Take Picture Of Your 4-Year-Old Daughter Eating Ice Cream... Get Investigated Under Terrorism Act [Updated]

from the the-new-face-of-terror dept

Fri, Oct 14th 2011 1:13pm — Mike Masnick

We've covered plenty of ridiculous stories concerning police going after photographers lately, but this one is a bit different. As a whole bunch of you have sent in, at a mall in Scotland, Chris White took a photograph of his 4-year-old daughter eating ice cream at an ice cream stand.

However, the mall apparently has a "no photographs" law, and workers at the ice cream stand were supposedly "suspicious," and called security... who called the police, after White refused to delete the photos on his phone (and noted that they'd already been uploaded to Facebook). The police then questioned him under the UK Terrorism Act, saying that they could confiscate his mobile phone. To everyone's credit, the situation didn't escalate and he was left alone (and not made to turn over the phone). But, just the fact that it went that far seems crazy. How difficult is it to recognize a common scene of a father taking a photo of his daughter eating ice cream?

Of course, the attention that this has received resulted in the mall changing its official policy

Update: Important update to this story. While the mall has apologized, the police are hinting very strongly that White's account is not accurate, and that there was some other (unnamed) activity that was the reason he was investigated...

It is because Mr White chose to seek publicity for his account of events and because of the planned demonstration that we feel compelled to take the unusual step of making our findings public.

�In reaching our conclusions, officers took statements from a number of independent witnesses and viewed the substantial amount of CCTV that was available in the centre.

�On reviewing all of this objective evidence, I have to tell you that we can find no basis to support the complaint which MrWhite has elected to make.

�The members of the public who asked for the security staff to become involved have told us that they did so for reasons which had absolutely nothing to do with him taking photographs of his daughter. They had a very specific concern, which I am not in a position to discuss publicly, that they felt the need to report. It was because of this very specific concern that security staff became involved. They were right to raise their concern and we are glad that they did so.

�The security staff were the ones who asked for police involvement. Again, this was not because Mr White said he had been photographing his daughter, but was due to the concerns that they themselves had regarding this particular incident.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: photos, terrorism, uk

61 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Rikuo (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 1:17pm

Oh for fuck sake...I was planning on spending a couple days in the UK and the police are still bothering photographers with stupid reasons like this?
So I can cross the UK and the US off my list of places I want to travel to. The US is there because of the TSA, especially now that they're searching luggage if you just take a train or a bus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- STJ, 14 Oct 2011 @ 2:04pm
  
  Re:
  Welcome to the United States. Please be prepared to be searched. We will provide a report for your next doctor's visit as a courtesy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - william (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 3:48pm
    
    Re: Re:
    In addition, we'll let your doctor know that you won't be needing a prostate cancer examination for the next 12 month.
    
    Disclaimer: Although it's funny in that sentence, prostate cancer is serious business. make sure you have your exams. :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ninja (profile), 17 Oct 2011 @ 10:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Full cavity search ftw.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Scooters (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 4:39pm
    
    Re: Re:
    LOL! Actually, no we won't.
    
    Those damn HIPAA laws are painful.
    
    I'd rather get groped by the TSA than face one of those fines.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Any Mouse (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 7:15pm
    
    Re: Re:
    'Welcome to the United Kingdom. Please be prepared to be searched. We will provide a report for your next doctor's visit as a courtesy.'
    
    FTFY. This was in Scotland.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Groove Tiger (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 8:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's a reference to the previous comment.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 1:19pm

Einstein?
The difference between a genius and an idiot:

A genius can freely admit when s/he is wrong; an idiot cannot.

Note how the mall changed it's policy but the UK Terrorism Act will remain unchanged...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
weneedhelp (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 1:34pm

to recognize a common scene
requires common sense, which is a scarce commodity these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PlagueSD (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 1:53pm
  
  Re: to recognize a common scene
  Damn...Someone beat me to it...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Christopher (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 1:36pm

This is absolutely outrageous. Some of these laws are being taken way too damned far, one of the reasons why I say that these laws are extremely bad ideas and need repealed.

