Held by security and questioned by police for taking photos in a shopping centre

[PELHAM 10]

Father held by security guards and questioned by police for taking photos of daughter in a shopping centre.

Following the publishing of guidance from the police (ACPO) and UK Home Office I thought the 5 years of harassment of photographers by the police had come to an end. Not so, yet another silly incident from poorly trained officers who clearly don't know the law and make it up as they go along.

Using your phone or camera in a public place in the UK is likely to get you harassed and questioned under terror laws, child protection laws, anti social behaviour or any other law they feel like abusing. In the following story Chris White was inside a shopping centre and therefore on private property so security might have been acting reasonably if they asked his intentions or asked him not to take photographs, typically the reaction was out of all proportion:

On Friday the 7th of October, Chris White, (45 years old, a married, mental health trainer from Glasgow) was shopping at Braehead shopping mall on the outskirts of Glasgow, with his daughter. In his own words, this is what happened – “I took (a) photo of my 4 year old daughter looking cute on the back of a vespa seat at an ice cream bar inside Braehead…

Having just bought her some new jigsaws we were going to go look at some clothes shops but never managed to continue our shopping trip.

 Walking down the shopping mall a (security) man approached me … as I was carrying my daughter in my arms. He came from behind me, cutting in front of me and told me to stop… He then said I had been spotted taking photos in the shopping centre which was ‘illegal’ and not allowed and then asked me to delete any photos I had taken.â€

The questioning that ensued, lasted 25 minutes and involved Strathclyde Police who were called in on the grounds that Mr. White’s had been acting ‘suspiciously.’ Mr.White claims that his daughter cried throughout the ‘interview’ and that he was ‘harassed’.

Mr. White also claims: ‘One of the officers) said that under the Prevention of Terrorism Act he (he) was quite within in his rights to confiscate my mobile phone without any explanation for taking photos within a public shopping centre, which seems an abuse of the act. He then said on this occasion he would allow me to keep the photos, but he wanted to take my full details.
Name, place of birth, age, employment status, address. Had I not had my daughter with me, and the fact that we are trying to bring our daughter up to respect and trust police officers, I may have exercised my right not to provide those details.†White gave his name and details, and showed the police the images on his camera (which he had already posted to facebook). He was then allowed to leave the premises, with his phone and images intact. He was, however, so shaken by the event that he then posted his story on facebook. By Saturday morning 4000 people had LIKED his story and the media got involved.

What is most alarming about White’s story, however is that it is by no means a new story or an isolated case. There have been many hundreds of examples of the same thing. People who question the validity or refuse to give their name are arrested for breach of the peace. By law, police should only stop and search a person under Section 43 of the Terrorism Act if they 'reasonably suspect' the person to be a terrorist.

Photographer harassed by PCSOs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Vj4imfGXYo

Photographer harassed by security and plain clothes police under terrorism laws - this is excellent:

Illegal detention by security guards

Train spotters questioned under terrorism laws:

London Metropolitan Police guidance on public photography:

http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

London Tonight report on the issue:

Photographer harassed and arrested in Lancashire:

Security Guard harasses photographer in a public street:

Edited October 12, 2011 by PELHAM

[-)rStrangelove 0]

Crazy world.

Btw we also have shops in Germany where its forbidden to use your mobile phone to take pictures, but this has to do with Android's search for cheaper product prices in the local vicinity ;)

[Daniel 0]

Does seem silly. That said, a couple of years ago we were shown a terrorism related public safety video at work, much of it focused on reporting anyone seen to be "suspiciously" taking photographs at public places to the police.

However, under UK law: 'Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel' and 'The power to stop and search someone under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 no longer exists.'

[PELHAM 10]

)rStrangelove;2036635']Crazy world.

Btw we also have shops in Germany where its forbidden to use your mobile phone to take pictures' date=' but this has to do with Android's search for cheaper product prices in the local vicinity ;)[/quote']

lol well if you are on private property they can reasonably ask you to stop or leave the premises. What's odd is this automatic, bizarre assumption, regardless of the circumstances, that anyone with a camera is a terrorist on a reconnaissance mission. Junior members of the police feel duty bound to search and at the slightest protest, arrest and bundle them into the back of a van. All of which is not within the law and against well established guidelines.

The laughable aspect is that people with large DSLR cameras mounted on tripods are most likely to be targeted. The thought process (if there is one) that they guy struggling to steady his DSLR with 400mm lens is more likely to be a terrorist is bizarre considering the multitude of smaller and more discrete methods of taking an image. They are even stopping TV camera crews.

In London people are still being told they can't photograph the Houses of Parliament or the London Eye. This really impresses the tourists!

