omg i can see myself in thise video im on the top floor next to the girl with the saltire flag i helped her hold it lol but heard their coming back thise year and taking photos and videos WILL be aloud so guess its one rule for Jedward and not for wee Hazel [the little girl whos dad was nearly arrested ]hope Jedward boycotts breahhead
also i dont see any terrorisam act here [aprat from Jedwards terrible singing lol ]and it was mosty kids filming it and if malls are gonna invite celebrities into their malls they should expect pepole taking photos or filmimg it whats the world coming to
oh is thise linked to the carry on with the dad taking photos of his little girl well i was their that day taking photos of Jedward on my phone and i filmed them too and their on my facebook so guess i broke the law too that day but Jedward didnt seem to mind oh and also their was tv crews and the press so they broke the law too
@allmodjohns Are you aware of what this video is referencing? A father got questioned under the Terrorism Act simply for taking a photograph of his daughter in that exact shopping centre. Which is why this is labelled as it is.
@ramsaybaggins Of course I'm aware of the Braehead incident, but the description of this video is factually wrong, no laws are being broken, just as no laws were broken by the father taking a snap of his kid. In his case an ignorant security guard conflates mall rules with law and calls the police who then deliberately misuse the PoT act. In the case of the Jedward event the mall choose not to enforce their rule as it's not practical. My issue is the emphatic statement that this event is illegal
@ramsaybaggins If this is a video page for an embryonic documentary project it would be a bit silly to go screaming completely untrue 'facts' in a Daily Mail style, which is basically what is happening, inadvertently in this description. The poster isn't using hyperbole to point out double standards, he's explicitly referencing laws which don't apply.
The same essentially goes for filming children, it's the fact your on private property that is the issue, unless it turns out that the child or children were wards of the court under the Children Act 1988 which enacts special rights to privacy, the same goes for vulnerable adults. Under normal circumstances there is no special right to privacy for kids or adults. As event organisers can't tell which child is under protection orders they generally don't allow photography at events or on premises.
@allmodjohns You must see the contradiction here; the flexibiilty being abused. You say 'they generally don't allow photography at events or on premise' but at events it is a given that everyone and their mum will film the event. This is a case of double standards and the child protection laws and POT laws are being taken to absurd lengths in the cases when parents are harassed for taking photographs of their own children in malls. Perhaps you can elucidate on why this is of social value?
@mormor39 I don't have an issue with contradiction of the mall's policy, it's not really a contradiction as the mall is free to enforce or recind it's rules with respects to the practicality of the situation. Harassing a lone parent is practical (I'm not saying right or logical, just technically practical as in it can be done) in terms of man power whereas enforcing the rule on 700 people at one time just can't be done. My issue is the fact that you explicitly state this is illegal...
@mormor39 ...mentioning laws which don't apply. You're inadvertently using the same sort of hyperbole and misreporting that the Daily Mail uses when it blames these laws for not being able to take photos at, for instance, a school's sports day. Now if this youtube channel is effectively a video blog for a documentary project you probably want to avoid posting things that are factually incorrect as that can damage any documentary.
@allmodjohns I'm not sure where you are coming from here. The 'laws' that security firms invoke in shopping malls are not really laws but rules. They can only be enforced by court cases, not by the police. The simple thing I was communicating is that what is passed off as 'law', is dealt with with great flexibilty and ambiguity by those who own these spaces. They break their own rules and the things they pass off as laws. If you have a suggestion for amending the text I'd welcome it.
@mormor39 "By their own rules, and by UK law, this event was illegal." This statement isn't true. Their rules can't make something illegal, only laws can do that and there are no laws that make taking pictures at an event illegal.
@allmodjohns you are being too literal here - I am saying that for what in one situation - say a father taking a photograph of his child in a mall - which is deemed and communicated as illegal, by the constabulary( rightly or wrongly) is completely disregarded when it comes to public events. Illegal? How can so many people be breaking a law with their lovely new cameras designed for such a purpose.
@mormor39 The only reason I'm being literal is because you are literally stating that this event was illegal under UK law, you're not making an allusion or a metaphor, your referencing laws, not mentioning that PoT is misused by police security etc, you're actually saying it covers these events, that's what you need to change.
@allmodjohns I agree and you are right. I'm thinking about a way that I could do this simply without having to get into an essay on the subject. I have changed the accompanying text in the column. I have to look at the actual footagenad see whether a word change in the end titles would make a difference. Again, what do you suggest? I'm on your side here.
The PoT act doesn't make it illegal to film in a mall, the fact that it is private property means you need permission to film there. Without permission you can be prosecuted if the precinct owners choose to press charges. The PoT act doesn't make it illegal to film anywhere, it's used and misused by both police and property owners to attempt confiscation of equipment and images they have no legal right to. The correct law is civil trespass which only applies after being asked to stop filming
this is hillarious - pmsl and also smh
JEDWARDSWIFE 3 months ago
omg i can see myself in thise video im on the top floor next to the girl with the saltire flag i helped her hold it lol but heard their coming back thise year and taking photos and videos WILL be aloud so guess its one rule for Jedward and not for wee Hazel [the little girl whos dad was nearly arrested ]hope Jedward boycotts breahhead
anne123480 4 months ago
hahahahaha
housewares 4 months ago
also i dont see any terrorisam act here [aprat from Jedwards terrible singing lol ]and it was mosty kids filming it and if malls are gonna invite celebrities into their malls they should expect pepole taking photos or filmimg it whats the world coming to
anne123480 4 months ago
oh is thise linked to the carry on with the dad taking photos of his little girl well i was their that day taking photos of Jedward on my phone and i filmed them too and their on my facebook so guess i broke the law too that day but Jedward didnt seem to mind oh and also their was tv crews and the press so they broke the law too
anne123480 4 months ago
I understand the sarcasm of this video but it plays into the wrong hands.