The Patriot Act in America, this law in the U.K.... ALL of them need repealed or rewritten and their scopes severely limited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Moose12 (profile), 15 Oct 2011 @ 3:39am
  
  Re: take picture get investigated
  Terrorists are laughing. We are already their victims. Two powerful nation are chasing their own tails because of the word terrorism. The law(s) in the UK and the Patriot Act in the US are in place to control people......not to deter trrrorism. The world banking and finance systems want this control, sooo...having laws rewritten or repealed is out of the question!! Before his election Mr. Obama had indicated he would repeal the Patriot Act!!! Welllll.....DUHHHHHHHH!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beta (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 1:44pm

Wee image o' my bonie Betty
It's to Braehead's credit that they changed the policy, and so quickly (although I foresee problems with "friends and family"). But I have to wonder... if they have the power to do away with the policy -- that is, it's not mandated by law -- then why did they enact it in the first place? To please the customers? Are Scottish shoppers as stupid about security as Americans, or just camera-shy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2011 @ 2:24pm
  
  Re: Wee image o' my bonie Betty
  Well, from one of the links, the quickness of the change got "motivated":
  
  Well, after Mr. White started a Facebook page called Boycott Braehead, the story was picked up by the BBC, and within hours the management of Braehead was apologizing and announcing a change in policy so that people will be able to take photos of friends and family. They are also saying they will implement the change at all 11 centers owned by the same company.
  
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Duke (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 1:45pm

Two sides to each story
While it seems likely this account of the story is accurate (particularly given previous cases along these lines), it may be worth reading this article which includes both sides of the story. It seems that the police claim they did not question him under any of the various Terrorism Acts, nor was the initial incident to do with taking the photo.

Anyways, of course the shopping centre is perfectly within its rights to stop people from taking photographs inside, and throw people out for not doing so - however, I can't see how the Terrorism Act could have got involved... certainly not to a degree that would stand up in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- P, 14 Oct 2011 @ 1:54pm
  
  Re: Two sides to each story
  Photos in the mall not allowed due to possible terrorist planning????
  All mall floor plans can be found online.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Duke (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 2:00pm
    
    Re: Re: Two sides to each story
    There's more to planning a terrorist attack (or, more likely, a burglary) than simply having a floor plan, but anyway...
    
    The shopping centre can have any reason it wants to for not allowing people to take photographs, unless they're a public authority they don't need to justify their actions to the public or demonstrate them to be proportionate.
    
    There also doesn't seem to be any suggestion that this rule was to prevent terrorism, iirc it is usually to "protect" staff from being photographed excessively while at work (iirc there's actually a law against CCTV being pointed at staff workstations).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - hothmonster, 14 Oct 2011 @ 2:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Two sides to each story
      "iirc there's actually a law against CCTV being pointed at staff workstations)"
      
      I highly doubt that as most cameras are aimed at cash registers and usually someone works in front of that cash register, depending on the business, all day.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Duke (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 2:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Two sides to each story
        Ah, good point... it must be in one of the Home Office's or ICO's guidance documents (but I haven't found it yet...); something about not having CCTV focussed on an individual as it might disproportionately interfere with their privacy etc. Of course, like most of the guidance (and law) regarding CCTV etc. it's blatantly ignored by most people.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Devil's Coachman (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 2:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Two sides to each story
      So if the CCTV isn't pointed at the staff workstations, they can't be caught spitting and pissing in your smoothies? Is that the purpose. Sure looks that way to me. If anything, most of the food concessions at most malls should be under extreme video surveillance, given that the average employee has the IQ of a fencepost, and is extremely bitter over the fact that they have to serve those goddamned annoying customers instead of smoking reefer in the back.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - hmm (profile), 16 Oct 2011 @ 12:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Two sides to each story
        Sorry you're totally wrong..its spitting OR pissing in your smoothies, they never do both at once.....
        
