By Carlos Miller
A man was photographing his son inside a shopping mall in the United Kingdom when a security guard accused him of being a pedophile.
The man asserted his rights to photograph his own son before photographing the guard and walking away with his child.
Within minutes, police tracked him down – using a mall security camera nonetheless – and threatened to arrest him, even after learning that the child was the man’s son.
The incident occurred earlier this month in Sunderland, England. The photographer, whose name is Kevin, documented the incident on his blog:
As the discussion is getting a bit heated he threatens to arrest me, saying that I’m causing a breach of the peace. Well come on, what do you expect, I’ve been accused of being a paedophile and had the Police set on me for taking a picture of my own son in a public place – can’t you work out why I’m getting a bit annoyed.
The cop threatened to delete his photos, then demanded Kevin’s name and address before leaving him alone.
Kevin remains defiant. And rightfully so.
Now I know that there are those who will say that I brought it on myself and I should have just kowtowed to the security guard when he told me not to take pictures. However I disagree – I believe I had every right to take a photograph of my son in a public place and frankly I’m sick of having my civil liberties eroded little by little.
The fact that the cop threatened to arrest Kevin for “breach of the peace” even after discovering that all he was doing was photographing his own son is not surprising because police in the UK last December jailed a man for eight hours after he photographed Christmas lights in a busy commercial area.
Bob Patefield was charged with “anti-social behavior” because he refused to provide police with his personal information. The Guardian newspaper has a video but unfortunately, they don’t allow anyone to embed it, which is very lame and self-defeating of them.
Popularity: 5% [?]
Fernandez, as I mentioned in a 
23 responses so far ↓
1 Soto // Feb 24, 2010 at 10:01 PM
We’ve lost all common sense.
2 Workingindust // Feb 24, 2010 at 10:18 PM
‘Anti-social behavior’ WTF??? Does that mean that everytime I walk outside I have to walk around with a big fat smile on my face?
If a security guard or whatever is going to accuse me of being a paedophile (as the brits like to call it) when I’m doing nothing of the sort then I reserve the right to tell them to fuck off with gusto!
Kevin might have a good libel suit considering Englands weird libel laws.
Workingindust´s last blog ..USAF MH-60A
3 Bentor Tazenda // Feb 25, 2010 at 1:27 AM
I’m asking the same thing.. What the heck is “anti-social behavior?” Sounds like a catch-all for something that they don’t like.
Okay, I should ask that properly…. What is the legal definition of “anti-social behavior” and what are the statutes at large that make those definitions? Is a set of narrowly defined actions, codified in a law; or is a gray mishmash of anything someone with some sort of assumed authority says it ism making up laws on the spot?
4 lobster // Feb 25, 2010 at 3:23 AM
George Orwell wasn’t that off.
5 Ed // Feb 25, 2010 at 9:45 AM
However ridiculous, accusatory, and utterly stupid the guard’s request was, a mall is private property (and not “public” as Mr. Patefield stated) and may refuse service to anyone and set its “own rules” (unless laws are significantly different in the UK.) By entering the mall, the patron accepts the rules of the mall and may be asked to leave or “warned” if the rules are broken.
This is different from being restricted to photograph or being discriminated against in a public (not owned by a private person or organization) area which there is no expectation of privacy. Private areas in view of public areas are also fair game for photographers.
As for the arrest, this was a civil matter between the patron and the mall. The officers (in my opinion) should have asked if the mall was “kicking him out” or not. If he was asked to leave and did not, then we would be trespassing. Otherwise, the police had no “business” in the matter.
Ed
6 Jon Quimbly // Feb 25, 2010 at 10:37 AM
Youtube has the video (10 mins)-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAUan2DXBsk
7 Richard Thomas // Feb 25, 2010 at 12:09 PM
Any officer of the law, security guard, or other person who EVER accuses me of such better get a good lawyer. I’m a citizen of both the state of North Carolina and the US, and I’m certain I could find a lawyer willing to define such a statement as a violation of NC’s disorderly conduct statute, also known as the “fighting words” clause. GS 14-288.4, section 2, states “Disorderly conduct is a public disturbance intentionally caused by any person who does any of the following: … Makes or uses any utterance, gesture, display or abusive language which is intended and plainly likely to provoke violent retaliation and thereby cause a breach of the peace.” Such an act also violates both US and NC defamation laws and might in fact be hate speech.
