Are police attempting to smear The Braehead One, ask his supporters
FIRST there was a Facebook campaign to boycott a shopping centre where a father claimed “intimidating” security guards and police stopped him from photographing his young daughter eating an ice cream.
Then, centre management caved in to public pressure and changed their policy. And now, in a new twist to a story that has made headlines around the world, allegations emerged yesterday that the man at the heart of the row was approached by police for taking pictures of a young retail assistant.
Strathclyde Police’s communications chief said the force “felt compelled” to issue a strenuous rebuttal of Chris White’s version of events, and stressed that he “knows, or ought to know,” why he was spoken to by its officers.
The force said there was “no basis” to support the claims by the mental health worker that he was subjected to “ridiculous” and “threatening” treatment after capturing images of his four-year-old daughter, Hazel, at an ice-cream parlour in Braehead shopping centre last week.
However, Mr White last night told The Scotsman that the police account was “completely inaccurate” and said he would be taking legal advice to “pursue” the matter against police and a broadcaster.
In the latest development to a story which has seen Mr White held up as a champion of civil liberties, police said he was quizzed due to “very specific concerns” raised by members of the public in the Renfrew retail complex.
No further detail was provided, but reports yesterday, strenuously denied by Mr White, claimed he may have been taking photographs of a female sales assistant while the zip of his trousers was down.
Despite reports yesterday that a report had been sent to the procurator fiscal regarding the 45-year-old, a police spokeswoman said that, while they had written to Mr White in response to his complaint, the matter was considered “closed”.
The 570-word police statement from Rob Shorthouse, Strathclyde’s director of communications, comes in the wake of a vast social media campaign sparked by Mr White.
More than 24,000 registered their support for a boycott of the centre, which prompted plans for a demonstration and even led to Braehead’s owners, Capital Shopping Centres, overhauling its policy on photography.
However, the police’s vigorous response appeared to spark a minor backlash among Mr White’s online allies yesterday, with hundreds “unliking” his page and some condemning his “made up version of events”.
The vast majority, however, offered continuing support, and criticised the police decision to issue a statement along with its contents.
One follower, Iain Paton, wrote of the force: “They leave themselves open to accusations of innuendo and slander and possible litigation if they cannot back up their version of events with evidence, and they have jumped many steps from their normal role to the arbitrary determination of Mr White’s guilt without involving the due process of the fiscal and the courts.”
The furore began during a visit by Mr White with his daughter to Braehead last Friday afternoon, during which he said he took two images of the youngster eating ice-cream at a Joe Delucci outlet. He claims he was then approached by a member of Braehead’s security staff, who told him it was “illegal” to take photographs and asked him to delete the images from his mobile phone.
Mr White replied that his daughter was the only subject of the images, which he had uploaded to Facebook. Two police officers were then called by the guard – one of whom was “intimidating” according to Mr White – and are alleged to have told him they were “quite within their rights” under anti-terrorism legislation to confiscate his phone.
Mr White was allowed to keep his handset, but agreed to volunteer his personal details, after which he was told he would have to leave the centre.
However, Mr Shorthouse emphasised that police had “fully investigated” the incident, interviewing members of the public and examining CCTV, but said “none of the independent and objective evidence … backs up the claims made by Mr White”.
He said the incident had received “global media coverage” which had painted Braehead, Strathclyde Police and “arguably our country in a very negative light,” adding that “it is because Mr White chose to seek publicity for his account of events” that the force made public its findings.
He explained: “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.
“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.
“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.”
Last night, Mr White told The Scotsman that Strathclyde Police had made a number of allegations to him in a letter, and questioned why STV had claimed on its website yesterday that a report was being sent to the procurator fiscal.
“The specific allegations the police have made is that I was under the influence of alcohol, which is completely untrue – the last time I had anything to drink was Burns Night 2000.”
He added: “I’m going to be taking legal advice to pursue this issue against the police and STV. Someone has made specific allegations and information has been released somewhere.”
A spokesman for Braehead said: “We cannot comment on the outcome of the police investigation. However, following our own investigations, Braehead stands by the actions of our member of security staff and by the actions we have subsequently taken.”
No-one from Warwickshire-based Joe Delucci’s was available for comment.
Email to a friend
Print this page- Family mourn death of Glasgow ‘fight’ schoolboy
- Rangers takeover: Duff & Phelps threaten legal action against BBC
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
- Rangers administration: Fans fear Duff & Phelps claims could scare off Green
- Rangers takeover: triple penalty punishment enough, says Johnston
- Alistair Darling leads ‘No to independence’ fight over tea and biscuits
- Scottish independence: SNP flip-flops over Nato
- Scottish Independence: SNP ‘won’t be Yes campaign’s only voice’
- Scottish independence: Alex Salmond’s pledge to sign up 1m voters
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Sunday 27 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 10 C to 22 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 38 comments to this article
Page 1 of 3
I Paton
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 09:13 AMMy comment on the Facebook page was quoted above. As I mentioned, I find this development surprising and disturbing. I can understand if there is a difference between the accounts of Strathclyde Police and Mr White, but this should have been referred to higher authority (the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland) which it now has been. Even if a crime was committed, it would be up to the police to arrest and charge Mr White, but up for the Procurator Fiscal to prosecute him and up to the courts to determine his guilt or innocence. The statement by Strathclyde Police suborns all of these steps above and damages their reputation by creating the appearance of a smear campaign which is very unfortunate, as most police officers are in fact trustworthy, dedicated and decent people. Public bodies do come in for criticism, but this is part of living in a democracy, even when this criticism is unjustified, as the alternative would be an authoritarian regime rather than a free democracy.
