All Photographers are dangerous!

When I was a child, I had this book, or one very much like it, and that had all I needed to know. Don't recall it mentioning avoiding photographers mind. :lol:

Scan10014-944x1024.jpg
 
bass_junkie83 said:
When I was a child, I had this book, or one very much like it, and that had all I needed to know. Don't recall it mentioning avoiding photographers mind. :lol:

Scan10014-944x1024.jpg
Click to expand...

Avoid left hand drive cars......see we can interpret anything we like....
 
In the subject of lending her lenses/cameras, I'm with everyone else. It has to be a big NO. But I would say that you have to explain to her the reasons why.

Hopefully she will feed this back to those making the decisions and they might have a re-think.
 
I'm sory to buck the trend, but I think you should have helped out.
Firstly, as no one who has posted so far has ever arrested a pediophile, lets get something straight. Yes, they do use big cameras and big lenes. Yes, they do use little cameras and phones too. So do all sorts of criminals, so the idea that everyone with a camera , especially an SLR/DSLR is always innocent is a myth.
That said they are in a minority.
I would have helped if the context was put correctly. It's like saying everyone that's had a drink is a drunk driver. It's not the case, some are, some aren't but if you educate to look for things other than the obvious it pays dividends.
Anyway, it's not for the public to decided definitively that someone's innocent or not. But I think we would all rather they reported somnething they were uncomfortable with, and not ignore it.
If you are hiding in a bush with a bloody great lens on a camera, the chances are you are photographing birds. You might not be, but would you prefer that ignored, or for them to tell the police. Yes, you might get stopped and asked what you're doing. It's hardly a big issue if you are. It's happened to me, and being polite and co operative means it's all over in minutes.
 
Bernie174 said:
I'm sory to buck the trend, but I think you should have helped out.
Firstly, as no one who has posted so far has ever arrested a pediophile, lets get something straight. Yes, they do use big cameras and big lenes. Yes, they do use little cameras and phones too. So do all sorts of criminals, so the idea that everyone with a camera , especially an SLR/DSLR is always innocent is a myth.
That said they are in a minority.
I would have helped if the context was put correctly. It's like saying everyone that's had a drink is a drunk driver. It's not the case, some are, some aren't but if you educate to look for things other than the obvious it pays dividends.
Anyway, it's not for the public to decided definitively that someone's innocent or not. But I think we would all rather they reported somnething they were uncomfortable with, and not ignore it.
If you are hiding in a bush with a bloody great lens on a camera, the chances are you are photographing birds. You might not be, but would you prefer that ignored, or for them to tell the police. Yes, you might get stopped and asked what you're doing. It's hardly a big issue if you are. It's happened to me, and being polite and co operative means it's all over in minutes.
Click to expand...


So, it sounds like you have experience of arresting this 'minority' - do you know the exact figues, as percentages will do, of peadophiles that use a 'big' camera to those that use other types, and more significantly, 'big' camera users that are peadophiles to those that aren't?

You see as I see it, the problem is NOT the police wondering over for a little chat when some paranoid parent has called them because you happen to have a large camera [and they happen to have been to some charity 'awareness' event] but the vigilante parents that decide to take action immediately. There are members of this forum that can tell first hand how frightening that can be. I am sure the photographer has as many rights to call the police and/or sue, etc etc...but isn't that just a bit too late?

Awareness and education ARE needed, but not in spotting strangers with a camera, the press hysteria over several years now has pretty much made the whole world and his dog aware and overly sensitive. What is need is educating people in how to spot the more subtle signs and more importantly, the correct way to act should they have any suspicions.
 
Well done to the OP,for standing your ground.

The whole thing just :( me


I would get in touch with AP on this one.
 
Last edited:
Yv said:
So, it sounds like you have experience of arresting this 'minority' - do you know the exact figues, as percentages will do, of peadophiles that use a 'big' camera to those that use other types, and more significantly, 'big' camera users that are peadophiles to those that aren't?

You see as I see it, the problem is NOT the police wondering over for a little chat when some paranoid parent has called them because you happen to have a large camera [and they happen to have been to some charity 'awareness' event] but the vigilante parents that decide to take action immediately. There are members of this forum that can tell first hand how frightening that can be. I am sure the photographer has as many rights to call the police and/or sue, etc etc...but isn't that just a bit too late?

Awareness and education ARE needed, but not in spotting strangers with a camera, the press hysteria over several years now has pretty much made the whole world and his dog aware and overly sensitive. What is need is educating people in how to spot the more subtle signs and more importantly, the correct way to act should they have any suspicions.
Click to expand...

