was so serious and the police service made the biggest error ever so lets cover it up" but I seriously doubt it. But yes I concede there are people that will abuse their position and lie, that cant be denied. But over this? I doubt it. And if the "police" lie, they can be brought to account, private individuals cant.

The guy with the broken zip and overactive Facebook account has more reason than anyone to make up a cover story to serve his own interests. The other parties have nothing to gain from making anything up. It has to be seen in the context of THIS incident, not a potential terror attack.

A debate about de Menezes, police corruption, corporate corrupton etc would best be served on another thread as the relevant points raised are being over debated now!

I'm not missing your point. In the de Menezes case the police statement was that he jumped the barrier and refused to stop when challenged by armed officers, neither of which were true.

Going back to the Braehead case, let's look at the version of events now being given by SP...

On Friday evening they were called to the shopping centre because a drunk man, with a small crying child in tow, was wandering around with his flies undone, taking pictures of female staff of an ice cream stall and placing them in a state of fear and alarm.

None of this was mentioned in the original report of the incident and only came to light after the Police "reviewed the cctv evidence". Now, I'm not a trained police officer, but I'm pretty sure I could spot most of these things without the use of cctv. Particularly in the case of the alcohol and, given that Braehead is one of those places most people need to drive to if I were one of those officers I'd be checking to see if this intoxicated man was intent on driving away in a motor vehicle.


The clincher for me is this though, the Police didn't charge him, no-one else save the security guard, Police officers involved and the ice cream stall staff were privy to what went on. So once Mr White walked away from the shopping centre the incident was, in effect, over.

He wasn't going to be arrested and he wasn't going to appear in the newspapers, yet he took the story to the papers himself. I'm pretty certain that he would know that allegations of him "willy waving" and being a peeping tom would more than likely lose him his job.

Does that sound plausible to you?

 

[odd jim]

That does, on the whole. But no details of actions and decisions at the scene have ever been made public (and I havn't read about the alcohol aspect but speaking with him the officers could eliminate or confirm that straight away), and this is where the main questions lie.

But even by that account, did he take it to the papers out of genuine anguish as an innocent man, or did he go to the papers to create a smoke screen knowing issues may be raised from the incident to his detriment?

We'll never know.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

That does, on the whole. But no details of actions and decisions at the scene have ever been made public (and I havn't read about the alcohol aspect but speaking with him the officers could eliminate or confirm that straight away), and this is where the main questions lie.

But even by that account, did he take it to the papers out of genuine anguish as an innocent man, or did he go to the papers to create a smoke screen knowing issues may be raised from the incident to his detriment?

We'll never know.

Why would any issue be raised? "Man doesn't get charged with a crime" isn't exactly going to make the headlines

Obviously I've never met the man, but from the interviews I've seen on tv he seems like a fairly well-balanced individual and let's face it, you'd need to be off your head to go to the press and draw attention to yourself if you'd committed an act of indecency whilst drunk and in charge of a small child, especially, as I said previously, if your job was likely to be put at stake by doing so.

Let's suppose it's all true though and Mr White did smell strongly of intoxicants and his flies were undone and his child in great distress when the Police arrived. The question then is why didn't the Police act to ensure the safety and well being of his daughter?

I've seen people lifted for less in Glasgow, in fact the threat of being charged with "breach of the peace" is pretty much a given as soon as you start to question the judgement or actions of a Police officer around here, so I'm amazed he wasn't even charged with that if he was so obviously out of control and causing a "state of fear and alarm" .

 

[Bernie174]

Flash
As you mention the de Menezes case, can I suggest that you read the IPCC report on the allegation of Police Cover up.
I think you'll find that Blair was cleared of it. Now you could say he lied to get out of it, but as everything he said was recorded, as was most of what he was told, it would take some organising to achieve that. And that is something far beyond Blairs ability, mind you so was being a senior Police officer, and he managed to get to be one!
But the fact remains, Blair didn't lie, nor attempt to mislead. I dislike Blair, with a vengeance, but if you are going to hang anyone, do it for something they did, not what the press, who he also peed off, tell you he did. The 2 things are not the same.

