FATHER harassed by police & security guard under "anti-terror legislation" after taking pictures

[geoffsta]

I think what Longshots is saying is that there is always two sides to a story.
Until the security guards story is told, we will never know the whole truth.
I worked as a bouncer in a nightclub for two years. In that time I never threw not one punch. Yet I was accused of assault 4 times. Security cameras always proved that the accusers were full of crap.
Two sides of every story.

[Longshots]

Actually I'm not saying there's two sides to this story. Yes the way the security guards implement a term and condition can be confrontational - I, Lance deal with that on a regular basis. And I've met them all, over zealous, confrontational, and the opposite.

But if you want to read the title of the topic, and I'm stunned you keep missing this, but I'm more concerned with that Huge part this one, especially as its contained in the title - that part about the Police misusing the UK's Anti Terrorism Laws.

Yep whichever side you look at it, maybe the way the security guard could have approached it in a different manner. But, if you the general public/population, want to produce change, stand up for something, then the best solution to producing change is to go the people who make the decisions to produce ridiculous terms, or allow misuse of the laws, by those relied on to apply the law.

[Lance B]

It seems we are going round in circles, but I will end on this. I am not missing the point and I did see the title, but after all it is just that, the title to the story, which was given to the event by the newspaper reporter and not exactly the event itself, so the title itself is quite irrelvent. In other words, never let the truth get in the way of a good story or title, for that matter. As I keep saying, my beef is with the way the security has handled themselves as much as with the stupid draconian rules set down by the mall owners/management. As I also said, in this particular situation, I bet that if I were the security guard this story would never have needed seeing the light of day even if I was instructed by management to stop people taking photos.

I agree that governments should not allow such stupid laws and rules set down by owners of private facilities who allow public access and the way to do this is to protest against it, either by writing to your local members or some other peaceful means. I guess this guy has applied his own protest which has resulted in a good outcome for all, when all is said and done.

[ricstew]

well I wanna know what camera he was using? Mine doesn't upload to FB I bet it was a phone
cheers
Jan

[Longshots]

well I wanna know what camera he was using? Mine doesn't upload to FB I bet it was a phone
cheers
Jan

yep - a phone : )

[William W]

Yes the clip is about the UK and there are many aspects to discuss about it.
But at least two respondents on this thread, mentioned shooting in Shopping Centres (and I assume that includes shooting in Shopping Centres in their own local area).
My first comment addresses only that scenario.

In this case, at least in New South Wales, one should be aware of the Enclosed Lands Act and laws regarding Private Property and the Authority and Rights the Owner (or his Representatives) have, apropos a third party making Photographs, inside that area, irrespective of what signage is posted, or not.
I doubt that other State and Territory Laws will be much different.
The laws in NSW regarding Enclosed Lands and Private Property have been around well before any recent terrorism alerts.

***

Back the video and my comment on that is: considering the specific line of questioning the Interviewer made, it appears to me that the Photographer (the Father) did not know the rights the security guard had nor the British Law as it applied to him (the Father) making Photographs on what appears to be Private Property.

WW

[Longshots]

As a board member of Arts Freedom Australia, and as PhotoWatchDog I tend to be more aware of the ever restrictive and sly increase in restrictions on photography.

My seemingly pedantic and repetitive arguing that peoples wrath shouldnt be solely directed at those whos job it is to implement those restrictions, or wasting energy on debating how they do it, was because in my opinion, people in general should be using what energy they have on these matters of concern and direct it at the bureaucrats, as they are the ones that can and will change, if people speak out.

Speaking out, complaining, lobbying does work. Saying nothing allows these things to happen.

As a follow up, people power demonstration, by way of social media (Facebook). The original page has now been taken down by the owner, within a very short time it had gained over 250,000 likes. A different page now exists, and it contains this from the Shopping Centre Management:

Braehead Shopping Centre
Updated statement from Braehead Shopping Centre: 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.