        Also I resent the fencepost/IQ comment as you can now get electronic fenceposts with the ability to turn a light on when you pass by.
        
        Also you'll notice they're called food "concessions" for a good reason. Yes, its food, but you have to concede that a least a SMALL amount of mucus will end up in your burger.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 4:14pm
  
  Re: Two sides to each story
  Interesting stuff. Added to the post!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - LyleD, 14 Oct 2011 @ 4:28pm
    
    Re: Re: Two sides to each story
    So the police are claiming he's a Pedo instead? Nice!
    
    "Police have taken the unusual step of issuing a public denial of accusations made by a father who claimed he had been questioned for taking pictures of his young daughter at a shopping mall.
    
    Chris White said police interviewed him at Braehead Shopping Centre near Glasgow because they thought he may have posed a danger to children. He claims he was questioned under terrorism laws."
    
    http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/274528-braehead-photo-row-father-reported-by-poli ce/
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2011 @ 4:26pm
  
  Re: Two sides to each story
  I disagree strongly with the part "of course the shopping centre is perfectly within its rights to stop people from taking photographs inside, and throw people out for not doing so" nobody should be kicked out of anywhere because of a photograph unless the guy is in the ladies bathroom or taking photos of women in skirts, which by the way the guy could be compelled to leave by the threat of other laws in the books.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Duke (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 6:26pm
    
    Re: Re: Two sides to each story
    nobody should be kicked out of anywhere because of a photograph
    Even if (and I'm not saying this is necessarily the case here) they've been invited into that place and expressly told not to take photographs? Most shopping centres (at least, in the UK) are private property, so are free to kick out anyone for any reason, unless there's a legal reason not to.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2011 @ 9:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Two sides to each story
      Even in that case.
      Just to make it clear technology is advancing and augmented reality is already here, video diaries are a reality not something that is in the future, it is happening now.
      Vicon camera logs your life.
      http://www.switched.com/2009/10/18/wearable-vicon-camera-lets-you-log-every-moment-of-your-li fe/
      
      Cool goggles that could record your life one day.
      http://www.gizmag.com/zeal-recon-transcend-gps-head-mounted-display-goggles/16605/
      
      Sexy earphones that would change how people see those things in public.
      http://www.gizmag.com/the-orb-bluetooth-headset/12313/
      
      Helmets that are approaching the SciFi level already.
      http://www.gizmag.com/go/2430/
      
      AsianWolf sport glasses that record your life. Up to 2gigas of data, not much yet.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOoRejofVfY
      
      YouVision glasses that record your life.
      http://dvice.com/archives/2009/12/you-vision-glas.php
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOoRejo fVfY
      
      Layar, tag the world and see it on your phone today, could they throughout people for tagging them?
      http://www.youtube.com/layarmobile
      
      TagWhat, tag the world and show it to others.
      http://www.tagwhat.com/
      
      You see, why look to a small screen when you can have a 50" screen in front of you just by using glasses that can record everything you do and show an overlay on top of what you see?
      
      Everyone in the future will use glasses. Maybe even full masks that can record, overlay information, filter sounds and smells or create local environments on a personal level.
      http://www.frogdesign.com/news/frogconcept-a-digital-escape-05162008.html
      
      Are those going to be outlawed?
      There is a camera in every corner today, people eventually will start hiding their faces, I doubt they will want to use makeup to to keep their privacy.
      
      Anti Facial Recognition Makeup
      http://www.geekosystem.com/anti-facial-recognition/
      
      Those technologies will change some laws and how people think of privacy in coming years.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 7:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Two sides to each story
        I think you make some good points; however, I think there are some valid counterarguments that people can make as well. For instance, just because you have recording goggles on and intend to record your entire life doesn't mean you should record everything in the dressing/locker room or the showers when other people are there getting dressed and whatnot. Other people's privacy is also important and there are some instances where your desire to record your entire life may interfere with someone else's privacy. If you're a doctor, for instance, there are doctor patient confidentiality rules. Heck, I'm sure there are many personal family issues that people discuss that they would rather not be recorded for various reasons. If you're staying at a friends house maybe your friend doesn't want you recording everything that happens at his house.
        