8 mcibear // Feb 25, 2010 at 12:49 PM
When you the citizen act confrontational to police, they will wonder why. They will think that you are trying to hide something. The law in most nations have provisions in them to arrest anyone with very little reason.
Where I am from I can be detain indefinatly so that the police can varafie my identity.
The simple point is that if you get stop by the police be polite. Try and coperate. Dont try and point out that they dont have the right to do something, because more then liky they do under a different part of the law(as was the case in the vidio that you linked.)
In the case of ‘Kevin’ I dont nessasarly think the security guard was out of line aproching them, but i should have ended there as long as kevin didn’t do anything too confrontaional.
When all the details are know it does seem very rediculas, but think of it form the police prospective. They know only as much as they have been told, and remeber what they have been told is my someone who thinks something is wrong, and will bias the information that they give in that light.
Im not saying that police are all powerful and you must bow to thier every wish, but sometimes just coperating is the best choice.
9 Tom Jones // Feb 25, 2010 at 2:19 PM
I saved a copy of the video from their site using a plug-in for FireFox. You can, too!
10 Carlos Miller // Feb 25, 2010 at 2:25 PM
Tom,
I tried for several days to download the video using different software, but it kept telling me that the video link did not have an extension.
Which plugin?
11 Kevin Geraghty-Shewan // Feb 25, 2010 at 2:46 PM
It’s called Download helper
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3006
12 Tom Jones // Feb 25, 2010 at 5:22 PM
Flash And Video download 0.1
video add-ons are here – I installed some and they did not work until I rebooted the PC, now they are OK.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browse/type:1/cat:38
13 Jody // Feb 25, 2010 at 8:26 PM
The only child toucher in this situation is Frank, I mean look at the guy, geesh. Anti-social behaviour is a catch all term that the UK government uses like police in the US use, disorderly conduct/contempt of cop. The mall may be private property but that does not give any trumped up rent a cop loser the right to acuse someone of being a child toucher without solid proof. Fuck Frank, I’m sure many a child has.
Jody´s last blog ..Sheriff Nullification of CCW Ban at Colorado State University
14 Theywantyoufired // Feb 25, 2010 at 8:45 PM
I really can’t believe people are still taking pictures inside malls. I fought that fight while a teenager many years ago and since then I won’t even bring a camera into a mall. That idiot “Frank” had no right to make the accusation he did. Such statements are thrown around foolishly these days and no doubt diminish the real thing. We do need to stand up for our rights while on Public property but inside a mall isn’t. Learn to pick your fights and pick the ones you can win.
15 Michaelk42 // Feb 26, 2010 at 3:43 PM
Gentlemen, gentlemen… fear not, Uncle Warren has a link to what you need: http://www.warrenellis.com/?p=8684
ASBOrometer – Measure UK anti-social behaviour on iPhone and Android
“ASBOrometer is a mobile application that measures levels of anti-social behaviour at your current location (within England and Wales) and gives you access to key local ASB statistics.”
(tags:app social crime culture )
http://www.asborometer.com/
Michaelk42´s last blog ..Hard to let go
16 Kevin Geraghty-Shewan // Feb 27, 2010 at 3:26 PM
@Ed
You said “However ridiculous, accusatory, and utterly stupid the guard’s request was, a mall is private property (and not “public”
The Shopping Mall may be privately owned but it is still a public space because the public are allowed to enter without restriction. therefore I was within my rights to take a picture as there is no law against taking pictures in a public space.
17 Jim Poulos // Feb 27, 2010 at 9:50 PM
Lets leave aside the issue of whether or not there is a right to take pictures in the mall. Lets concede the private property argument. The accusation made by the security guard is false, defamatory, and slanderous. On that basis alone the guard, the security company that employs him and the mall that contracted them should be SUED FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS!
