All Photographers are dangerous!

well the CRB think was a comment upon people's assumptions.
any system has its flaws.

Nikon, throwaway comment? I don't know what you mean :)

personally the camera thing is misnomer, the danger is stranger danger is about go ing away with strangers, getting in cars, etc
you might as well say that every person a walking a dog in the park is potentially doing it to attract young children to come and pet it and then steal them away...
horrendous I think.

oh my god i take my dog and camera to the park :suspect: :lol:
 
AS I mentioned on the last thread of this sort I spent much of other weekend taking pictures of young kids - totally unrelated to me - playing football in the local park

and our local cop ran over and spoke to me about it

He said " I hope you are getting some good shots, the kids and parents are really excited about getting the prints done"

(the context being that this is our local little uns 5 aside competition which said cop organises in his time off , and which he'd asked me to cover so that all the kids could have a memento print for the season)
 
Last edited:
It is very worrying to me, that this person the OP talks about, is organising an event which involves children, as they have not exhibited the good common sense which one would expect, and would therefore be in danger of influencing the children in a very dangerous way.
If I was the OP, then I would be tempted to ask if I could help out, and then go "off message" slightly and exhibit mobile phone cameras and compacts, and warn of the dangers of being alone with other adults (maybe family members) and then being coerced into doing things which you are unsure or frightened of.

On the other hand, the OP could ask her, what her thoughts are on keen photographers, and does she seriously think that they are potential perverts?
At times you just have to embarrass people.
 
OMG! This has stirred up a hornet's nest - not quite the intention but a lovely and insightful debate none-the-less.

Anyhow, I have had a conversation with the organisers who have clarified the exact context of the scenario. Although I am still not happy with the representation of a photographer being offered it does seem that the focus is, as Yv has suggested, "educating people in how to spot the more subtle signs and more importantly, the correct way to act". I have been assured that they are not presenting photographers in a negative light but I am not sure that 10 year olds will get the subtleties.

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread; I never thought it would generate such a response.

Cheers

Simon

PS - still not lending them my gear though!

Good on you ,what ever way they try to sugar coat it,it is still wrong :)
 
of course. don't forget that 'Lucifer' is an 'angel'
all depends upon what the wings are made of :P

Lucifer? ..... It's just two dogs :|
 
I'm balancing between being quite unsurprised and yet mildly annoyed about the concept that this session is looking to portray to a group of youngsters.

The bit that I'm really struggling with is the message behind 'someone with a big camera'. I'm sorry, but I don't get what that's trying to show, however it's delivered.. :thinking:

Surely the message should be a blanket 'Anyone that's doing anything that seems in any way suspicious, out of place or makes you feel uncomfortable - Get the hell out!'

I've worked with youngsters of varying ages and backgrounds for over ten years and their instincts, by and large, are fairly good. More often than not, it's that they don't know what to do about things when they feel uncomfortable. They also sometimes don't understand how to avoid putting themselves in isolated situations that leave them at risk (which is often a factor when you're reading about abductions in the paper). They still generally know that something's not right though, before it gets to that point.

In any case, some recent training that received from CEOP not too long ago suggested that there is now more risk from online predators 'grooming' etc than those that you're likely to see on the street

Especially those driving a left hand drive car with their knees because they're holding a DSLR in one hand, a bag of sweets in the other and happen to have a puppy on their head..

Thinking about it.. You'd imagine that these b******s would be quite easy to spot, huh? :p
 
YV

I think the point is that it could be turned into an opportunity to help our side, and thats why I think the howls of protest are the wrong way of going at the issue.

You say that the perception is that Person + Camera = Pervert, and yet, in your own experience thats never been the case. Nor has it in mine either. Yes, I've beens stopped and asked what I am doing, why etc, and the reasons have always been good, they have been polite and its all been fine (I would have stopped me in the same circumstances).

From the other side of the fence, putting my old big hat on, the thinking from the Police side is not the Person + Camera = Pervert either, in reality a lot of Police are also into photography, and even if they aren't they'll know someone on their shift/team who is. On the other side of the coin, there's photographers who go off their trolly as soon as Police hove into view. And yes, while I fully accept your point this is a photographers forum, so the majority view will always support photography, there level of venom shown by some on here actually reinforces any thoughts others may have that the issue lays on this side.

It's a shame that some can't, or wont see and understand that the right they have to photography is matched by other peoples rights. Just as you have a right to photograph what you like, everyone has the right to question what you are doing. We have no option but to accept that if we want the rest of the world to accept our right to take photos. We also need to get our own house in order in terms of attitude and response to being questioned, as well as getting the message over to others.