100% SPOT ON!
 
Yv said:
So, it sounds like you have experience of arresting this 'minority' - do you know the exact figues, as percentages will do, of peadophiles that use a 'big' camera to those that use other types, and more significantly, 'big' camera users that are peadophiles to those that aren't?

You see as I see it, the problem is NOT the police wondering over for a little chat when some paranoid parent has called them because you happen to have a large camera [and they happen to have been to some charity 'awareness' event] but the vigilante parents that decide to take action immediately. There are members of this forum that can tell first hand how frightening that can be. I am sure the photographer has as many rights to call the police and/or sue, etc etc...but isn't that just a bit too late?

Awareness and education ARE needed, but not in spotting strangers with a camera, the press hysteria over several years now has pretty much made the whole world and his dog aware and overly sensitive. What is need is educating people in how to spot the more subtle signs and more importantly, the correct way to act should they have any suspicions.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have put it better, this quote should be what the OP prints out and gives to his ignorant workmate to explain how idiotic their suggestion was.
 
How about offering to present it with her, and bring as many different sized and shaped cameras as you can get your hands on, to show that judging someone by the type of camera alone is pointless, and they need to be aware of the behaviour of the person behind it?

To judge by type and size of camera is as daft as judging by hair colour or preferred type of shoes.
Not every pervert can afford an SLR and has to settle for a Vivitar branded supermarket special.
 
tiler65 said:
So my point is ....if you were convicted of a said child sex offence and you receive a CRB certificate then that is only down to the 'employer' allowing you to have one?

Slightly off topic but are the new regs regarding convictions with kids, something along the lines they are forbidden to work with kids (maybe for a set period of time) and in most cases put on the sex offenders register?
Click to expand...

The missus works for an NHS trust and part of her job is to process CRB requests for Doctors.

Anyone can apply for a check, and the check will include all relevant convictions on it. Which means that the person requesting the CRB can see which convictions you have, and whether they want to employ you/supervise you etc.

The idea of getting a CRB for yourself is where the system falls down. If someone wants you to do a job that requires a CRB check, then they should be requesting it (they can ask you to cover the cost) but they need to see it as well, that way they can decide the best course of action and are fully informed. That's what's been done for me in the past, by employers AND clients.

NB. For clients, they always ask you to cover the cost, but you can usually sneak the fee back into your invoice somewhere anyway! :D
 
tiler65 said:
Avoid left hand drive cars......see we can interpret anything we like....
Click to expand...

Yeah, bloody foreigners.











Oops, sorry...this isn't the Daily Mail comments section is it?!
 
Yv
No, I can't give you percentages, simply because I've not arrested every pedophile with a camera. All I can tell you is the one I arrested and others I know about were all using SLR/DSLR's. So you could say thats 100%, but we all know thats not going to be accurate.

But whatever the percentages it's completly misleading to assume that all that is used are camera phones and little cameras. Just as it's wrong to assume that pete the p*** only gets his (or her) rocks off on naked photos, they don't.

You're absolutely right, photographers have every right to call police, and they do. But as I and a few others keep trying to point out to some there are rights on both sides of the argument. No matter how innocently you think or I think taking a photo is, someone else may not see it that way. A normal member of the public might not want his photo taken, OK, he doesn't own copyright on his own image, but taking photos of someone who objects is morally wrong. They certainly have as much right to make you aware they don't like it as you do taking the photo.

There's an absolute preoccupation on here about photographers rights, but what about the other side, that is equally important. The attitude portrayed here sometimes is what is going to get photography restricted in public, so why play into the advocates of that's hands?

Yes, education is needed, but it's needed on both sides.

There's good and bad on both sides and yes, I've had it from both sides photographers who've leap off the deep end as soon as I turned up, or thrown a hissy fit when asked not to take someones photo instead of being reasonable and calm and perhaps shock horror actually respecting thier wishes! Then there's public who've been too quick to ring the old bill over dross (And trust me thats not confined to photography).

Yes, the miss trust of photographers needs to be toned down, but most of that is due to those photogs who have misbehaved and the press, and there also needs to be a toning down of the attitude of some on here, the 'Tell them to get knotted' type replies on here being prime examples.

Again, I think turning that request down is missing an opportunity to get a different point over.
 
tiler65 said:
Yet on this Gov page it mentions a certificate more than once...maybe I need spectacles.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/agencies-public-bodies/crb/crb-guidance/index.html

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Startinganewjob/DG_195821
Click to expand...

I don't know if you genuinely don't understand or are just trolling here?

