While the basics of the story have been verified by the police and Braehead, I wonder on the specific details by the father.
Going solely by his account, the security guard and police officer were out of line - but neither of their actions is new or unexpected to many photographers. Assumptions have incorrectly been made on the law, and because these people are in a position of power, they look to enforce it.
The father, I believe, would have been within his rights to ask why he was suspected of falling under the act and the officer would have been obliged to say.
Neither officer nor guard had any powers to demand pictures being deleted [although, only the guard did that]
Having shopped at Braehead many times, I have never noticed any "no photography" signs - although I will be on the look out for them now, and checking how new they look - but their website does mention this rule. Visitors cannot be expected to have checked this, however.
The big 'but' here comes with what really happened? How much was embellished or omitted from the story? We don't know this guy, so he could have flipped a little and thought nothing of it, believing he was being reasonable. Was the security guard initially polite, or was he obnoxious from the get go?
"It is a statistical reality that young men have more accidents than women so it should be reflected in their premiums."
I am so tired of seeing that line of comment thrown around. It is incorrect.
Statistically, a woman is more likely to have an accident than a man while driving. The difference lies in the severity of the accident.
A woman is more likely to have a minor bump or scrape [many of which will go unclaimed via insurance as it will be cheaper than the excess], while a man will end up with far more damage which requires going through insurance.
Also, I've seen report of studies that show that while younger women are safer drivers than younger men [taking less risks]; older men are safer drivers than older women. Yet the premiums have never reflected this.
Anecdotally, I've seen more women drive badly than men too - I see vastly more women on the phone while driving than men. Then there's also the school runs, which are more likely to be women driven, where the driver will be potentially getting distracted by unruly children in the back.
Again anecdotally, I've had to make a lot of dangerous manoeuvres to avoid terrible driving from women, who have then driven on oblivious to the near damage they've caused. [My dad's saying has been "women cause accidents; men have them"]
Going solely by his account, the security guard and police officer were out of line - but neither of their actions is new or unexpected to many photographers. Assumptions have incorrectly been made on the law, and because these people are in a position of power, they look to enforce it. The father, I believe, would have been within his rights to ask why he was suspected of falling under the act and the officer would have been obliged to say. Neither officer nor guard had any powers to demand pictures being deleted [although, only the guard did that]
Having shopped at Braehead many times, I have never noticed any "no photography" signs - although I will be on the look out for them now, and checking how new they look - but their website does mention this rule. Visitors cannot be expected to have checked this, however.
The big 'but' here comes with what really happened? How much was embellished or omitted from the story? We don't know this guy, so he could have flipped a little and thought nothing of it, believing he was being reasonable. Was the security guard initially polite, or was he obnoxious from the get go?