Moving on from that pile of fiction to the current one...
1. The IPCC will not be investigating anything to do with this incident, that is a 100% certainty. The IPCC have NO jurisdiction is Scotland.
2. The Police Statement, hasn't been contradicted by anyone. Except the man concerned, and, well, lets see where that goes. No where I suspect. He's not the first person who's been caught and got away with something by the skin of his teeth to try and bite back. I suspect it'll end in tears, his or just go away when he is told not to be silly by a solicitor.
3. The fact remains, this hasn't anything to do with Photographers rights, and everything to do with the rights of owners of private property.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Flash
As you mention the de Menezes case, can I suggest that you read the IPCC report on the allegation of Police Cover up.
I think you'll find that Blair was cleared of it.

Where did I say there had been a cover up? Blair made a statement to the effect that de Menezes was "directly linked to the ongoing anti-terrorist operation" and that "the man was challenged and refused to obey (a direct police order)."

That was later proved to be what at best could be described as a "factual inaccuracy".

From what you're saying the Police never make such "mistakes", yet here's an example of a rather glaring one from your own force.

 

[Musicman]

As you mention the de Menezes case, can I suggest that you read the IPCC report on the allegation of Police Cover up.

Well, the jury in the inquest chose to believe six civilian witnesses over the evidence from seven police officers when they returned an open verdict in the de Menezes case.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/menezes-did-the-police-lie-1064461.html

Jean Charles de Menezes was not lawfully killed as part of an anti-terrorist operation, a jury decided yesterday, rejecting the police account of how the Brazilian died as not to be trusted.

Returning an open verdict at the end of the 12-week inquest, the jurors contradicted evidence given by seven firearms and surveillance officers when they answered a series of 13 questions put to them by the coroner.

In particular, they said they refused to believe that the first officer to open fire, codenamed C12, had shouted a warning of "armed police" first. They also rejected the officer's claim that the Brazilian had walked towards him.

...

The most damaging of all the jury's assertions yesterday was that firearms officer C12 did not shout "armed police". During evidence four firearms officers were adamant that a call was made. They were backed by three of their surveillance team colleagues – all of whom said the same. But six witnesses who were in the carriage on the day Mr de Menezes was shot said they heard nothing. Yesterday the jury agreed with their accounts.

They also rejected C12's claim that Mr de Menezes had walked towards him before he opened fire. During the inquest, which is estimated to have cost £6m, C12 said that Mr de Menezes walking towards him was the main reason he decided to open fire.

 

[odd jim]

I can't believe this has turned into a debate about de menezes... Oh dear oh dear, goodbye all perspective.

 

[Splog]

I can't believe this has turned into a debate about de menezes... Oh dear oh dear, goodbye all perspective.

I suspect that it's more about the honesty, or not of the police .

 

[Musicman]

perhaps, more pertinently, in relation to their briefing of the press.

 

[odd jim]

I suspect that it's more about the honesty, or not of the police .

But I fail to see how this is relevant?

Excuse my ignorance but what exactly have Strathclyde police said or done that is untruthful?

 

[Splog]

But I fail to see how this is relevant?

Excuse my ignorance but what exactly have Strathclyde police said or done that is untruthful?

I doubt they have done or said anything dishonest or untruthful. What would be the point of that?

 

[odd jim]

I doubt they have done or said anything dishonest or untruthful. What would be the point of that?

My point.

So why is the de menezes debate relevant at all to this thread?

 

[Splog]

My point.

So why is the de menezes debate relevant at all to this thread?

It's not, other than to be used as an example of police behaviour when put under the spotlight

 

[odd jim]

It's not, othef than to be used

I don't understand. What have the police done here for that to be brought to the fore? They seem to have been quite reasonable and frank about it.

 

[Splog]

I don't understand. What have the police done here for that to be brought to the fore? They seem to have been quite reasonable and frank about it.

Sorry Jim I pressed the send button as I was typing... I agree with you they have simply stated their side of the story, nothing wrong with that. I just hope they have checked the details before releasing their statement.

