'Paedophile Suspect' For Taking Son's Photo

<p>Saw this on Sky News website<br>

<a href="http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Man-Suspected-Of-Being-A-Paedophile-For-Taking-A-Photo-Of-His-Own-Son-While-Out-Shopping/Article/201002415560029?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_3&lid=ARTICLE_15560029_Man_Suspected_Of_Being_A_Paedophile_For_Taking_A_Photo_Of_His_Own_Son_While_Out_Shopping">http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Man-Suspected-Of-Being-A-Paedophile-For-Taking-A-Photo-Of-His-Own-Son-While-Out-Shopping/Article/201002415560029?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_3&lid=ARTICLE_15560029_Man_Suspected_Of_Being_A_Paedophile_For_Taking_A_Photo_Of_His_Own_Son_While_Out_Shopping</a></p>

<p>I linked to the guys blog to read further and after doing a search I established that the Bridges Shopping Centre is owned by Land Securities.<br>

<a href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/03/392722.html">http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/03/392722.html</a><br>

The CEO is Francis W Salway, his e-mail address is<br>

<a href="mailto:francis.salway@landsecurities.com">francis.salway@landsecurities.com</a> - I for one will be dropping him a line in support of a fellow photographer and indeed of my rights to express my concerns and I urge all photogrophers who value civil liberties to do the same, you may wish to cc Mike Hussey, the company's MD <a href="mailto:mike.hussey@landsecurities.com">mike.hussey@landsecurities.com</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I really loved my vacation in Britain 30 years ago. But this certainly doesn't make me want to go back, especially not with a camera.</p>

<p>I don't think it matters where in the world you are - store security guards are never picked from the brightest and best.</p>

<p>That gives me an idea for a new T-shirt - "I'm not a paedophile, I'm a terrorist!"</p>

<p>To think I'm going to be dropping by London this summer…maybe not looking forward to it so much now.<br>

I just hope that Venice, Rome and Greece don't have these problems…else my whole summer vacation will be ruined "in advance".</p>

<p>You might want to avoid Greece for a while, till the strikes die down.</p>

<p>One overzealous security guard accuses someone of being a pedophile (but no arrest is made), and now it's time to avoid the entire country? Never mind how many murders, robberies, and deadly traffic accidents there might be there, it's an accusatory security guard that will drive people away . . .</p>

<p>No, the reason to avoid the country is the police who will arrest you as a terrorist if you take a photo of anything interesting without submitting to a body cavity search.</p>

<p>Good idea. Lets blow it totally out of proportion.</p>

<p>As an amateur photographer, the only reason I go on vacations is to take pictures. Seems to me in England these days there is always a story about photographers being stopped by the police as suspected terrorists. Actually that IS a reason to avoid the country.</p>

<p><em>store security guards are never picked from the brightest and best.</em></p>

<p>While some security personnel act over-zealously or not "the brightest and best", there are lots of intelligent people serving in that role and many are bright people who attend college and post-graduate studies, who were laid off due to the poor economy from 'sophisticated' jobs and are otherwise good and decent people.</p>

<p>It is ironic and profoundly hypocritical that such an obviously unfounded sweeping accusation is made as a condemnation of unfounded sweeping accusations. Perhaps this should tell us who among us is not "the brightest and best" eh?</p>

<p>John makes a good point.<br>

<br /> BTW, I have never heard of any problems with store security guards in Yemen. Based on this thread, I'm thinking that's a great place to visit now.</p>

<p>I'm sure there are a few physics post-docs working at McDonalds somewhere too. That doesn't mean that the <strong>average</strong> McDonalds employee has that qualification. The "good" security guards probably only get involved when there's a real need to do so rather than harassing fathers with their kids. They are probably therefore, invisible. It may be true that such "bad apples" as the one in this story sour the barrel for all their fellow security guards. Nevertheless, those stories are what we think about when we carry our camera into the mall.</p>

<p>I've carried my camera into the local mall twice that I can remember. I got asked about it once (politely). I remained polite and had no problem. That time I had a regular looking DSLR. The second time was quite a while ago. Whether it was because of the more innocent time or the fact that it was a Minox 35GT (and was hence innofensive looking) no-one gave me a second look. But I try not to do it because it seems like asking for trouble.</p>

<p>Jeff, let us know how Yemen works out. Be sure to bring back some pictures of the local kids.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Seems to me in England these days there is always a story about photographers being stopped by the police as suspected terrorists. Actually that IS a reason to avoid the country.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In that case, I'm never going to go to the US because if I do, I will probably get mugged and shot!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Jeff, let us know how Yemen works out. Be sure to bring back some pictures of the local kids.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I spent three weeks in a Muslim country and had no problems photographing children or men, with or without permission. In general, photographing women was fine if I interacted and asked. With kids, there was absolutely no indication that there was a reason not to photograph them from the kids or adults.</p>