But once again for clarity, you can't 'fail' to get a CRB certificate, but it would hold information that might mean people shouldn't trust you. So if I was an ex offender, I could legitimately hold an enhanced CRB certificate - but it would say I have a criminal record - with details of that record.:bang: So the information on the certificate would mean that some people would 'fail' to be offered certain jobs, or even voluntary positions.

People offering that they'e 'CRB checked' may give others some peace of mind, but it could be dangerous to make an assumption that it's clear without inspecting it:rules:.

I suppose the nearest thing is a credit check report - saying you have one doesn't mean that you're credit worthy. It may mean the opposite:thumbsdown:.

Does that clear it up?;)
 
Bernie174 said:
...A normal member of the public might not want his photo taken, OK, he doesn't own copyright on his own image, but taking photos of someone who objects is morally wrong. They certainly have as much right to make you aware they don't like it as you do taking the photo...
Click to expand...

Define normal? By your own very argument, you can't.

A large proportion of my job is taking photographs of people who would rather I didn't. Tough as far as I'm concerned. As long as it passes the privacy and intrusion sections of both the IPCC, and legal requirements, then my conscience is clear.
 
Phil V said:
I don't know if you genuinely don't understand or are just trolling here?

But once again for clarity, you can't 'fail' to get a CRB certificate, but it would hold information that might mean people shouldn't trust you. So if I was an ex offender, I could legitimately hold an enhanced CRB certificate - but it would say I have a criminal record - with details of that record.:bang: So the information on the certificate would mean that some people would 'fail' to be offered certain jobs, or even voluntary positions.
Click to expand...

which is what people mean when they say fail a CRB check

I think you are possibly being a little over pedantic - yes anyone can get a CRB certificate , but only someone with no relevant criminal record can get one which shows they have no relevant criminal record which is the important bit.

(excepting of course the possiblity of forgeries, identity theft etc)

IMO the really dangerous thing is the assumption that someone with a clean CRB check must automatically be okay to work with kids - in some cases the worst offenders have the cleanest record because they are very good at covering their tracks, and in their case all a clean CRB means is 'hasn't been caught yet'
 
Last edited:
No Demi, you can't define normal, but thats not my point. The point is simply this, that they have as much right to object as you have to take their photo.

I did surveillance photography when I was in old bill, and I obviously understand that it can be someones job, but in the main that's not what we are talking about, so conscience doesn't come into it for most people, it's the amateur snapping away with no interest in the effect it can have on others, when they actually have no real need to take their photo, they just want too.

But your trying to guide away from the main point here on this topic which is rather than blank something which could have been an opportunity to educate, the usual round of all aboard the outrage bus comes to the fore.

Try reading the comments on here with an independent point of view, the impression given of photographers ain't good.
 
Ask her if she wants to borrow a fake beard and a teatowel - then she can cover 'How to spot a terrorist' at the same time.
 
Looks like my CRB certificate would be pretty empty then. The only offence I've ever committed was speeding about 23 years ago and I'm pretty sure that wouldn't go against me now.

Bernie, I was once involved in the capture of a paedophile after I was asked to sort out his computer problems and finding some stuff on a 'supposed' formatted hard drive. Very sickening and I reported him as soon as I realised what was on the drive, I removed it from the computer and refused to return it to him. He had a small compact camera but I'm not certain if it was ever used to take any of the photos, but at least that's not 100% using d/slr's.
 
Bernie174 said:
But your trying to guide away from the main point here on this topic which is rather than blank something which could have been an opportunity to educate, the usual round of all aboard the outrage bus comes to the fore.

Try reading the comments on here with an independent point of view, the impression given of photographers ain't good.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to divert the subject at all and I have absolutely no interest in outrage- only cold hard facts. It's for that reason that I left Simon a voice message (although he's yet to return it), because if this is a Herts Pol initiative it needs nipping in the bud immediately.
As outlined, the instruction proposed would fly in the face of ACPO guidelines and be in direct contravention to everything that the NUJ, PHNAT, AP and a raft of other organisations have collectively negotiated with the police.
Theres a principal at stake here and if you can't grasp that then you are being rather short sighted. Yv hit the nail on the head. It's not about the authorities' reaction to photographers, but the public conception as a whole.
 
Bernie174 said:
Yv
No, I can't give you percentages, simply because I've not arrested every pedophile with a camera. All I can tell you is the one I arrested and others I know about were all using SLR/DSLR's. So you could say thats 100%, but we all know thats not going to be accurate.

But whatever the percentages it's completly misleading to assume that all that is used are camera phones and little cameras. Just as it's wrong to assume that pete the p*** only gets his (or her) rocks off on naked photos, they don't.