        Now, I'm not saying that you're entirely wrong here either. I understand that there is a difference between private property closed to the public (like your personal house) and private property open to the public (like a shopping mall). But, and Mike has talked about this before in various posts, there are serious issues to consider here. Whether or not a property owner, who owns private property open to the public, can kick someone out based on their use of a recording device and to what extent is a question I think open to debate. One could argue, however, that it's bad business practice. If such a property owner doesn't wish to allow cameras on his property, instead of patronizing his property, you can choose someone elses property to give your money to. If enough people boycott such property then property owners will eventually learn to allow cameras on their property.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 14 Oct 2011 @ 8:36pm
    
    Re: nobody should be kicked out of anywhere because of a photograph
    If it�s private property, they can impose pretty much whatever conditions they like on people entering. Equally, they can�t prosecute you for disobeying those conditions, all they can do is throw you out.
    
    Those are, in theory, their rights. In practice, if they want lots of people to visit their shops and buy things, they have to be reasonable about things.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2011 @ 9:07pm
      
      Re: Re: nobody should be kicked out of anywhere because of a photograph
      Can they make a rule that forbids someone from some religion to enter the premises? Could they negate service to people based on color?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Christopher (profile), 16 Oct 2011 @ 12:43pm
      
      Re: Re: nobody should be kicked out of anywhere because of a photograph
      Personally, I disagree with that point of view. It may be private property, but they should STILL have to adhere to human rights, of which one of your rights is to?
      
      Photographically document your life and the places you go should you wish to.
      
      Now, if they find someone taking pictures up women's skirts or something like that? That is punishable by OTHER laws and they should only intervene when something like that is happening.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 6:37pm
  
  Re: Two sides to each story
  > "They had a very specific concern, which I am not in a position
  > to discuss publicly, that they felt the need to report."
  
  So he was doing something else, but they won't say what he was doing, but we should just trust them that they had a real good reason.
  
  Riiighhht...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hmm (profile), 16 Oct 2011 @ 12:31pm
  
  Re: Two sides to each story
  Yeah they questioned him under the "lets be annoying cunts because we can get away with it" Act.
  
  Not technically an Act of Parliament, more an Act of a bored/racist police officer (i.e. most of them).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 14 Oct 2011 @ 1:49pm

'the police claim he wasn't questioned under any of the various Terrorism Acts' and the police wouldn't lie, would they!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Devil's Coachman (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 2:27pm
  
  Re:
  Of course they wouldn't lie. My pet unicorn will swear to that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rich Kulawiec, 14 Oct 2011 @ 1:53pm

And this is how the terrorists win.
I'm sure that none of the "authorities" involved in this debacle are intelligent enough to grasp this -- or they wouldn't be involved -- but this is a double victory for terrorists.

First, it's a win because they've managed to manipulate the authorities into doing their work for them. It's always best to get an enemy to inflict damage on itself, as has happened in this case. It's even better -- from the terrorists' point of view -- when you can publicly announce your intention to do so and STILL get your enemy to fall for the ploy.

Second, it's a win because every minute of time spent viciously harassing harmless people is a minute not spent actually doing something useful. Of course, it's easy to threaten a father with a child; tracking down terrorists is hard work. So it's much easier to do the former and pretend to do the latter.

