One of the terrorist photos

A father has been questioned by police under anti-terror laws for taking pictures of his own daughter in a shopping centre.

Chris White was approached by staff after taking a photograph of four-year-old Hazel eating an ice cream in the Braehead shopping centre near Glasgow on Friday afternoon. Mr White was questioned by a security guard, who told him it was illegal to take pictures in the centre. He was then asked to delete any photos he had taken from his mobile phone.

Mr White explained that he had already uploaded two photos, in which his daughter was pictured riding a novelty motorbike in an ice cream parlour, to his Facebook page.

The police were called and Mr White was told there were “clear signs” saying no photographs were allowed. He said one officer claimed that he was within his rights to confiscate the mobile phone containing the pictures under the Prevention of Terrorism Act

A spokesman for Braehead said…”We have a ‘no photography’ policy in the centre to protect the privacy of staff and shoppers and to have a legitimate opportunity to challenge suspicious behaviour if required. However, it is not our intention to – and we do not – stop innocent family members taking pictures.”

The question remains about crying “terrorist” over what used to be pretty ordinary behavior.

  1. netrnnr says:

    With great power comes …. power happy guys with badges.

  2. seetheblacksun says:

    Perhaps if he had bought her a pint instead if the ice cream…

  3. BigBoyBC says:

    She looks like one of those home grown lone wolf diaper bombers.

  4. msbpodcast says:

    Let ’em stay in their small, paranoid, rinky-dink, remote corner of Fuck Knows Where Scotland with their pointlessly over-inflated egos.

    Tell them good bye from me and they don’t ever have to worry about any terrorists descending on them in Nessies’ Crotch or where ever the fuck they are.

    If the world ended in a giant apocalyptic ball of flame, they would probably be the last to know because nobody could be bothered to tell them.

    • Sam says:

      What? This same thing happened in your square brained corner of the mud pit too. It just didn’t make the news. We need to stop it, not act like other societies are dumb for overreacting, it happens every day. Kid kicked out of kindergarten for pointing his finger and saying Bang, imagination is dangerous. Teenager kicked out of high school for talking about how to make a bomb, curiosity is dangerous. Adults kicked out of a city park for eating their lunch – without a child in tow, enjoying life is dangerous. It is getting worse.

  5. Holdfast says:

    It was a chain of stupidity.

    1. Idiot employees see someone taking pictures and report it since everyone knows that good people never take pictures.

    2. Local security comes along and acts heavy handed and tries to make him delete the pictures of his daughter. He has already sent them to facebook,

    3. Security calls the real police who start talking rubbish about terrorists and says they can confiscate the phone,

    There are a couple of things we can learn here.

    a. Set your phone to automatically upload all pictures. He used Facebook but there are plenty alternatives eg, Google+ and

    b. Be polite and calm. Being rude or angry gives ‘them’ further excuses for their bad behaviour.

    c. They could not do much until real police came. is even more important here.

    d. Let everyone know what has happened. Freedom is well defended by openness and information. There are lots of ways to do this but you are not going to beat a viral social media campaign – and that is what happened here…

  6. Don says:

    [violation of posting guidelines…off topic rant]

  7. dusanmal says:

    It was not public but private venue so whatever standards they set they can enforce, no photography is quite typical (even my local USA supermarkets have “no photography/video” signs on entrances). If asked – stop.
    Second problem is deleting photos you already have on your device. That is not their property so in most civilized countries they have no rights to demand you do anything with it (if demand is made, polite no is the answer).

  8. UncDon says:

    Try to snap piccies in Mayfair Mall in suburban Milwaukee when the Apple Store has an event. Security will warn you once; if you don’t listen, they’ll kick you out and confiscate your camera. I saw them do that a couple of times during the Leopard launch. No signs anywhere — just security. I’m told it’s the mall owners worried about terrorism.

  9. Phydeau says:

    The terrorists have won — big time. We are a thoroughly terrorized world.

  10. borg9 says:

    So, just about everyone here missed that it wasn’t the mall cops babbling about terrorism; but, the “real” cops.

    Reading level = 6th grade, eh?

  11. sargasso_c says:

    Yes. Shocking stuff. Empty calories. He’s obviously a food terrorist.

  12. jescott418 says:

    Paranoia has set in. The terrorists are winning. We just don’t know it.

  13. Drive By Poster says:

    With ANY Power comes Little Napoleons.

    My dad told me of a1930’s-40’s incident on a train he witnessed where a junior staff member on a passenger train seated a very elderly couple without the diner car’s head waiter’s permission. Said head waiter took great exception to being bypassed in such a critical fashion and so forced the very elderly couple to get out of the chairs and stand around until the head waiter was good and ready to let them sit at table.

    Absolute Power does not corrupt Absolutely. *ANY* Power corrupts absolutely if their are no effective checks against abusing Power in any amounts. Only the scale of the corruption changes with the amount of Power. The amount of corruption is a function on how effective the checks against corruption are.

  14. dans says:

    What the fuck is wrong with this world?!