As far as I know, the police have not issued an apology - but disputed that the police officer mentioned the Anti Terrorism act (which is regularly used by the police - even when I've been stopped in Glasgow shooting - my former home by the way) - one of the many reports on the matter is here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-15290685

[William W]

On this broader issue of being aware of the ever restrictive and sly increase in restrictions on photography and the constructive and penetrative manners to address same: speaking out lobbying and writing letters (especially writing letters) does work, indeed it is good that there is vigour in this encouragement, I concur and have so done, many times, more than once.

BUT equally, in fact more importantly: it is NECESSARY to know what actually the law is and WHAT the exact law is which applies in any given situation.

Speaking hypothetically: If a Father Photographing his Daughter, whilst in a shopping centre knows that a Security Guard of the Shopping Centre has every right to ask him to Stop taking Photos . . . then he (the Father) would have the leverage in the conversation, if and when the Security made that request.

Moreover, IF the Father had a broad-brush knowledge of the Security Guard’s rights apropos the handling of the camera or any other personal property and (more importantly) any DETENTION or request made by the Security Gaurd to stay until the Police arrived: then the Photographer would have even more leverage in that conversation.

I am not suggesting that the best method is escalation by being a “know it all”: but what I am suggesting it is important that before lobbying and making a noise to be aware of the facts and to also choose the issues about which, to lobby and complain.

Certainly, lobbying about OWNERS' rights to restrict Photography on Private Property is (IMO) a silly cause: and it would be just as silly to mix up that subject, with the wider issues of Governments and Municipal Councils restricting Photography, generally.

WW

[Longshots]

To a large degree I would agree with you.


However, few people read Terms and Conditions of many things. And if and when they do, there is a great deal of surprise, when almost absurd terms are found to have been put into many areas.

I use a term, when it comes to arguing against some organisers photographic competition's terms and conditions, which is "Unconscionable conduct ", which is explained in ACCC's website.

What is unconscionable conduct?

Unconscionable conduct is unfair or unreasonable conduct in business transactions that goes against good conscience. This can occur in transactions between businesses or in transactions between businesses and consumers.

The exact meaning of ‘unconscionable conduct’ is not defined in the ACL. The ACL lists several factors that the court considers when deciding if a party has acted unconscionably. However, the court is able to consider any other matters it believes are relevant.

Most businesses dont like the thought of transgressing this very important basis of Australian Consumer Law; and often its a key to unlocking earlier intransigence.

And yes its important to know, but I'm going to lower the position of your point, as whats often private property is often only private within name, and not by general understanding (bear with me here, I'm not advocating that everything should be public), just two examples, areas covered by the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority, which include the Opera House, South Bank Brisbane - very public area, governed by a private authority South Bank Corporation.

Yes I agree on the basis that when entering private property, you accept the situation of the terms and conditions of entry. Nothing wrong with persuading people to have some common sense in how they produce new restrictions though.

[William W]

I am more than accepting to bear with you, Longshots, in the two examples which you gave: and to also extend those two examples as a template for other locations, (which between us and others here) we could no doubt list: there are many (quasi) government owned “public areas” which are “privately” managed.

BUT we seem to be talking at (slightly) two different topics, for my underlying meaning as to the reason for acquiring the broad KNOWLEDGE of the laws and WHAT laws pertain when and where, is to have leverage IF and WHEN a discussion is brought about (by security guards, for example).

And (speaking hypothetically about a public owned/privately managed area) . . . it might just be that some areas are accepting to Photography, dependent upon the purpose of the Photography.

NOW, whilst we might lobby to change that lists of “purposes” – the point I am making extends to those areas also you defined also: as is it’s a good idea to have the knowledge of what type of Photography is acceptable at those areas in the first place, just in case one happens to be there with a camera, or two and is approached by the local security.

WW

[bluey1960]

My daughter was working for a commercial real estate firm and was asked to photograph a service station near where we live, ostensibly for sale purposes. She was 19 at the time got the shock of her life when the attendant came out screaming and swearing and demanding personal details. She was then told she was permanently banned from being near the place. Yes, definitely a communication breakdown on management's side.

Diane