<p><em>I'm sure there are a few physics post-docs working at McDonalds somewhere too. That doesn't mean that the <strong>average</strong> McDonalds employee has that qualification.</em></p>

<p>Nor does it have any reflection on the type of service you will get. These "stories" of accusations arise just about anywhere. Since that is the criteria for determining if you are going to engage in photography somewhere, then you should only do so in the safe confines of your home and or other place where people you don't know and trust are excluded.<em> </em> Its well and good to publically react to incidents of overzealous reactions to photography, but if its done in a way that is inconsistent and with arbitrary and irrelevant comments about people's educational degrees, it should be no suprise to be called out on it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I wish I could avoid the country and emigrate, but I live here.</p>

<p>In the United States owner's of private (and this includes government buildings) have the right to restrict photography on their property. The Guard was acting lawfully in this respect. His explanation, as expounded by the gentleman in the video, sounds reasonable under the circumstances and the nature of the property. As for the photographer is rights were not violated. The officer that approached and quetioned him later was making an investigation based upon a complaint of the store management. The complaint probably went something like this: "I observed an adult man photographing a small child in violation of store policy. When I advised him to discontinue photographing he did not comply." The photographer in this situation may have been more belligerant than as seen in the video. Obviously, the law enforcement officer after a brief investigation realized that there was no merit to continue with charges. When suspicious activity is observed or reported police officers have the duty to investigate and detain individuals for short periods of time. In America we have whole political groups that confuse the words "privileges" with "rights". </p>

<p>I agree with most of what Steve says, but</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> As for the photographer is rights were not violated.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>From the article:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>...and told me he had the right to delete my pictures.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Not sure how it works in Britain, but this would be violation of rights, or at least unlawful intimidation via an untruth - in the US.</p>

<p>By now, we all know that some malls, zoos, and other places have overly restrictive rules in place in the name of safety and protecting themselves from lawsuits. Unless we've been unconscious for the past few years, we also know that <em>some </em>security guards and <em>some</em> peace officers are over-zealous and perhaps under-trained in enforcing these rules.</p>

<p>Perhaps these articles that pop up quite often serve a purpose; as a reminder to us that we can find ourselves in such a situation quite suddenly. However, the only useful information I've taken away from these threads is from those who give sage advice on how to react to the situation, and how to interact with the party who approaches us. </p>

<p>It's not just this one isolated incident. This is happening ALL THE TIME. For a sample, you guys should be reading the <a href="http://www.nycphotorights.com/">War On Photography</a> blog.</p>

<p>Sounds like a guard was a little full of himself...</p>

<p>The conversation should have been over as soon as the child ran up to him and said "Daddy". </p>

<p>As for the deletion of the images - there's a ton of guards here in the US that believe they have the right to ask you to delete images (they don't)... when all they can do legally is tell you to stop and remove you from the premises. </p>

<p>99% of the time - you're not going to get hassled for taking photos of your child in a mall with a cell phone. If you whip out the D300 with a 70-200 f2.8 on though - you'll get walked out. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>memories from the Heathrow airport:<br>

belt off sir,<br>

shoes off sir,<br>

is that a camera? take a few shots pointing down sir,<br>

can't take pictures of that plane sir,</p>

<p>I hope is not as crazy in the UK.</p>

<p>That country is becoming unhinged. First they kow tow to the Muslims, allowing Sharia Law to infect that country, and now you can get labelled a pedophile for taking a picture of your own child.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=19592">Jeff Spirer</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Feb 26, 2010; 11:53 a.m.<br>

John makes a good point.<br /><br />BTW, I have never heard of any problems with store security guards in Yemen. Based on this thread, I'm thinking that's a great place to visit now.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Have at it. After 4 combat tours in that third world cesspool part of the world, no ME country is a good place to visit if you are an American. Make sure you make out a will before you go.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>One of the first things I was told after coming to Canada is "Don't smile or wave at strangers' babies on the streets or in the metros". Really good advice for anyone who comes from a place where people don't automatially assume you're a paedophile, and are delighted that you are interested in their child.</p>

<p>My sympathies to the Dad for getting a over zealous imbecile as a security guard.</p>

<p>Yemen?! Of course you won't get labeled a pedophile there, in fact if you're not careful and photograph a little girl too aggressively, you may be asked if you're interested in marrying her!</p>

<p><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/yemen-islamists-fight-law_n_187943.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/yemen-islamists-fight-law_n_187943.html</a></p>