I really really despair. Why are these fuckwits even employed in the first place?
Soon after taking a snap of his four-year-old daughter Hazel 'looking cute on the back of a vespa seat at an ice cream bar', Mr White claims he was approached by a security guard and told his actions were 'illegal'.
And you know what happens next. Yes, you’ve got it.
Mr White explained his daughter was the only person present in the photos but was allegedly ordered to delete them from his mobile phone.
The 45-year-old replied that the photos had already been uploaded to Facebook and so he didn't see the worth in deleting them from his phone, prompting the security guard to call the police.
Of course the police used their common sense. No they interrogated questioned him citing the excuse of the “Prevention of Terrorism Act”.
When the police showed up, Mr White claims he was questioned in an 'intimidating' manner by one officer, who allegedly said he had the right to confiscate the father's phone under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
A spokesman for Braehead said the centre's security guards were alerted after staff at an ice cream stall became 'suspicious' of Mr White's actions.
I bet the ice cream stall staff might wish that they'd kept their noses out of it. I think they might see a drastic drop off in their sales.
I see that this has gone viral now as even the Beeb ran with it.
There’s even a facebook page condemning the actions of Braehead staff and management. The link is below. About 15,000 members so far.
I think I’ll take up photography, specialising in shopping centres. Anyone have a small child I can borrow?
UPDATE: The management have apologised to Mr White.
"Dear Mr White
I am writing to formally apologise for the distress that we may have caused you and your family when you visited Braehead last Friday.
As you may be aware, in light of your complaint and the public debate surrounding the incident, we have decided to change our photography policy to allow family and friends to take photos in the mall.
Once again, I wish to sincerely apologise for any distress we may have caused,
Kind regards
Peter"
It would seem that the power of the internet, can work to reign in the jobsworths that infest this country.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-Braehead/288861364476077
1. The brouhaha seems to have worked & it is indeed a victory for common sense.
ReplyDelete"As you may be aware, in light of your complaint and the public debate surrounding the incident, we have decided to change our photography policy to allow family and friends to take photos in the mall."
2. The centre's management remain hypocrites;-
"'We have a "no photography" policy in the centre to protect the privacy of staff and shoppers ....." So that means they operate no CCTV or security cameras anywhere on the premises, then?
Sigh...unfortunately FE..as much as I hate to agree with a frenchman..even the great french man Voltaire said that "common sense is not that common" I'll also say that there are entirely too many stupid people in the world that need to get their darwin awards given to them.
ReplyDeleteThis has been to the E.C.J. and the U.K. police lost, the European Judges ruled it is a CRIMINAL offence for the Police to use section 44 of the Terrorist act in this manner unless they can provide VERY good reason that the suspect is involved in terrorist activities, e.g. is known to have links with terrorist organisations and since E.U. law supercedes U.K. law all you have to do is take their numbers and advise them of this ruling, which should spoiltheir day.
ReplyDeletehowever they may have used this:
ReplyDeleteHere's what Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (link OPSI) says :-
43 Search of persons
(1) A constable may stop and search a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.
(2) A constable may search a person arrested under section 41 to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.
(3) A search of a person under this section must be carried out by someone of the same sex.
(4) A constable may seize and retain anything which he discovers in the course of a search of a person under subsection (1) or (2) and which he reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist.
(5) A person who has the powers of a constable in one Part of the United Kingdom may exercise a power under this section in any Part of the United Kingdom.
F.E. I am pretty sure it applies to other sections too, it was a while ago that I read about it. The defendent got paid out around 30k in compensation, seeing there have been over 244.thousand false arrests under this law, the U.K. govt. is liable for over 9 Billion! The more people start standing up to these f*ck wits the better.
ReplyDeleteI personally think we should hit the jobsworths and the numptie police where it hurts them. By claiming compensation. However it's a two edge sword, as the money comes from us, the taxpayer, anyway.
ReplyDeleteI feel a FOI request or two coming on.
'I an writing to formally apologise for the distree we MAY have caused you'.
ReplyDeleteEnding with 'sincerely apologise for any distress we MAY have caused'.
What a gutless weasel the Obersturmfuhrer is. He is not man enough to consider he COULD have caused justifiable outrage!
It would seem that the power of the internet, can work to reign in the jobsworths that infest this country.
ReplyDeleteJust a shame it has to be on Fuckbook.
Thank you for that advice Johnnyrvf; TFE, which of the victims actions could allow an officer to claim that he "reasonably suspects (him) to be a terrorist"?
ReplyDeleteGreat victory for the net indeed(just as with the the issue of photographing Poicemen) but the fact remains that shopping centres are private property and they do have the right to a No Photography policy but their only sanction is to require you to leave their premises. It does not justify Police intervention unless you chooe to "get medievel on their sorry ass".