You're absolutely right, photographers have every right to call police, and they do. But as I and a few others keep trying to point out to some there are rights on both sides of the argument. No matter how innocently you think or I think taking a photo is, someone else may not see it that way. A normal member of the public might not want his photo taken, OK, he doesn't own copyright on his own image, but taking photos of someone who objects is morally wrong. They certainly have as much right to make you aware they don't like it as you do taking the photo.

There's an absolute preoccupation on here about photographers rights, but what about the other side, that is equally important. The attitude portrayed here sometimes is what is going to get photography restricted in public, so why play into the advocates of that's hands?

Yes, education is needed, but it's needed on both sides.

There's good and bad on both sides and yes, I've had it from both sides photographers who've leap off the deep end as soon as I turned up, or thrown a hissy fit when asked not to take someones photo instead of being reasonable and calm and perhaps shock horror actually respecting thier wishes! Then there's public who've been too quick to ring the old bill over dross (And trust me thats not confined to photography).

Yes, the miss trust of photographers needs to be toned down, but most of that is due to those photogs who have misbehaved and the press, and there also needs to be a toning down of the attitude of some on here, the 'Tell them to get knotted' type replies on here being prime examples.

Again, I think turning that request down is missing an opportunity to get a different point over.
Click to expand...

Dont the police take photos of people at demo,even when theses people are at a demo and acting peacefully,does not the state watch us on cctv 24hurs a day ?

You say the miss trust of photographers needs to be toned down,but i think in this case,its going to make the problem worse :(
 
The idea of an initiative aimed soley at stranger danger is a bit daft anyway, because although it does exist its not the predominant route of child molestation

hopefully they'll also be covering the idea that its okay to tell someone when strange uncle charlie, mothers boy freind, freinds dad, scout master etc touches them in a way they don't like.
 
Not forgetting the friendly local clergy playing 'hide and seek under the cassock' !

Edit:

Or, come to mention it, your friendly local bobby. There have been ample cases of fake uniforms being used for various reasons!

/snigger
 
Last edited:
Phil V do not call me a troll, that is a cop out of the lowest order. Just because someone dares to question a point you accuse them of being a troll.

The reason why I asked the point about certificates is because in one post you wrote that there was no such thing as a CRB certificate so all I did was correct you.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=4730980&postcount=34

And then later on you start using the term yourself....double standards is all this forum needs.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=4731718&postcount=53

Pah!!!
 
tiler65 said:
Just lend her you iPhone/smartphone and show her that those are capable of superb images and video.
.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more, I think if it were me I would refuse and state why the branding of all photographers with descent kit / lenses as perverts etc is bang out of order.

.DAVID.
 
i wouldnt do it for the reasons described above but what about the insurance aspect if your equipment got dropped or damaged.
 
tiler65 said:
Phil V do not call me a troll, that is a cop out of the lowest order. Just because someone dares to question a point you accuse them of being a troll.

The reason why I asked the point about certificates is because in one post you wrote that there was no such thing as a CRB certificate so all I did was correct you.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=4730980&postcount=34

And then later on you start using the term yourself....double standards is all this forum needs.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=4731718&postcount=53

Pah!!!
Click to expand...
I never called you a troll.
I questioned whether you genuinely didn't understand what the process was about as in these two posts you seem to intimate that if an offender could hold a certificate there was no point in the system.

tiler65 said:
So my point is ....if you were convicted of a said child sex offence and you receive a CRB certificate then that is only down to the 'employer' allowing you to have one?

Slightly off topic but are the new regs regarding convictions with kids, something along the lines they are forbidden to work with kids (maybe for a set period of time) and in most cases put on the sex offenders register?
Click to expand...

tiler65 said:
So what is the point in having an enhanced CRB Authority (?) then if it allows crinimals to get through, this system is a total cock up. I presumed the idea was to stop folk with convictions of crimes to hold a CRB certificate?
Click to expand...

Now it might be that you didn't understand the point - but you soon became an expert after 5 minutes with Google:lol:

Or it could be that you'd rather just do the kneejerk reaction - for effect?

I have no way of knowing, nor does anyone except your good self.

And rather than accepting that your original responses were wildly misguided, you chose to feign shock at being called a Troll (I never said it or you'd have directly quoted me) and then argue the semantics of the certificate / report convention.

