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. 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.

  2. 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??

    VOTE!

  3. 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. http://gizmodo.com/5570064/show-your-photographers-bill-of-rights-with-these-silkscreened-lenscloths

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

  4. 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!

  5. 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.

  6. Peppeddu says:

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

    Benjamin Franklin

  7. 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.

  8. /T. says:

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

  9. 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!

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

    RBG