Edited October 12, 2011 by PELHAM

[HyperU2 11]

This only happens to me in dressing rooms.

[PELHAM 10]

Does seem silly. That said, a couple of years ago we were shown a terrorism related public safety video at work, much of it focused on reporting anyone seen to be "suspiciously" taking photographs at public places to the police.

However, under UK law: 'Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel' and 'The power to stop and search someone under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 no longer exists.'

Lol the problem is we are asking people to make a judgement on what is suspicious. Security guards, PCSOs and police up to the rank of Inspector don't seem to be capable of doing so and it leads to this nonsense because they obviously don't understand or know the law they are trying to enforce.

Section 44 of the Terrorism Act was widely abused and was repealed after the EU stepped in. They are now using Section 43 which requires reasonable suspicion before it is used. The trigger is the the camera - you have a camera therefore I suspect you........duh!

Even if they fall back on PACE or a stop and account (what ever happened to politely asking a question?), which is the more correct legal avenue they don't seem to know how it is supposed to work and in countless videos you see them calling the Sergeant because they don't know how to proceed. It's just awful that a uniform that should be respected is now the badge of cognitive retardation.

[Daniel 0]

I absolutely agree with you PELHAM, hit the nail on the head with "understanding the law they are trying to enforce". It should be crystal clear to them, that's their job after all.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Daniel

[Baff1 0]

If you give the police powers, they will use them.

They won't necessarily use them for the reasons you gave them powers, but they will use them.

I was arrested for terrorism myself back in the 80's. It's the same old nonsense today that it ever was.

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Well in your case Baff, it's believable.

:D

[jblackrupert 14]

The problem is mall security jobs attract the socially crippled dorks who weren't very popular in school who think wearing a uniform will help them get back at the world that wronged them.

This is the reason Police forces have personality tests to filter them out.

[Baff1 0]

They can't be very good tests then.

[jblackrupert 14]

They can't be very good tests then.

Beats having cops who are a cross between Revenge of the Nerds, World of Warcraft/D&D addicts and Star Trek convention gits all in one.

[Baff1 0]

If those tests worked it would.

[-martin- 10]

Father held by security guards and questioned by police for taking photos of daughter in a shopping centre.

I had a similar thing happen to me. When I went to a shopping centre (Globus) in my city, in the Czech Republic with my parents last year, my mom made a photo of me and my dad in the main hall where all the shops are etc... A few seconds later we were approached by 4 security guards who threatened to take the memory card out of her camera and brake it... So I started getting very pissed off and I guess they got intimidated and they let us off.

I mean, come on... even the communists wouldn't get so gassed up over a 50 year old woman making a picture of her family in a mall, and nobody says anything about freedom now, not even a word, people just walk around with their heads down in deep embarrassment these days.

We need some kind of law to protect us in public places, because it seems to me like public places are becoming too private.

Edited October 13, 2011 by -Martin-

[Baff1 0]

My sister had to give her camera film to a Moscow subway guard back in the 80's

She had taken a picture of him sleeping.

[Beagle 684]

)rStrangelove;2036635']Crazy world.

Btw we also have shops in Germany where its forbidden to use your mobile phone to take pictures' date=' but this has to do with Android's search for cheaper product prices in the local vicinity ;)[/quote']In fact more and more stores and malls use jammers to prevent usage of cell phones at all...cinemas do it too.

[PELHAM 10]

I think I will do all my Xmas shopping online this year.:D I'm not sure who designs shopping centres these day but most near us are awful soulless, wind tunnels as they are open at each end. In one there is not a single place to sit down apart from inside 1 well known coffee chain.

Sainsbury's made a huge mistake moving into it, the local council insisted on a pay and display car park as they only want people to travel by bus. It's nearly always empty as you have to spend £20 to get a free parking space. Who would pay £3 parking just to buy £7-£10 worth of shopping? Most people now go out of town to do their grocery shopping.

I must take my camera along and see what response I get to that!:D

Edited October 13, 2011 by PELHAM

[mrcash2009 0]

As the argument always goes, while your being stopped for having a camera and taking any type of picture your being filmed directly all of the time even if you dont have one by multiple cameras all at once direct to video outside & inside shopping, leaving and travelling away from it as a bonus.

You have to laugh at the utter bullshit we put up with, but then its ourselves that fund these idiots by purchasing and making them record profits.

Edited October 13, 2011 by mrcash2009

[-martin- 10]

My sister had to give her camera film to a Moscow subway guard back in the 80's

She had taken a picture of him sleeping.

Haha that made my day But I'm not surprised, can you image what would happen if that photo was seen in the West, he would get sent to the gulag for 1000 years

Nowadays you can make pictures of them tough:

Edited October 13, 2011 by -Martin-