It might work in a pub full of your mates - but written in B&W it looks a bit odd really:nuts:
 
Demi
No, I'm not missing any point. This could be used as an opportunity to put the photographers side of things, all it takes is the right approach.
You can bury your head in the sand and hope that the rest of the world will see you as above reproach, but thats not going to happen, or you can encourage this sort of thing, with some input from our side. In other words, do or encourage something that may help the cause you and others are in danger of damaging.
You can wax on about guidelines, which in the words of a learned judge are not tram lines all you like, the damage has already been done, how much of it do you want to assist in undoing?
 
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!
 
DizMatt said:
lol...good guy??

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j145/Yos***sumi/Dexter/Dexter-Iamaveryneatmonster-wallpape.jpg
Click to expand...

Did you notice the shape of the blood splatter before posting that? ;)
 
Phil V said:
I never called you a troll.
I questioned whether you genuinely didn't understand what the process was about as in these two posts you seem to intimate that if an offender could hold a certificate there was no point in the system.





Now it might be that you didn't understand the point - but you soon became an expert after 5 minutes with Google:lol:

Or it could be that you'd rather just do the kneejerk reaction - for effect?

I have no way of knowing, nor does anyone except your good self.

And rather than accepting that your original responses were wildly misguided, you chose to feign shock at being called a Troll (I never said it or you'd have directly quoted me) and then argue the semantics of the certificate / report convention.

It might work in a pub full of your mates - but written in B&W it looks a bit odd really:nuts:
Click to expand...
You said that you thought I might be trolling which must mean I am a troll because non trolls cannot troll.

You wrote that there was no such thing as a CRB certificate, you were wrong again.

I never claimed to be an expert, I asked questions.

As for believing that a convicted crinimal can hold a CRB certificate I was duly misinformed about such matters. That doesn't stop me thinking that the system is flawed because of that.

You should try the pub yourself, you may learn something.
 
tiler65 said:
You said that you thought I might be trolling which must mean I am a troll because non trolls cannot troll.

You wrote that there was no such thing as a CRB certificate, you were wrong again.

I never claimed to be an expert, I asked questions.

As for believing that a convicted crinimal can hold a CRB certificate I was duly misinformed about such matters. That doesn't stop me thinking that the system is flawed because of that.

You should try the pub yourself, you may learn something.
Click to expand...

You're funny and you've clearly never been to a pub in Donny.:lol:
 
Bernie - to quote you "Again, I think turning that request down is missing an opportunity to get a different point over"


I am not going to entirely disagree on that and I DO agree that some [and again we are talking a minority here] of photographers do not help themselves that when they are approached politely, they do react badly.

However, we are talking about blown up stereotypes here, from both sides of the argument, stereotypes that are, we can both intelligently work out are in a tiny, tiny minority of the overall picture.

Of course the balance here will lean towards the photographer, its a photography forum, but the problem is that the publics perception as a whole has already been heavily leant against us [lets put this same thread on mumsnet or similar and watch every last one of us be called perverts]


Yes, I agree, the opportunity could be used to educate on BOTH sides, my point is that on the face of it, it sounds like it is only going to reinforce the impression that anyone with a camera & in particular a bigger one, is a pervert and that is simply so far from the truth as to be painful. I say that as someone that has been lucky enough in all my years with a camera to have never been asked or approached for taking pictures in public [member of the public that is, yes had the odd policeman or security guard and always been polite, no problem]....again, maybe thats a stereotype too, maybe it's being female, I don't know.
 
I've encountered this thinking myself whilst out one day over a decade ago with my niece.
We where in a local park, she asked me to bring my camera to take some shots for her, for her social network profile.

It wasn't long before an off duty copper came steaming over and damn near tried to yank the camera out of my hands, when I stood my ground and told him what I was doing he demanded I hand over my camera, I refused, he then demanded the memory card, I refused, he demanded I delete all my images and again I refused.
He threatened me with arrest and I told him to go ahead as the law suit for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment would net me a tidy sum, in the end he stormed off whilst shouting that he knew where I lived and I should expect to be raided in the next few days.
You would think it was all over and no damage done to me, but the cluck of women at the park with their kids started gossiping and before you know it people are whispering to each other as you walk by.. and you have done nothing wrong at all!

I am 100% behind all those that say this kind of "education" does nothing to help the child deal with real stranger danger, which incidentally is pretty rare, most abuse cases involve someone close to the child either family or a family friend, and do a lot to scare children and re enforce negative stereo types whilst ignoring the REAL threats.. such as family & close friends of the family.
The other aspect to this is that the very same parents who will be saying how good it is for their child to attend such an event will be allowing them to have a facebook or other social networking profile even though they are underage to have one, allowing them unsupervised net access, messenger accounts, mobiles with chat, photo and video capability.
Yet these are the very things that pose the most threat to the child!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top