So not only is this incident infuriating (every law enforcement official involved should be fired and banned for life from serving) but it's depressing: it's yet another way that victory is being handed to terrorists on a silver platter. They need not concoct elaborate plots or build complex devices or anything like that; they can just sit back and watch the self-inflicted wounds accumulate until there are enough to be fatal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ed C., 14 Oct 2011 @ 2:17pm

I could say it's comforting to know the US isn't the only country that's gone batshit crazy over terrorism...but it's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scott Yates (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 2:54pm

Damn Terrorists!
Ice cream terrorists I tells ya!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bushi, 14 Oct 2011 @ 3:38pm

law?
A mall can make whatever rules it wants but it sure as hell can't make a 'law'.
You break a mall rule they can cask you leave, but call the police for something not a crime? Wow... I'm not a sue happy kind of guy but that shit should be left to stand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wifezilla, 14 Oct 2011 @ 4:34pm

Apparently the mall released this initial response...
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xJIS02fDiL8J:www.braehead.co.uk/Wh ats-on/News/Statement-from-Braehead+braehead+statement&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

N ow there are hints and inferences that the dad may have done something wrong? Is this a case of CYA on the part of the police??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 14 Oct 2011 @ 6:16pm

"They had a very specific concern, which I am not in a position to discuss publicly, that they felt the need to report. It was because of this very specific concern that security staff became involved. They were right to raise their concern and we are glad that they did so. "

Sounds like BS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
k-h, 14 Oct 2011 @ 6:39pm

no photos?
So the mall has no cctv? Or are pictures only not allowed to be taken by the public?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kh (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 6:48pm

creepy
A member of staff at the centre's ice cream stall is said to have told officers that Mr White took photographs of her with his trouser zip open.

Making him look as creepy as possible?

He added: �It is because Mr White chose to seek publicity for his account of events and because of the planned demonstration that we feel compelled to take the unusual step of making our findings public.

�In reaching our conclusions, officers took statements from a number of independent witnesses and viewed the substantial amount of CCTV that was available in the centre.

�On reviewing all of this objective evidence, I have to tell you that we can find no basis to support the complaint which Mr White has elected to make.

So they reviewed their CCTV footage, which apparently was OK for them to take under their "no photographs" rule, and they somehow found that no-one mentioned terrorism? Did they have microphones as well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rekrul, 14 Oct 2011 @ 7:08pm
  
  Re: creepy
  A member of staff at the centre's ice cream stall is said to have told officers that Mr White took photographs of her with his trouser zip open.
  
  A sure sign of a pervert! No decent adult male has ever forgotten to zip up, or had their zipper come undone due to normal movement...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Joe, 15 Oct 2011 @ 6:30am
    
    Re: Re: creepy
    What law is on the books about forgetting to zip your fly? If thay is illegal I am surprised more kids aren't being sent to juvie.
    
    Granted that is assuming he want going commando
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - hmm (profile), 16 Oct 2011 @ 12:33pm
    
    Re: Re: creepy
    Also its terribly wrong to expose your penis in public near children...................
    
    Well, unless you're a premiership footballer or in Cameron's cabinet....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hmm (profile), 16 Oct 2011 @ 12:32pm
  
  Re: creepy
  A member of staff at the centre's ice cream stall is said to have told officers that Mr White took photographs of her with his trouser zip open.
  
  What was the member of staff doing wearing Mr Whites trousers?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Christopher (profile), 16 Oct 2011 @ 12:50pm
    
    Re: Re: creepy
    I'm more interested in "What does it matter that his trouser zip was open?"
    
    Personally, I have had the zipper to my shorts (don't wear trousers) come down and open all the time when I am walking around from the natural movement of my body, unless they are those 'locking' zippers.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2011 @ 8:07pm

This is great material for conspiracy theorists. First all those corrupt cops caught on camera, then that recent veto in California allowing mobile phones to still be searched without a warrant, and now the police showing up in response to innocuous photography.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2011 @ 10:31pm
  
  Re:
  When what the conspiracy theorists claim is going to happen en masse is actually happening on a small scale, we are right to be worried. Canary in the coal mine?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vincent Clement (profile), 15 Oct 2011 @ 6:33am

Nice backtracking by the police. Why wouldn't "members of the public" tell the guy his fly was undone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2011 @ 9:54am

cameras
�In reaching our conclusions, officers took statements from a number of independent witnesses and viewed the substantial amount of CCTV that was available in the centre.