Injustice has to be confronted "Head on" otherwise you lose the "Moral Ground"!
As I understand Breahead centre is going to Apologise to Mr White and change their policy on photography. Partial VICTORY!
I hope the police review their use of the anti terror laws and train/discipine their officers better!
neilsmovieshd 4 months ago
That will be the last time for a long time the shopping centre will see that many people in the complex - and they didn't go there to shop.
thehouseofblack100 4 months ago
Basically there's nothing illegal going on in your video.
allmodjohns 4 months ago
@allmodjohns Are you aware of what this video is referencing? A father got questioned under the Terrorism Act simply for taking a photograph of his daughter in that exact shopping centre. Which is why this is labelled as it is.
ramsaybaggins 4 months ago
@ramsaybaggins Of course I'm aware of the Braehead incident, but the description of this video is factually wrong, no laws are being broken, just as no laws were broken by the father taking a snap of his kid. In his case an ignorant security guard conflates mall rules with law and calls the police who then deliberately misuse the PoT act. In the case of the Jedward event the mall choose not to enforce their rule as it's not practical. My issue is the emphatic statement that this event is illegal
allmodjohns 4 months ago
@ramsaybaggins If this is a video page for an embryonic documentary project it would be a bit silly to go screaming completely untrue 'facts' in a Daily Mail style, which is basically what is happening, inadvertently in this description. The poster isn't using hyperbole to point out double standards, he's explicitly referencing laws which don't apply.
allmodjohns 4 months ago
The same essentially goes for filming children, it's the fact your on private property that is the issue, unless it turns out that the child or children were wards of the court under the Children Act 1988 which enacts special rights to privacy, the same goes for vulnerable adults. Under normal circumstances there is no special right to privacy for kids or adults. As event organisers can't tell which child is under protection orders they generally don't allow photography at events or on premises.
allmodjohns 4 months ago
@allmodjohns You must see the contradiction here; the flexibiilty being abused. You say 'they generally don't allow photography at events or on premise' but at events it is a given that everyone and their mum will film the event. This is a case of double standards and the child protection laws and POT laws are being taken to absurd lengths in the cases when parents are harassed for taking photographs of their own children in malls. Perhaps you can elucidate on why this is of social value?
mormor39 4 months ago
@mormor39 I don't have an issue with contradiction of the mall's policy, it's not really a contradiction as the mall is free to enforce or recind it's rules with respects to the practicality of the situation. Harassing a lone parent is practical (I'm not saying right or logical, just technically practical as in it can be done) in terms of man power whereas enforcing the rule on 700 people at one time just can't be done. My issue is the fact that you explicitly state this is illegal...
allmodjohns 4 months ago
@mormor39 ...mentioning laws which don't apply. You're inadvertently using the same sort of hyperbole and misreporting that the Daily Mail uses when it blames these laws for not being able to take photos at, for instance, a school's sports day. Now if this youtube channel is effectively a video blog for a documentary project you probably want to avoid posting things that are factually incorrect as that can damage any documentary.
allmodjohns 4 months ago
@allmodjohns I'm not sure where you are coming from here. The 'laws' that security firms invoke in shopping malls are not really laws but rules. They can only be enforced by court cases, not by the police. The simple thing I was communicating is that what is passed off as 'law', is dealt with with great flexibilty and ambiguity by those who own these spaces. They break their own rules and the things they pass off as laws. If you have a suggestion for amending the text I'd welcome it.
mormor39 4 months ago
@mormor39 "By their own rules, and by UK law, this event was illegal." This statement isn't true. Their rules can't make something illegal, only laws can do that and there are no laws that make taking pictures at an event illegal.
allmodjohns 4 months ago
@allmodjohns you are being too literal here - I am saying that for what in one situation - say a father taking a photograph of his child in a mall - which is deemed and communicated as illegal, by the constabulary( rightly or wrongly) is completely disregarded when it comes to public events. Illegal? How can so many people be breaking a law with their lovely new cameras designed for such a purpose.
mormor39 4 months ago
@mormor39 The only reason I'm being literal is because you are literally stating that this event was illegal under UK law, you're not making an allusion or a metaphor, your referencing laws, not mentioning that PoT is misused by police security etc, you're actually saying it covers these events, that's what you need to change.
allmodjohns 4 months ago
@allmodjohns I agree and you are right. I'm thinking about a way that I could do this simply without having to get into an essay on the subject. I have changed the accompanying text in the column. I have to look at the actual footagenad see whether a word change in the end titles would make a difference. Again, what do you suggest? I'm on your side here.
mormor39 4 months ago
The PoT act doesn't make it illegal to film in a mall, the fact that it is private property means you need permission to film there. Without permission you can be prosecuted if the precinct owners choose to press charges. The PoT act doesn't make it illegal to film anywhere, it's used and misused by both police and property owners to attempt confiscation of equipment and images they have no legal right to. The correct law is civil trespass which only applies after being asked to stop filming
allmodjohns 4 months ago 2