 

[Bernie174]

It was introduced by some who wanted it to show evidence of police lying. It doesn't do that however.
What it does do, is illustrate, as the except from the Indie shows an example of press reporting by being selective, trying to influence opinion to their own point of view. I'd suggest going and doing some research into witness reliability, meanings and effect of inquest verdicts and the chances of the Indie actually knowing what a Jury think, given that they had no access to them.
True reporting would present both sides, and let a reader decide, the Indies piece contains what they think, nothing more.
Just like the face book piece that started this topic, half a story isn't the whole story, so in that, using it as an example has simply reinforced the point I made at the beginning. Wait until you hear both sides, or make comment based on experience, not what you read in the papers or face book.

 

[Musicman]

the chances of the Indie actually knowing what a Jury think, given that they had no access to them.

The Inquest was held in a Coroner's Court, not a Criminal Court.

While they did not have access to the deliberations inside the Jury Room, the Indie knows exactly what the jury thought because the coroner denied them a narrative verdict and instead directed them to answer a number of specific questions about the case as part of their verdict. You can see all of them at the bottom of the article I linked to.

Consequently, it is a matter of public record what the jury's view was on those points.

The PDF transcripts that were officially published online at the time of the Inquest have been since taken offline, however they have been archived at julyseventh.co.uk

pages 9 and 10 of this document

Sir Michael Wright was the Coroner presiding at the Inquest, BTW.

(12.53 pm)

(In the presence of the jury)
VERDICT​

17 SIR MICHAEL WRIGHT: Mr Foreman, I think, if you don't mind,
18 if I ask you to stand up, then everybody can see you and
19 see that it is you who is speaking.

20 I understand that the jury has reached a verdict and
21 answers to all questions and that at least eight of you
22 are agreed on all the answers given. Is that so?

23 THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY: That's correct, sir.

24 SIR MICHAEL WRIGHT: Thank you.
25 I am now going to ask you to give your answer on
1 each matter and to say in each case whether you are all
2 agreed or whether the answer has been reached by
3 a majority and, if so, the size of the majority in each
4 case, the numbers in each case.
5 The short form verdict is either lawful killing or
6 open verdict. What is your verdict?

7 THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY: Open verdict.

8 SIR MICHAEL WRIGHT: Thank you.

9 Question 1: did officer Charlie 12 shout the words
10 "armed police" at Mr de Menezes before firing; yes, no
11 or cannot decide?

12 THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY: No.

13 SIR MICHAEL WRIGHT: I should have asked you in relation to
14 the verdict: is that a unanimous verdict or by
15 a majority?

16 THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY: It's a majority.

17 SIR MICHAEL WRIGHT: How many agreed and how many disagreed?

18 THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY: Eight agreed, two disagreed.

19 SIR MICHAEL WRIGHT: In answer to question number 1, the one
20 you have just given, is that unanimous or by majority?

21 THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY: That is unanimous.
...


1 SIR MICHAEL WRIGHT: Thank you

2 Did Mr de Menezes move towards officer C12 before he
3 was grabbed in a bear hug by officer Ivor?

4 THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY: No, and that's unanimous.

5 SIR MICHAEL WRIGHT: Thank you.

QED

 

[simonblue]

My point.

So why is the de menezes debate relevant at all to this thread?

Yes agreed here,for me this debate is about photography,if he has been telling a load of porkey,and it has nothing to do with him taking photos .

The thing is when this blew up at first,why didn't the shopping centre just say,this has nothing to do with photography,we called the police in over another matter not relating to him taking photos,they must have know why they called the police :shrug:

 

[whiteflyer]

As with lot of issues it's not the actual deed that causes the downfall , but the cover up afterwards, be that the chap with the camera or the police for over/under reacting

 

[Flash In The Pan]

I don't understand. What have the police done here for that to be brought to the fore? They seem to have been quite reasonable and frank about it.

The point is that the statement was made that everything the Police say is the gospel truth, the de Menezes case was only highlighted to prove the point that this is not the case....

 

[Musicman]

3. The fact remains, this hasn't anything to do with Photographers rights, and everything to do with the rights of owners of private property.

If the stories about why he was originally approached by security and then by the police are to be believed, then it's practically nothing to do with private property rights.

to wit...