Yes, there are poor approaches to photographers, just as there are poor responses by photographers. In reality both of those are very much in the minority, although obviously there are some who like to blow it up out of proportion. Hence why these threads always end the same way, with the Photography rights side refusing to see anything from anyone else's point of view. Then again, if those who never have problems with Police/Public started a thread every time we were stopped and it was all fine, good and dandy, life would be duller.
 
Last edited:
I am with you Bernie most of the time but I do feel that maybe the way the OP was worded (maybe not Spooky's fault) that the awareness talk could be harmful to an already paranoid society.

If you read through most of my replies about so called photographer's rights, you will notice I try and explain that there is no such thing.
 
I wondered what that guy with a 100-400mm poking it over the top of my changing room cubicle was doing!! :)

The fact of the matter is anyone walking about could be dangerous not just thos with a camera, some people really dont think.

Did he need a 100-400mm from only 6ft away.....!!!

;)
 
Bernie, why do you think that "everyone has the right to question what I am doing"
 
Last edited:
To reply way back to the original first post.....print this thread out and show it to the person who asked you.

When they can reliably answer all of the perfectly valid points made by the togs on here then think about helping...which will be about the 12th of never.

Either that or I have a spare 400mm lens you could ram up their fundament?
 
It is a horrible state of play we have now.

I was at an outdoor music event in a town centre recently and completely impromptu a young girl about 4 or 5 took the mike and did a little turn, it was a lovely moment and I snapped it but for the rest of the day I felt uneasy and I kept telling myself I'd done nothing wrong but there was still a niggling feeling it was going to back fire on me.

Later the same day I'd been asked to photograph a Jubilee street party for a lady organising the event and when I got there, the place was swarming with kids of all ages and I almost pulled out of the job because the permission of parents hadnt been sought and I just felt a stranger walking amongst people snapping away was likely to cause problems.


As it happened no one batted an eyelid and the whole thing passed of well, I managed to contact the little girls parents and fired them off a couple of images and they were chuffed to bits.


BUT...... I still felt uneasy and uncomfortable about taking the pictures and thats just wrong.
 
Bernie, why do you think that "everyone has the right to question what I am doing"

Good point, but having said that, if anyone does stop me while I'm out shooting I just have a friendly chat and put them at ease. I would certainly get fed up if I had to explain to everyone I passed what I was up to though. Most of the times I've been stopped and asked it's been by other togs, both with or without a camera.

I quite often take my camera with me when I pick my daughter up from school, but make a point of not using it while I'm in the school grounds, and there's often a PC and PCSO nearby who I stop and say hello to. Never once has anyone concerned with the school (teachers, parents etc.) ever asked any questions about what I'm doing, but I'd be happy to tell them and show them if they were that interested. I wouldn't dream of 'giving them the mouth' to anyone who stopped me, whether I was in the right or not, as I think more can be acheived with a pleasant word than a confrontation.

Phew : end of rant.
 
That looks like Romy's kid in the Philippines. Did you take that?
 
BUT...... I still felt uneasy and uncomfortable about taking the pictures and thats just wrong.


Thats how I have been feeling lately when out and about with my camera, and I shouldn't!! I am taking my wife out more and more just so people dont see me as a perv on Bournemouth beach.

I know that one day it will all end in tears, as I am a little hot headed and the first person to accuse me of any nonsense will wish they hadn't. Saying that, I have never had any problems in the past, maybe its just paranoia thanks to threads like this :lol:
 
I have heard a rumour,that they are going to have a big round up of all theses photographer,with their pro cameras and long lens.
They have been spotted,in europe at football matches,and on the isle of man at the TT.
They are expected to be here in London,durning the summer time,then they will get them all :D
 
Interesting thread, but perhaps unfair to promote an idea that every fellow with a DSLR pointed at a child is a dangerous character. In answer to the original post, it depends on how the idea is promoted, propaganda & all that.
 
Last edited:
excuse me , sir / madame , can i ask what you're doing with those cameras ?? i only stopped you because you look , a bit , eerr a lot,, well ,dodgy

img208_.jpg



so if anyone can identify these two :D
 
donutagain said:
excuse me , sir / madame , can i ask what you're doing with those cameras ?? i only stopped you because you look , a bit , eerr a lot,, well ,dodgy

so if anyone can identify these two :D

It's the short one you've got to watch out for, she's trouble if ever I saw it!
 
ernesto

Bernie, why do you think that "everyone has the right to question what I am doing"

Quite simple really, it's a common law obligation on everyone in the UK to prevent crime. In fact the Police only came into being because in the main then, as now, the great British public abdicated the responsibility.

