A Facebook campaign is calling for people to boycott a shopping centre after claims a man was questioned by police for taking photographs of his own four-year-old daughter.
Chris White took a picture of Hazel eating an ice cream in the Braehead shopping centre, near Glasgow.
A security guard told him it was illegal to take pictures in the centre.
A spokesperson for Braehead said it wanted to “maintain a safe and enjoyable environment” for shoppers.
Mr White told BBC Scotland he was approached by a security guard after photographing his daughter “looking cute on the back of a vespa seat at an ice cream bar” at about 16:00 on Friday.
He said the security guard asked him to delete any photos he had taken from his mobile phone.
Mr White explained that he had already posted two photos, in which his daughter was the only person in the shot, to Facebook.
The police were called and Mr White was told there were “clear signs” saying no photographs were allowed.Chris White took this picture of his daughter in Braehead
Mr White said that one officer claimed that under the Prevention of Terrorism Act he was within in his rights to confiscate the mobile phone on which the photos were taken.
He said the police officers took his details and he was eventually allowed to leave.
In this case we have the two twin hysterias of recent times carefully being manipulated by the state to demonise men – paedohysteria AND fear of terrorism.
Whatever people might assume, it is not illegal in the UK to take photos of children in public places, whether they are your own children or not. So what does the feminist state do when it has a clear opportunity to create some paedohysteric havoc but doesn’t have the laws to justify it in this particular case? Well they simply fall back on legislation that they have created through one of their other hysterias – terrorism.
This relationship can work in the other direction too. When several British muslims were arrested on suspicion of plotting terrorism a couple of years ago, the police found that they didn’t have enough evidence to charge them with the offenses. So what they did do? They arrested them on possession of child pornography. We know that muslims are amongst the biggest users of porn, especially muslim radicals, so it was hardly unlikely that the recovered trace of one single picture of a young looking small breasted 21 year old woman wasn’t to be found somewhere on their harddrive. And that’s all that is needed for a charge of possession of child porn.
British men have been criminalised to such an extent over the last couple of decades, that if the police want you, they can get you, even if what they want you for isn’t (yet) illegal.