The thing is when this blew up at first,why didn't the shopping centre just say,this has nothing to do with photography,we called the police in over another matter not relating to him taking photos,they must have know why they called the police :shrug:

You'd have thought they'd think of that before making a public apology to Chris White and significant changes to their national policy on photography. Those kinds of decisions are obviously not made on a whim by a PR minion.

Indeed, in their initial statement Braehead made no mention of it, only of their policy on photography being breached.

Following various postings on social media websites and stories in the traditional media, Braehead would like to set the record straight on an incident involving a man taking photographs of a child in the centre, on Friday October 7.

Retail staff at an ice cream stall in Braehead became suspicious after they saw a male shopper taking photographs of a child sitting at their counter. The staff thought the man had also been taking photographs of them and they alerted one of the centre’s security staff. The member of security staff approached the man and politely asked if he had been taking photographs. At no time in the initial conversation was the member of our security staff informed by the man that the child in question was his daughter.

Because of the nature of the incident, police became involved and also spoke to the man. Our priority is always to maintain a safe and enjoyable environment for all our shoppers and retailers. The member of our security staff acted in good faith.

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.

Secondly and sadly, we live in a world of potential threats from terrorists and everyone is being urged by the police to be vigilant at all times. It is not uncommon for those intending to make some kind of attack to take photographs of their intended target as part of their planning before the event.

However, it is not our intention to - and we do not - stop innocent family members taking pictures. Discretion is used at all times.

Although Friday’s incident had nothing to do with a potential terrorist attack, the two retail assistants and the member of our security staff were faced with a situation they genuinely thought was suspicious. 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.

This statement has since been removed from their site (I retrieved it from the Google cache)

That was issued on the afternoon of Monday, 10th October.

On the next day, Tuesday, STV's Senior Reporter, Mike Edwards was apparently aware of the other part of the story, publishing it in his twitter feed, though it didn't make it into an STV report until Thursday.

16:55 I can reveal Braehead photo story not all it seems. Major development tonight. Police take vital witness statement re why security alerted.

16:58 I can reveal security and police called for more than man taking pic of daughter. Braehead staff member makes specific allegations.

17:10 Female Braehead staff member tells police man 'had flies open' while photographing her. Police preparing report for fiscal.

.

So,

a) from where did Mike Edwards source this information about what had been said to the police?

b) How come an STV reporter was aware of the nature of a Braehead employee's initial complaint when the centre's management apparently were not?

 

[big soft moose]

I can't believe this has turned into a debate about de menezes... Oh dear oh dear, goodbye all perspective.

People are just following the rules sarah laid down three pages back

all we need now is some godwinism and a and it will be yet another classic example of a photographers rights thread

 

[fixedimage]

Before anyone ****es and moans about photographers rights, take a wander to the Xscape centre, not exactly a million miles from Braehead and packed to the rafters with people openly photographing and videoing their family and friends with scant regard for who else is in the frame and in coming on 5 years of working there iv never seen nor heard of anyone getting hassle for it.

 

[Laudrup]

And yes, the police have no interest to make anything up (and despite popular belief they won't and can't).

 

[odd jim]

Ok.

But why would they bother making anything up about this load of crap, seriously?

 

[simonblue]

Before anyone ****es and moans about photographers rights, take a wander to the Xscape centre, not exactly a million miles from Braehead and packed to the rafters with people openly photographing and videoing their family and friends with scant regard for who else is in the frame and in coming on 5 years of working there iv never seen nor heard of anyone getting hassle for it.

Sorry the camera has been invented,people tend to take photos with them,I am sure their,not trying to steal your soul.

I have been to London a few times this,must have been caught in peoples photos,I don't know how many times,do I care no,what do you think people are going to do with any photo you been caught in :shrug:

 

[Marc]

Sorry the camera has been invented,people tend to take photos with them,I am sure their,not trying to steal your soul.

I have been to London a few times this,must have been caught in peoples photos,I don't know how many times,do I care no,what do you think people are going to do with any photo you been caught in :shrug:

Seriously Simon, you need to start reading peoples' posts properly. He was pointing out that he had never seen or heard of anyone getting hassle for taking photos in the Xscape centre, where on earth did you get that he thought they were wrong to take photos from?