I hope they get whoever put up those CCTV cameras.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
robert, 15 Oct 2011 @ 8:49pm

ice creem
Oman you gotta be kidding. What kind of shit is this.what a fucken ass hole. Shoot that asshole somebody please.. I got some ice cream for him,and alot of white cream too....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Androgynous Cowherd, 15 Oct 2011 @ 9:08pm

Misspelling in blog post
I'd like to take a moment to point out a regrettable spelling error in the original blog post, in the interests of possibly having it fixed.

Specifically, the tagline reads, "from the the-new-face-of-terror dept." when clearly it should be "from the the-new-farce-of-terror dept." instead.

HTH; HAND.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike allen (profile), 16 Oct 2011 @ 9:44am

They had a very specific concern, which I am not in a position to discuss publicly,

this line means one thing to me the police are making it up as they go along if they got something then say if not BUTT OUT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm (profile), 16 Oct 2011 @ 12:36pm

I know what it was
The "specific concerns" (since its British Police) were

Did he know where there were any:

Skanks to have sex with on top of their car
High-quality Cocaine for the Chief Constable
Persons of ethnic origin to beat with nightsticks and accuse of being terrorists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peter Matheson, 16 Oct 2011 @ 5:28pm

Clearly a pervert
This guy obviously got done for taking lewd photos of other people in the mall and used the opportunity of a photo with his daughter to cover it up. Well done to all involved to exposing this scumbag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Shawn, 19 Oct 2011 @ 1:37pm
  
  Re: Clearly a pervert
  You may be right. But the lewd photos may have been OF his daughter-- She's cute enough for pedos to go gaga over... You never know!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2011 @ 8:13am

We are concerned... we can't tell you about what, but we are concerned
I'm sure if they could tell us what they were concerned about, we would all understand and agree that the horrible tourist should be waterboarded.... Wait tourist and terrorist aren't the same??? Who knew.

We think you are doing bad things, we can't tell you what those things are, but we think you are doing them. No if we told you what we thought you were doing, you would know what we think you are doing and you would be sure that you didn't do it anymore. Only by not telling you what we think you are doing, can we really tell if you are doing what we think you are doing, of course now that you know that we know that we think you are doing something, you won't do what we thought you were doing, and so all we are doing is wasting a bunch of everyone's time.

What was it that we accused you of doing again? All this 'justification' thing kind of got in the way of me remembering what we were persecuting the tourist for....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Moose12 (profile), 17 Oct 2011 @ 8:53am
  
  Re: We are concerned... we can't tell you about what, but we are concerned
  I completely agree with everything you said........I think ...Well maybe!! What I didn't get was if the thing he did was not the reason for concern;....was it the other thing that might have been the threat to national secur....or ...no....did they mention the threat to...no, they didn't say that did they?? Oh damn!! Now I'm confused. This police work with kids and cameras and ice cream must be tougher than I thought.I think I"ll take my meds an have a nap, or something!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2011 @ 2:50pm

This is just an other example of how the terrorists are "WINNING". Hidden camera anyone. Once suicide bombing cleans out the terrorist gene pool with natural selection. Terrorist will realize all they need to do is mess with our imaginations. Just get a backpack and fill it with fake bombs and fake bio-hazards materials, place it in a crowded mall or subway during Christmas. geesh my local sub way has giant backpacks advertising that's it not always this easy to spot a bomb. But stuff like this doesn't happen because they don't want to mes with us they want us dead, in the mean time kiss our freedoms good bye.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 24 Oct 2011 @ 10:21pm

We have very valid reasons to suspect him of being a terrorist, but we're not telling you because we're afraid you might laugh at us if we do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]