aultymer Posted October 11, 2011 Posted October 11, 2011 Apologies for the long address. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-Braehead/288861364476077
CliveH Posted October 11, 2011 Posted October 11, 2011 Saw this on the news today - have to say how pleased I was that mass action via facebook managed to see common sense prevail.
Dave225 Posted October 11, 2011 Posted October 11, 2011 Virtually all shopping malls and Stores have a sign somewhere, usually on the door, stating no photography. This is supposedly to protect staff from customers who might have ulterior motives for taking the pictures. It is also partly to stop displays being copied. I agree that the actions taken by security staff on this occasion were OTT, but just try and take out your mobile phone in any Immigration area and watch the armed Police jump all over you. So, in some respects the staff here were just following what is pretty much commonplace nowadays. After all, what would have been 'dad's attitude if some stanger had taken a picture of his daughter eating the icecream. Mind you I do feel that possibly the father has gone overboard in starting all the facebook thing when maybe a letter of complaint to the Shopping Mall may have resolved things. His actions may lead to shops in the Mall having to close as revenues drop, and then staff will be laid off. I am sure they will be really thrilled. Also to allow his daughter's picture to be plastered over newspapers is not going to do her any favours for a while.
nowtelse2do Posted October 11, 2011 Posted October 11, 2011 Dave225 - 2011-10-11 4:35 PM I agree that the actions taken by security staff on this occasion were OTT, Mind you I do feel that possibly the father has gone overboard in starting all the facebook thing when maybe a letter of complaint to the Shopping Mall may have resolved things. His actions may lead to shops in the Mall having to close as revenues drop, and then staff will be laid off. I am sure they will be really thrilled. Also to allow his daughter's picture to be plastered over newspapers is not going to do her any favours for a while. The security staff have to respond to any complaints by the public and the shop workers, so in that aspect he was doing his job but should have used his head and not the macho image he was probably trying to portray. The police on the other hand should have known better, I think that officer should go for re-training. The father may have gone overboard a bit but I'm afraid all he would have got from the owners of the mall would be something like.....It is the Company's policy...blah..blah ...blah...so stuff you..ho..!!.. by the way, your banned from here forthwith. It is possible that to a small extent that some of the shoppers will boycott the mall but only for a short while until it's all forgotten and then they will be back, especially if the next closest mall is any distance away. Certainly not good publicity for them tho', lessons to learn on all sides perhaps, until the next time. Dave
Dave225 Posted October 11, 2011 Posted October 11, 2011 Dare I say that in many respects the father has also gone overboard. He has invited the ‘baying mob’ to vent their anger by putting all this on Facebook. Many of that ‘mob’ could not care less one way or another about the rights or wrongs, merely that it is a good excuse to have a go at something. What used to be ‘angry of Tunbridge Wells’ has spawned a maelstrom. Also, I do wonder if the Mall will now receive hate mail and possibly some nutter telling them he is ‘going to torch the place’ That will make the staff feel very safe I don’t think. I do note the father stated he was the father, but how to prove that? Ask the daughter??? Well, as we all saw the Bulger kid walked happily out of a Mall with Thomson and Venebles and for all we know, stated he was their brother if accosted. If something similar had happened here then the father would have been shouting ‘why was nothing done’. The staff cannot win. I still feel this is a storm in a teacup blown out of all proportion by a father who feels disgruntled, and I do wonder, is now hoping for some compensation. We have all allowed society to be directed in a way where we are all getting too much control and therefore aggravation, but it was of our choosing I am afraid. I do not like it anymore than anyone else.
aultymer Posted October 11, 2011 Author Posted October 11, 2011 I do not think the father has 'gone overboard', as some may claim. Being confronted by a guy in uniform must be an unpleasant experience for the average, law abiding person and to then be detained (illegally) until police arrive is even more unpleasant. The local police have done themselves no favours by appearing to take the side of mega business here and to then quote the Prevension of Terrorism Act on the 'evidence' of a single security guard, who has acted illegally, just beggars belief. The security guard should have been arrested on the spot. There was no question of whose child it was, nor did the guard question this, so comparisons with the Bulger case are spurious. Photographers are often to be found, with stalls set up, in that mall touting for business with parents of babies, so where are the rules then? The centre itself has extensive CCTV so what protection do parents have against appearing on 'you've been framed' if they have a spectacular fall? If you think this will not hit the mall profits long term then you have no idea of the Glaswegian psyche. They have long memories for injusticies, real and perceived!
Travelling Tyke Posted October 11, 2011 Posted October 11, 2011 Think about it..............any half wit can take covert pictures these days......ie Mr. pretend and real plod wouldn't know it was happening. It's a sign of the times............ IMO...... it was way, way over the top.........control freakery kills common sense and irritates........ I don't blame dad.............his actions may get some sense into people, but don't hold your breath.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.