  15. Jim G says:

    What’s wrong with this world? It’s spinning down to the inevitable end of civilization. It’s almost over

  16. Neil says:

    Oh, thank you very much! you put the picture right on the front page where I could not avoid. THANK YOU!.

    I have know been placed on the sex offenders register just for fleetingly seeing that photo, still we must protect the children.

    This story is the modern UK.

  17. Publius says:


  18. Publius says:

    >We have a ‘no photography’ policy in the centre to protect the privacy of staff and shoppers

    Question: Does this policy also include any and all cameras owned by the landlord or lease holders in the facility? Can the shopper likewise force the landlord and the stores to delete any photos of him/her?

  19. dan says:

    Just curious… why would taking pictures be considered terrorist behaviour? I’m sure I’m missing something here but…

    • Uncle Dave says:

      Watch it buddy. Asking questions like that in a increasing police-state like ours could get you Gitmo’d. You never know when someone could take a picture at a mall, then come back and hurl a nasty slogan or two around. They just want to prevent the tasing and bloody beat down that would require. It’s bad for business.

  20. Stan Augustyniewicz says:

    After the public outcry, and loss of revenue, the shopping mall relented. NOW, why can’t Americans do the same to prevent the Nanny State Wannabees, from taking over??


  21. Dean Massalsky says:

    Honestly…How long until one of these rent a cops tries this shit with one of our ex-marines, the marine just turns around and sticks a knife through the guys neck. Aside from very specific guidelines, rent a cop ( and for that matter, real-a-cop) can cordially go intercourse them selves.

    How much more of this are we going to lie down for?

  22. Redstone says:

    Terrorist won! Out of fear of them we arrest our own people who take pictures, and have an debt of an unbelievable scale.

    We sure told them!

  23. Anonymous says:

    When a father can’t even take a picture of his own child in public then you can see just how far the terrorists have won. And it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that he and his daughter are now on the TSA’s famous “no fly” list too.

    The terrorists win when a government by the people, of the people and for the people is imposed at the point of a gun or in this case, a “policy.” It’s ridiculous!

    And just what the hell happened to the 4th Amendment rights here too?:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Just what the hell gives anyone, a cop or not, the specific authority to delete or confiscate pictures when all anyone can say is that having certain pictures is “against policy” or that it’s potentially a terrorist act? That’s pretty damned vague if you ask me.

    • Olo Baggins of Bywater says:

      Well, it’s that “public” thing…the mall is private property. Also, this is the UK…no 4th Amendment.

  24. Peppeddu says:

    He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.

    Benjamin Franklin

  25. Rob Leather says:

    The rules on this a pretty clear and the “rent-a-cop” and Police officer went WAY BEYOND what they are allowed to do.

    The law clearly states that they have to have a major suspicion that the images could be used for terrorist purposes. There is NO blanket ban on taking pictures in public. Last year the head of Police Chief Commissioners sent out a very strongly worded open letter to forces up and down Britain saying what was and was not allowed.

    So the fact that these idiots stepped way beyond their remit is pretty disgusting.

    I’m not pro the legislation, I’m anti it being used as an excuse to push people around…. and it pretty much sounds like the “rent-a-cop” is a sad little git with a chip on his shoulder.

    The funny thing is, if the regulations were that pictures in public is illegal… then all the private video cameras would have to come down.

  26. /T. says:

    Everybody gets it that this happened in Glasgow, Scotland … right?

  27. Glenn E. says:

    So you can own a camera phone. But you can’t actually use it anywhere, it might be concerned terrorist spying. A shopping mall? I think their idea if terrorism, is more about a law suit, should something be photographed beyond their control. You can bet the No Photography rule goes right out the window, when Justin Bieber or Lady Gaga shows up. Yeah, then its Ok. Just don’t be taken pics of a little girl eating ice cream. That’s a horrible plot!

  28. daveO says:

    Imagine being alone in a shopping mall,
    then out of the ice cream shop steps little Hazel with that plastic spoon in her hand.
    Maybe this will give you some sense of the terror that security guard felt.

  29. RBG says:

    This mast Summer in New York, I began to photograph a street vendor’s hot dogs grilling – just the hot dogs – for touristy purposes, when suddenly there’s a hand in front of my lens. “That’s private,” says the cook, backed by the other nearby vendors. What followed was a confrontational argument about what is and what isn’t “private” on a public street.

    Followed still by me relaying the supportive opinion of a cop stationed down the street: “Tell them I will explain things to them if necessary.” (Hey, it’s the principle of the thing, dammit! “First they came for my hot dog pictures, then they came for me.” I’m paraphrasing.) Regardless, the vendors were not going to let me take shots of their precious sizzling hot dogs.

    I left it by casually mentioning to the cop, as I strolled by, that the vendors had some very unkind things to say about the officer. “Very unkind things. Just saying…” “Oh, yeah?” the cop looks down the street, “Which ones?” That’s where I left it.



Bad Behavior has blocked 19652 access attempts in the last 7 days.