Donate SIGN UP

Watch the "Birdie"

Avatar Image
anotheoldgit | 14:56 Sat 27th Feb 2010 | News
8 Answers
http://www.dailymail....-case-paedophile.html

The security guard doubted that Mr Geraghty-Shewan, was the child's father??????

Well if he wasn't wouldn't it have been more of a concern that this 4 year old was all alone outside the shop, with no apparent guardian.

This is yet another case of "Loony Britain" soon one won't dare to get a camera out in a public place, in case one is accused of being a paedophile, offending someone, or being a terrorist.
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 8 of 8rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Afterall according to new belief Paedophiles have right too and paedophilia is a disease and not sin so we can't punish them the way that should be a lesson to others. So the alternative is a ban on the camera.
I meant to say "crime" but sin will do too.
The link doesn't open unless its my computer not functioning appropriately? But I think its more a case of an over enthusiatic security guard. Saying that however, if this was a dodgy case then the public would be happy that our security guards are over enthusiatic. The centre said that it takes 'safety seriously' and they ask the guards to be 'vigilant when monitoring photography'. He is supposed to have had a 'polite conversation' with the father but it led to a misunderstanding.

Furthermore I condemn the father for taking a photo of the security guard and posting it on his web blog and now the paper - that is more a case of 'loony Britain', next time the security guard will be 'treading on egg-shells' if this scene occurs again and who knows - it may be a case of a real paedophile?
Question Author
Seadragon

The link opens alright.
Yes thanks Oldgit, it works just fine now.
someone was arrested a couple of months ago for taking a picture of St Paul's, as I recall. Police have now been reminded by their superiors not to be idiots. Private security guards are not affected, of course, but you would expect the companies that hire them to tell them not to be idiots.
I am a 100% with AOG in this. This is (unfortunately) a sign of the times - and unfortunately people like Sea Dragon seem to think it is acceptable.

Shamefully, the media have created a panic amongst the gullible in society that every person you see is either a paedophile or a terrorist and should be treated with suspicion. This has had a detrimental effect on society - the classic example is that if a man saw a child crying in the street as they had lost their parents, they are now more likely to walk away than help that child.

What a shame
As an ex-Policeman this absolutely infuriates me. Where do they get these moronic cops from? They appear to be completely uninformed about the law.

It is totally acceptable and completely legal to take photographs of anyone - be they man, woman or child - in a public place. If the story is accurate, the Police Officer who claimed that he had the right to delete the photograph from the gentleman's phone needs to look at his Blackstone's a little more closely.

1 to 8 of 8rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Watch the "Birdie"

Answer Question >>