pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Over zealous security & police in Scottish shopping centre  (Read 2856 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Cogent Marketing

« on: October 10, 2011, 13:50 »
0
Depressing really, but the way the world is probably heading.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15236758


« Reply #1 on: October 10, 2011, 13:56 »
0

Cogent Marketing

« Reply #2 on: October 10, 2011, 13:59 »
0
Apology issued:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-Braehead/288861364476077

Good. But do you think that would have happened had there not been a ground swell of public opion using Facebook to boycott the shopping centre several week before the build-up to Christmas? I suspect if this was in April and not October an apology would be less forthcoming and swift.

helix7

« Reply #3 on: October 10, 2011, 14:50 »
0

This always seems to harken back to the issue of poor security and police training when it comes to the actual rule of law with photography. It's evident in this case in the comment made by the security guard that he was allowing Chris to keep the photos this time, suggesting that ordinarily he'd consider it within his power to confiscate a camera or forcibly require someone to delete images taken within the shopping center. Not unlike the countless cases of police confiscating cameras or even detaining people on public property, despite the clear laws that allow photography in public places in many parts of the world where these things happen.

As it relates to terrorism, it's also an issue of poor training. Law enforcement agencies issued this blanket statement after 9/11 that photography can be a tool of terrorism (regardless of the fact that nearly anything can be a tool of terrorism in the wrong hands). If properly trained on how to spot truly suspicious activity vs. innocent photography, maybe there is a legitimate cause for policy regarding photography in large public places. But to just recklessly state that all photography is to be considered suspicious does no one any good and certainly doesn't protect anyone.

ShadySue

« Reply #4 on: October 10, 2011, 15:18 »
0
I got stopped photographing at Braehead last year when I was standing outside, at the back of the centre with my back to the Mall photographing across the river. I carry the letter from ACPOS informing 'whom it may concern'  of my rights, but as heavy clouds were appearing, I decided not to waste the energy.

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #5 on: October 10, 2011, 16:37 »
0
the same thing will all these agendas, anti terrorism, anti smoking, anti anyhing, at the end of the day they are used as an excuse by some frustrated moron who just wants to molest other people.

« Reply #6 on: October 10, 2011, 16:42 »
0
Really, sod asses like the security oik and the mindless police in this story. Not to mention the shopping centre's no-photos policy itself.

Sure, it's private property and the owners can make the rules, but there's a bigger picture here and that's the remorseless encroachment of the private sector on what used to be public space. Shopping centres of this kind have destroyed old town centres and main streets across the developed world.

Now we live not only under the laws of the land but also under the arbitrary restrictions of petty tyrants. It's a civil rights issue in the broadest sense -- how we would like to live our lives and under what conditions.

« Reply #7 on: October 10, 2011, 16:59 »
0
Shopping centres of this kind have destroyed old town centres and main streets across the developed world.

That's because we voted with our feet and preferred to use them rather than the old town centres, etc. They're safer, warmer, have more choice and free parking. It's the petty officialdom, restrictions and revenue-raising policies of those who run our town centres who are also to blame __ that and the fact that increases in population and greater spending power means that we have simply outgrown the capacity of most town centres to serve our needs without radical restructuring.

« Reply #8 on: October 10, 2011, 17:09 »
0
That's because we voted with our feet and preferred to use them rather than the old town centres, etc. They're safer, warmer, have more choice and free parking. It's the petty officialdom, restrictions and revenue-raising policies of those who run our town centres who are also to blame __ that and the fact that increases in population and greater spending power means that we have simply outgrown the capacity of most town centres to serve our needs without radical restructuring.

True, but the usual public-place liberties could very well be legislated to apply in such privately owned places, in much the same way as public rights of way trump private land ownership in the English countryside. Shopping centres are after all the de facto town squares of our time.

ShadySue

« Reply #9 on: October 10, 2011, 17:43 »
0
True, but the usual public-place liberties could very well be legislated to apply in such privately owned places, in much the same way as public rights of way trump private land ownership in the English countryside.
Same point was being made in Newsnight Scotland.
A few other interesting points were made, particularly how many areas which we would think was public in fact isn't. For example, the land outside BBC Scotland's Broadcasting Centre is actually owned by the Science Centre, so the Beeb needs the Science Centre's permission to film their own building from what appears to be their car park. I bet most of the public, like me, thought that at least the street and pavement between the buildings were public property, even if not the car park, but apparently the SC owns all the land on that side of the bridge.
Police rep. wasn't willing to make comment on this particular incident without all the facts, but he made a valid point about 'judgement by social media', which is only aware of one side of an issue (emphasing he was making a general principle, not necessarily related to the Braehead case.
Braehead said they had conspicuous signs banning photography, but unless they were only erected recently, I've never seen any, but it is well known in camera club circles that they've been very quick to come down on photographers.
Seems they're going to revise that policy.

« Reply #10 on: October 11, 2011, 02:09 »
0
Looks like common sense has prevailed at last.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15251848

Cogent Marketing

« Reply #11 on: October 11, 2011, 13:17 »
0
Looks like common sense has prevailed at last.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15251848

If this event proves anything, it surely shows the power of social media and the 'persuasive' attributes it can bring to bear. I for one, heartily agree with it's use on this occasion, but didn't when it was used to orchestrate the recent riots in English towns and cities. Probably the downside any democratic medium, you take the rough with the smooth.

RacePhoto

« Reply #12 on: October 11, 2011, 19:13 »
0
Depressing really, but the way the world is probably heading.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15236758


Problem is, in the USA it's common practice and any privately owned building, shopping center, grocery store, whatever, can forbid you to take pictures. I'm so used to it, I just don't try to take pictures in private buildings, or if I do sneak some and they stop me, I just shut up and leave.

The same part is, they can't take your camera or your pictures or make you erase them. We do have some rights.

Always cracks me up when I see the one about the guy at the Amtrak station, who by the way was a ticket holding passenger, who got busted for taking photographs on the platform and later it came out he was shooting for the Amtrak photo contest that they were running for PR. Oh nice move Mr. Rent-A-Cop.

Also the whole public land private land is far different here. It was nice being in GB and walking across a field to get to a historic site (we did ask the farmer of course) and not having everything "No Trespassing" or private property. Nice and open. Might as well flip to the other side. National Trust locks photographers out and forbids images or at least selling them. In the US, if it's owned by the taxpayers money, you can shoot there and you own it. Yes I understand NT is not taxpayer funded.

Some good in the UK some good in the US. We each have pluses and minuses.

These cases of people getting arrested, charged, stopped, or told wrong information about their rights, are not limited to just us. Fortunately we both have more freedom than some other countries where one might just get shot for taking pictures and no questions asked. So while it can be kind of irritating, it's not like ruthless dictators or some other places where it's far worse!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2595 Views
Last post January 18, 2007, 06:17
by MiguelAngelo
0 Replies
1114 Views
Last post July 17, 2009, 16:53
by madelaide
25 Replies
6133 Views
Last post January 29, 2010, 12:12
by vonkara
2 Replies
2023 Views
Last post January 17, 2019, 06:33
by georgep7
5 Replies
4530 Views
Last post December 26, 2017, 12:08
by obj owl

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results