jerrygreg
Sunday, October 16, 2011 at 04:49 PMRufus-I-can-guaran-T-Firefly Who are you, the cheif constable?
Argyll George
Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 09:40 PMThe ban on taking pictures has gone way too far in this country. I have been told to stop taking phots video of my son playing football and acting in the local school play at Christmass (and we live in a small village with only 30 kids in the entire school). Where does it end?
Tartancult
Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 09:36 PM#34 The Herald reports that Mr White was drunk & was talking to himself & that his daughter was distressed. The Herald reports that Mr White was distressed & that his daughter was drunk and talking to herself. The Herald reports that the camera in the mobile phone was questioned but was completely pixillated and unable to respond. The police stated that the mobile phone may be charged.
Moniker Lewinsky
Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 08:47 PMThe Herald reports that Mr White was drunk & was talking to himself & that his daughter was distressed. That still begs the question - if Mr White was drunk & talking to himself & his daughter was distressed why did the Police take no action? Either Mr White is innocent & is being smeared OR the Police were negligent in their duty towards the welfare of a child. Which is it?
thereyego
Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 02:21 PMWhat I find interesting about the "security" argument over taking pictures within shopping centres, or perhaps even of taking pictures of your own children, is - why is it that, say, near Christmas, or when politicians come to meet "the common people", there are always photos in our local paper of the interior of the our shopping centre, full of people, often with young children, who have not given their consent for them or their child to be photographed. Why aren't "the rules" the same for everyone, the public and management of the centre, if security and children are allegedly at risk?
soapytitwank
Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 11:45 AMGood grief! Judging by the holier- than-thou comments on here you would think the Police were the criminals. Well listen up! If you feel the Police aren't up to the job then join the special constabulary. It looks like some posters on here have more than enough time to do something about their gripes. Democracy and community works, but only if you're prepared to take part in it, rather than sniping from the sidelines.
Electric Hermit
Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 10:54 AM29 cockneyranger "Could this be the new Scotland under Salmon..." - Yet again I am prompted to ask, where do the British nationalists find these clowns?
Electric Hermit
Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 10:49 AMWhat is this nonsense about "civil liberties"? The shopping centre is private property. There is no more "right" to take photographs there than there is in a private residence. If the owners of the property clearly indicate that photography is prohibited then you don't take photographs. If you were in somebody's house and they asked you not to take pictures you would put the camera away. Or you would be rightly considered a boorish oaf, at best.
cockneyranger
Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 08:35 AMCould this be the new Scotland under Salmon, we all guilty till proven innocent. If this guy has done what the polis have claimed why was he not arrested straight away ? Our civil liberties are under threat by an over zealous state. I don't blame the ordinary copper on the street, its those higher up the food chain with their own personel agendas. With anti-terror laws, data protection act, we're being screwed, one consulation bout the UK elections Labour didnae get back in otherwise we would all be paying for our own I D card.
Drum Major
Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 06:58 AMI can clearly say that he said, that he said, that she said her friend saw him take a picture of a young female staff person while his zip was not 100% done up. Do not ask why she was looking there. Any further questions???
Colin RB
Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 01:07 AM19 -I am the one and same old boy! I was appalled by Nedley and his attempt at stonwealling but Rob Shorthouse's statement offends my sense of fairness THe police are still unable to admit they made a mistake in their handling of this- their bluster and implied threats and leaks of so called evidence makes them look even worse-this is a repeated theme eg they did so over McKie and Asbury-incomplete statements are a disgrace to the force. No wonder Stephen House never got the top job in the Met- he promotes and retains incompetent officers and is clearly a poor judge of character and lacks basic leadership skills
Willie Boy
Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 12:16 AMGood Lord no! The man was told that in taking photographs he was in breach of Anti terrorism Laws. Good on the old Glesga Polis for realizing how effective Anti terrorism Law is. Abuse? Course not!
B K
Friday, October 14, 2011 at 11:03 PMWhat Shorthouse has said is "we have investigated ourselves and found ourselves not guilty." Spin doctors are there to lie, it's their only function.If the police resort to a "director of communications" you can be sure they are lying.
Moniker Lewinsky
Friday, October 14, 2011 at 06:54 PM20 That tin foil hat really suits you.
Page 1 of 3
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.