We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. If you continue to use this site, we'll assume you're happy with this. Alternatively, click here to find out how to manage these cookies

hide cookie message
Contact Forum Editor

Send an email to our Forum Editor:


PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the Forum Editor know who sent the message. Both your name and email address will not be used for any other purpose.

Speakers Corner


It's free to register, to post a question or to start / join a discussion


 

Idiotic rules over photography


interzone55

Likes # 0

Man questioned by police for photographing his daughter

A man was approached by shopping centre security, and then questioned by police, for taking photographs of his daughter at an Ice Cream parlour in a shopping centre.

Apparently they have a No Photography policy to "protect the privacy of staff and shoppers", which is rubbish as the place will be crawling with CCTV, so the only place you'll get privacy is the toilets.

Like this post
interzone55

Likes # 0

AitchBEE

Rule of thumb, if it's got a front door it's not a public place.

It may be a place that gives access to the public, but it's owned by a private company.

Quick word of warning though, Liverpool One shopping centre is largely open air and some of it is not behind a door, but it's private property, and yes has a rule against photography, as a BBC camera crew found out.

Like this post
interzone55

Likes # 0

My point in this post is the guy was taking a photograph of HIS OWN DAUGHTER and just his daughter, not of other people, security provisions, exit routes etc, but the security guard, and then the police, assume he's a terrorist.

There is no need for these rules just on the off chance there may be a paedophile about, or terrorist checking out targets, and even the shopping centre management say "However, it is not our intention to - and we do not - stop innocent family members taking pictures." which is somewhat disproved by the story...

Like this post
Aitchbee

Likes # 0

alan14 - I see your point.I hope you have seen mine as not too inane.

Like this post
hssutton

Likes # 0

The shopping centre in question has now apologised, and as said it will be changing it's policy on photography. BBC news.

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

AitchBEE

"...the fuzziness of the boundaries of private and public locations is somewhat bewildering."

I don't see why. A public place is somewhere to which everyone has a right of access - a street, a market square, a municipal park, or common land, for instance.

A private location is one which you enter by paying a fee, or a place that is owned by an individual, or a group of individuals. Shopping centres are almost always privately owned, as are Doctors' surgeries, football grounds, shops, etc., etc.

I can't see where the 'fuzziness' comes from.

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

alan14

I don't know where you got the idea that the security guard and the police assumed the man in question was a terrorist. A police officer said that he could confiscate a camera under the provisions of the anti-terrorist laws, but that's not the same as assuming someone is a terrorist.

As for "the guy was taking a photograph of HIS OWN DAUGHTER and just his daughter, not of other people" the security guard in question could not have known that, and in any case it wasn't the point. The shopping centre readily admitted that "However, it is not our intention to - and we do not - stop innocent family members taking pictures."

There were other circumstances in this matter - the staff at an ice cream stall believed the man had been taking photographs of them as well, and that was what caused them to alert the security staff.

Like this post
Condom

Likes # 0

This is another example of what is so wrong with many parts of this country. Common sense has gone completely out the window. We have a security guard who probably likes to show off his powers occasionally and police who seem to like to do likewise. Also we have a parent who should have known about such things but probably couln't be bothered asking. We also have a shop which clearly has seats which just cry out for photos to be taken of kids sitting on them then complain when it happens.

It will be tomorrows chip paper but I do hope some common sense has been learned.

Like this post
anskyber

Likes # 0

Like this post
Quickbeam

Likes # 0

"Commom sense seems to be breaking out"

Hurrah! for common sense, this constant paranoia over trivial things and pedantic interpretation of rules is pathetic.

Like this post
LanceAlot

Likes # 0

"There were other circumstances in this matter - the staff at an ice cream stall believed the man had been taking photographs of them as well, and that was what caused them to alert the security staff."

What were they frightened of then? Did they originate from the forests of Papua New Guinea and thought their souls would be stolen if they were photographed?

These 'not allowed to photograph' rules really have gone too far. It should be down to common sense where the rules apply. But common sense seems to have gone out of the window in many cases.

You are allowed to photograph in public places; so that gives cart blanche for every paedophile in the area to snap away a kids in the park, but you're not allowed to take pics of your spouse having a swim in the local pool.

Like this post

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.



IDG UK Sites

Samsung Galaxy S5 mini vs HTC One mini 2 comparison review: Design and price beats additional...

IDG UK Sites

Why local multiplayer gaming is rapidly vanishing: we look at the demise of split-screen and LAN...

IDG UK Sites

Colour-depth not resolution is what will make 4K a success or failure

IDG UK Sites

iPhone 6 vs iPhone 6 Plus: Which new iPhone 6 model should I buy?