The behavior of the security guard is inexcusable regardless of any rule that might have been broken. And rules should be clearly posted. While ignorance of the law is not considered an excuse, mall rules are NOT LAWS. If malls want us to follow certain rules then they should clearly post them where everyone can see, and in multiple languages. Otherwise the guards should be properly train to POLITELY inform customers of the rules.
This guard has no excuse – if this happened to me believe me my attorney would be in touch with everyone involved and that guard would be walking the unemployment line!
18 genewitch // Feb 28, 2010 at 7:22 AM
That may be the case in the UK, but that’s not the case in most places in the USA.
There’s probably some legal thing that makes it different but i know that there’s private, public but private, and public. Just because the “public” can go someplace unrestricted doesn’t mean it’s “public” by the definition of law.
I’m not arguing with you, i’m clarifying US law in this matter.
19 Jim Poulos // Feb 28, 2010 at 10:37 AM
Even there we have to look at each individual state and each situation. Union Station, DC and the outdoor mall at Silver Springs, MD tried using the “private property” card to restrict photography and both were foist on their own petards. Turns out that their “property” was leased from either the federal or the local government and not really private at all..
The Union Station dispute ended up in congressional hearings before the management company caved and agreed to allow photography.
I believe some states have enacted laws that say that if you open your property up to the public (i.e. a mall) then all activities that the public can do on a public sidewalk is allowed within that space as well.
What it boils down to is that it is no longer as simple as it seems.. Sometimes it feels like you need to bring a lawyer with you on photo shoots
20 Jim Poulos // Feb 28, 2010 at 10:49 AM
What I don’t understand is why malls don’t clearly post a rule that says “no photography”. Some do – but many don’t and then expect the public to know that the rule exists. We’re not mind-readers.
What I don’t understand is how so many places now want to restrict photography at a time when cameras are included in virtually every gadget. Whether it is one of those flip video cams or cellphone cams, I think every single person walking the streets today has a camera with him/her. The horse left the barn long ago!
21 johnl // Mar 1, 2010 at 2:12 PM
The guard can enforce store policies against photography but that’s not what he was doing. So it was a privately owned space with no blanket rules against photography where local custom is to take photos. It’s not a big mistake to call that a “public” space.
22 TheMike // Mar 21, 2010 at 7:15 PM
Honestly, I would have applauded the father if he would have punched Frank square in the nose. Flame me if you want, but I don’t see how you Brits put up with watching your once free country go to shit like that.
23 PHIL SINCLAIR-ALLAN // May 20, 2010 at 8:04 PM
I also visited “The Bridges”
I was accused of “touching a child’s head” whilst passing him/her. I was then stopped in my
car in ‘The Bridges’ roof top car park by 3 “Security Guards” whilst one then grabbed me by the neck, began heaving me about then threw me into the car whilst continuing to mal-handle/ punch me causing various dental injuries before calling the police and accusing me of also being a “PAEDOPHILE”.
They actually had me “ARRESTED” for “PUBLIC DISORDER”.
I do NOT invent ANY of this.
I have, via Sunderland County Court, obtained all pertinent CCTV/Video recordings concerning this MOST SERIOUS MIS-TREATMENT, as a perfectly well intended. perfectly innocent customer. There were NO GROUNDS for ANY charges against me and NO further action was taken against me.
I remain EXTREMELY TRAUMATIZED since this experience last August. I actually returned 2 days laterto try and confirm the existence of nearby CCTV, however was approached AGAIN by further “Security Guards” who AGAIN called the police, alleging AGAIN that I was a “paedophile”. They then attended,
stopped me in my car, by the main road and demanded I DELETE ALL MY MOBILE TELEPHONE PICTURES (whilst surrounded by 4 police officers).
Incredible as this seems I DO NOT exaggerate a single word and am FULLY INTENT on pursuing
fitting, indeed substantial ACTION as a consequence.
PHIL
“THE BRIDGES” VISITOR
(NO MORE!!!)
Leave a Comment