Shopping centre guard calls police over father taking 'illegal' photographs of his daughter

As has been pointed out by some on the FB page the centre/mall has numerous shops which sell cameras or devices with cameras. So what I want to know is if you go into one of these shops and are considering buying one of these products and do a test photo of something are you breaking the rules ?

Or is it ok for somebody thinking about buying something to take pictures and not ok for somebody who has already bought something ?

I say the managment are wrong for making money out of selling cameras (indirectly) and then banning the use of them on their premises.

I see over on the Shopping Centre FB page they are making matters worse by coming up with all sort of ludicrous claims.

Apparantly they started deleting negative posts from their page and now are saying they didn't do it, somebody else must have and they are now in the process of re instating the deleted posts.

What a lot of clap trap. Must think everyone buttons up the back

Can anyone come up with a valid reason that this shopping center has for banning people from taking photos.

Not that it maters because there are many was to hide cameras.
www.pimall.com...

If it was me i would go into the shopping center and photograph the guards as they walked the center then post all the photos on the internet.

reply to post by ANNED


Once again...... why?

Your avvy says "Oath Keeper." What have the guards done wrong? The mall is a place of business, they can outlaw pictures, shorts, or mohawks, it doesn't matter, they can choose whatever rules they want. If people don't like it, then don't go there. If enough people don't go there, then the rules will change. If the business is still good, then why do you want to be a trouble-maker and go there to harass the guards?

Sometimes, when people get tased, they actually deserved it.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by ANNED

 

Once again...... why?

Your avvy says "Oath Keeper." What have the guards done wrong? The mall is a place of business, they can outlaw pictures, shorts, or mohawks, it doesn't matter, they can choose whatever rules they want. If people don't like it, then don't go there. If enough people don't go there, then the rules will change. If the business is still good, then why do you want to be a trouble-maker and go there to harass the guards?

Sometimes, when people get tased, they actually deserved it.

That is their rules (civil law) and their right to uphold... now explain why he was ""guilty"" under criminal law.

I didn't know UK had the same stupid idea of private property as US does. We have it right. If an area is freely accessed by public it is a public area in law too.
I recently went to a local mall and there was one makeup store that had no photography sign at the door. I entered the store and asked about it, took a photograph of it and then contacted the chain that owns the store. It was removed shortly after.
for UK and US

reply to post by Mister_Bit


Nobody was "guilty."

The man taking the pics was questioned, and allowed to keep his pics in the end. The mall said they have the policy, and it is posted, but it isn't intended to keep people from taking family photographs.

No harm was done, the man was just questioned, that was it, and that was probably because he was argumentative.

"My officers attended and gave advice and no further action was taken by the police officers.

Originally posted by BMorris
Sadly, while its perfectly legal to take pictures of anyone and anything in the UK, while on public land, from a legal and technial standpoint, Braehead Center is private property. As such, they can set their own rules (not laws), and if they say "no photography", then no photography is allowed.

While taking pictures isn't a criminal offence, it is a civil offence, as its against the center's rules. They can, therefore, request you leave immediately, and not return.

They cannot (legally) detain you unless they suspect you of a criminal offence, and make a citizens arrest. They cannot "inspect" your camera without permission. If they detained you, then you'd have a case for "false arrest", "false inprisonment", though it'd be a very hard fight, they have more money for better lawyers.

As wrong as it seems, they were perfectly within their rights to say "no photography" within the centers boundary (including external lands). Although I don't believe they were within their rights to detain them.

edit on 9/10/2011 by BMorris because: Missing word "they" made my post read like nonsense.

I think it goes deeper than that.

I have a friend working a 2 year temp job in England, and he said in order to take pictures at his kids soccer games he has to have permission from all the other parents. Which he was told at the first game wasn't likely to happen as a few of the parents were paranoid.

Excuse to use the new uber super ATS image service



And it is there no more. The lady at the cash register was totally annoyed to hell when I went to ask about this stuff thought.

reply to post by PsykoOps


Well, did you have to go to the lingerie section?

Nice reporting from the scene!!

And, has the irony of posting a pic of a "no pic" sign hit you yet?

Read my previous post. That's not the scene in the OP. Similar situation with different laws and rules thought. I posted that as an example how it should be

I see it both ways. It was his job to enforce the posted company rule while on their premises...but he should have left it at just informing him that no pictures can be taken based on a posted policy. But he was way, way out of line in saying delete them.
He was a bit over-anxious and mis-informed about what "Please no pictures allowed in the MALL" meant.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Its not "Illegal", the term illegal has a specific meaning, it means "against the law", last time I checked, governments made the laws, not malls. it was against the mall's rules, which is something entirely different. Sorry.

reply to post by BMorris


Well, it could be either or both. The mall called the police, because the man was not cooperating, so in that fashion it is illegal. Also, many public areas have rules, but also codes and ordinances against it. So it could be illegal in that aspect as well.

But, since he was questioned and released, apparently it was not a "crime."

Well it seems people power has prevailed.

The shopping centre have capitulated with a full apology and have chnaged their policy on photography.

A small step forward in the war on stupidity.

Thanks to all who joined the campaign and brought about this victory.

reply to post by PsykoOps


I agree with the over-zealous part, but have you met a lot of mall cops? They aren't the sharpest spoons in the drawer.

Nah, mall cops, their problem isn't their lack of intelligence. They actually start off as quite intelligent people, I've known a couple. However, their perceived "power" goes to their heads, and their intelligence falls out of their backsides.

Is it just me who whenever they see the term rent-a-cop, they mentally hear the theme tune from the old British comedy, Rent-a-ghost?

reply to post by BMorris




"Mall Cops" and "perceived power"

If that doesn't speak to a certain level of intelligence, then I don't know what does.

If someone thinks pushing around middle school kids and grandmothers is "power" then they have a couple of screws loose from the start.

This next statement is not intended to be funny or disparaging, seriously, but our local malls hire mostly from the "Sheltered Workshop" for the support services like janitors and security. Not joking in any way. Also, I work closely alongside law enforcement, and any "security guard" job on a law enforcement application is a red flag, and doesn't usually help the applicant, except for military style or elite private security, but even the elite private security is suspicious unless it follows military duty.

reply to post by bigyin


The actual statement.

Photography Policy Change

We have listened to the very public debate surrounding our photography policy and as a result, with immediate effect, are changing the policy to allow family and friends to take photos in the mall.

We will publicise this more clearly in the mall and on our website, and will reserve the right to challenge suspicious behaviour for the safety and enjoyment of our shoppers.

We wish to apologise to Mr White for the distress we may have caused to him and his family and we will be in direct contact with him to apologise properly.

www.braehead.co.uk...

Now I'd say that was a victory of sorts, not perfect by far but it goes to show that the power of the people can change something even if just a little something. Certainly the action taken by the people in the last couple of days has been far more effective than any boycott and it's better than just taking it as 'rules are rules'.

www.bbc.co.uk...