If you're asking where it written into legislation, it's not, it's common law. But if you're asking that question, you should also ask what right do you have to take photos? In legislation, none at all. However, like the right to question what you're doing there's nothing stopping you.

As I've said before there is no such 'right', it's the exact opposite ie there's no law stopping you... yet.

Do I think one will come? yes, I think there will be at some point stopping you photographing a person without their consent. That's an unfortunate by product of the internet, where you can publish what you want. Will I agree with that? In some circumstances yes, in others no. But either way, the attitude of some on here, as always isn't going to help. However, there's no point in trying to shoot me because you, and some others don't like the message, you'd be better off trying to get a code of conduct for photographers put together and forestall legislation.
 
ernesto



Quite simple really, it's a common law obligation on everyone in the UK to prevent crime. In fact the Police only came into being because in the main then, as now, the great British public abdicated the responsibility.

If you're asking where it written into legislation, it's not, it's common law. But if you're asking that question, you should also ask what right do you have to take photos? In legislation, none at all. However, like the right to question what you're doing there's nothing stopping you.

As I've said before there is no such 'right', it's the exact opposite ie there's no law stopping you... yet.

Do I think one will come? yes, I think there will be at some point stopping you photographing a person without their consent. That's an unfortunate by product of the internet, where you can publish what you want. Will I agree with that? In some circumstances yes, in others no. But either way, the attitude of some on here, as always isn't going to help. However, there's no point in trying to shoot me because you, and some others don't like the message, you'd be better off trying to get a code of conduct for photographers put together and forestall legislation.

The right to stop photographing pepople without their consent,how it going to work.

No more photos of people anywhere,is it just one person,or more than one.

You blame some photographer and their conduct and sometimes you might be right,but the problem for me is when a say a policeman,crosses a line and make a moral decsition in stopping somebody doing something because they dont like it,rather than any law being broken.

In a way its a world we have made for ourselves,we have cameras in are phones i-pads etc,and we love it,we cant just switch it all off,its just the world we live in :)
 
Its already like that in some countries - indeed some have laws about including identifiable property as well
 
There are very few countries where you can't photograph someone. There are an increasing number where you can't publish that photo.

Big difference.
 
Simon

That depends on how it's worded, obviously. Not a been a Bill Drafter, I don't know. Unfortunately, that changes nothing, it's a very likely possibility. As I said, in some cases I can see the point. Is it enforceable? Possibly not, nor is speeding though, but doesn't mean no one should try.

Why is it likely, well, look at the comments on here,. it's all about "I've got a right", and to hell with anyone else.

As for Police, I bet I can match you case for case (although mine are ones where I know all the facts having been there, not read one side of it on here), and then some where Photographers have been in the wrong. Besides, as I've tried to explain to you before, the amount of knowledge whizzing about under that big silly hat would surprise you. So, sometimes Police get it wrong, so what. Does anyone die as a result? No. Oh and photographers get the legislation wrong where it applies a lot more often

There are a lot more important things in the world than photographers, given how much other things they have to remember, and how insignificant photography is (trust me, is 0.0000000000000000000001% of what they should know) then I am surprised how few mistakes there are.
 
Bernie

I still think it would be unenforceable,just look how many toursit a place like London gets.
I just think at the moment photography just come in for a bit of a bashing,and a lot of the cases you read about,are going back a few years.

Maybe commonsence will work out on both sides,and from what i am reading in the news lately its becoming the internet turn again for a bashing,and again it so hard to police 24/7.
 
Question for Bernie do HM citizens still have the common law right to go about their lawful business if so I have the legal Right! to Photograph anything that is not specifically unlawful

Also at one time it was a police offices duty to uphold that right , things may have changed
 
paulminus273 said:
Question for Bernie do HM citizens still have the common law right to go about their lawful business if so I have the legal Right! to Photograph anything that is not specifically unlawful

Also at one time it was a police offices duty to uphold that right , things may have changed

Do you agree that should the lawfulness of your acts be in question, the people responsible for upholding the law should in turn be able to establish that fact, to indeed execute said duties that Her Majesty demands?
 
Do you agree that should the lawfulness of your acts be in question, the people responsible for upholding the law should in turn be able to establish that fact, to indeed execute said duties that Her Majesty demands?


Do you agree that answering a question with a question would be seen as evasive, for instance when an officer is carrying out said duty
 
Back
Top