Another Photographer accused of being a paedophile.

[JackBarley]

Photographer in Worcester accused of filming children whilst videoing fairground.
http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news...lsely_accused_of_filming_children_at_funfair/

 

[viv1969]

Misleading thread title.
There's nothing in that article to indicate that he was accused of much at all, let alone being a paedophile.

 

[hypnotic]

Agreed

At no point in the article was the word paedophile mentioned.

This is a perfect example of how false rumours get started

 

[Tringa]

The man in question has made the point that filming in public is not an offence but I do wish when these stories happen and the police or other authorities get involved those authorities sould also issue a similar statement. The police did say no offence had been committed but I think clearer wording could be used. It doesn't happen very often but I do occasionally hear people saying that taking photos of people in publc places, especially if children are involved, is illegal.

Dave

 

[big soft moose]

Misleading thread title.
There's nothing in that article to indicate that he was accused of much at all, let alone being a paedophile.

apart from

"an elderly man fears that he will be subject to vigilante attacks after being falsely accused of filiming children at a funfair" and "he says that false accusations to police that he had been "illegally filming children" have left his life shattered and fearful of repurcissions"

It's pretty clear that the implication is that he fears vigilantes will think that hes a paedophile and thats why they might attack him - and that the accusation of "illegally filiming children" springs from parental paranoia

 

[Dinsdale]

apart from

"an elderly man fears that he will be subject to vigilante attacks after being falsely accused of filiming children at a funfair" and "he says that false accusations to police that he had been "illegally filming children" have left his life shattered and fearful of repurcissions"

It's pretty clear that the implication is that he fears vigilantes will think that hes a paedophile and thats why they might attack him - and that the accusation of "illegally filiming children" springs from parental paranoia

Sadly this is the world we now live in. It's not right, not at all, but...

 

[viv1969]

apart from

"an elderly man fears that he will be subject to vigilante attacks after being falsely accused of filiming children at a funfair" and "he says that false accusations to police that he had been "illegally filming children" have left his life shattered and fearful of repurcissions"

It's pretty clear that the implication is that he fears vigilantes will think that hes a paedophile and thats why they might attack him - and that the accusation of "illegally filiming children" springs from parental paranoia

Apparently the (pleasant) fairground worker approached him and said there had be a (singular) complaint.

Then a police officer approached him as he was leaving (which he did immediately).

Questions were asked, no accusations were made by the police as far as I can see…certainly no charges laid.

If he feared any repercussions after that, he must be s***ting himself now that he’s gone to the media (with the obligatory “sad face” image to accompany the article).

I have been approached by the police twice whilst taking night shots from bridges spanning the motorway. They asked what I was doing and I told them…and showed them. Didn’t make me a terrorist, nor did they suggest it might. But someone had been driving under the bridge and felt that someone with a camera up there after dark constituted suspicious behaviour, and called the police. When the call is made, they are duty bound to investigate.

My sincere apologies if my opinion wounds your sensitivities, but to me, this one is a lot of fuss over very little.

 

[big soft moose]

He doesnt say the police accused him of anything - he says that false accusations were made to the police - I'd tend to agree with you that he is both overacting and making things worse for himself by going to the press , but the basic fact still remains that some numpty made a complaint about him in the first place, which stems from "dodgy old bloke with camera , won't somone think of the children" paranoia which is far to common in society these days

 

[hypnotic]

but to me, this one is a lot of fuss over very little.

Until a vigilante decides to dish out their local spirited justice!
It's only a matter of when not if

 

[big soft moose]

Until a vigilante decides to dish out their local spirited justice!
It's only a matter of when not if

quite , and they arent often the brightest (vis those numpties who put a paeditricians windows in a while back "cos like well the sign said P**** innit " ) ... mind you hes only drawing a target on his own back by going to the press

one of the comments on the article nailed the core issue though ... why is it when you can easily take video and stills with a mobile without anyone noticing, that these paranoid f***wits always think the people with the dedicated cameras are the paedos rather than all the people with phones (not that i'm saying they are doing anything wrong either - but it doesnt take a rocket scientist to release that a sex offender doesnt want to draw attention to themseves)

 

[viv1969]

Until a vigilante decides to dish out their local spirited justice!
It's only a matter of when not if

Less chance of that happening without the article though wasn't there?

 

[JackBarley]

Misleading thread title.
There's nothing in that article to indicate that he was accused of much at all, let alone being a paedophile.

But he says false accusations to police that he had been "illegally filming children" have left his life shattered and fearful of repercussions, if that isn't much to be worried about what is?

 

[Blank_Canvas]

Reality check !

Fairground worker makes allegation. Police respond no offences disclosed. End of matter, nobody any the wiser.

Except - the aggrieved made a story out of it which is a bit of an own goal really.

 

[jakeblu]

Have to say I agree with Nick and Ruth, why call in the press, if he really is that concerned for his safety why publicise it further.

 

[viv1969]

But he says false accusations to police that he had been "illegally filming children" have left his life shattered and fearful of repercussions, if that isn't much to be worried about what is?

And how will his life be improved now that the incident has come to the attention of thousands through the article, rather than the tiny number (potentially only the carnie, the police officer(s) and the complainant) of people initially involved?
Also I doubt the news outlet would have ever been aware of the incident unless approached by Mr Beard himself.

 

[big soft moose]

I presume that either

a) theres been a lot of talk locally and he wants to clear his name, or
b) hes not quite right

or a combination of the two , or of course its possible that the journalist approached him not the other way round

Its not how i'd have played it, but without full info we don't really know

 

[JackBarley]

And how will his life be improved now that the incident has come to the attention of thousands through the article, rather than the tiny number (potentially only the carnie, the police officer(s) and the complainant) of people initially involved?
Also I doubt the news outlet would have ever been aware of the incident unless approached by Mr Beard himself.

Worcester, although it calls itself a city, is like a small village when incidents like this occur, gossip travels quickly and stories get embellished to make them sound more outrageous. If anyone had seen this happen , and obviously whoever reported the incident to the fairground worker was just one, they only have to repeat it, then it is on facebook and so on and on.

 

[viv1969]

Worcester, although it calls itself a city, is like a small village when incidents like this occur, gossip travels quickly and stories get embellished to make them sound more outrageous. If anyone had seen this happen , and obviously whoever reported the incident to the fairground worker was just one, they only have to repeat it, then it is on facebook and so on and on.

But how does the article improve on that?

 

[bass_junkie83]

But how does the article improve on that?

It's a local rag. Most people who go to the papers have a good idea of what point they are trying to get across, but by the time it goes to print it's been twisted and misreported and they don't get the result they wanted.

 

[viv1969]

It's a local rag. Most people who go to the papers have a good idea of what point they are trying to get across, but by the time it goes to print it's been twisted and misreported and they don't get the result they wanted.

Even if he'd have gone to the finest media outlet available ( I realise no such thing exists), and they reported his tale word-for-word, all he's doing in increasing the amount of people even aware of the incident from (possibly) 3-5, to thousands, possibly tens of thousands.
How can that improve his situation if he's so afraid of "reprisals"?

 

[big soft moose]

How can that improve his situation if he's so afraid of "reprisals"?

because he wants people to know he was innocent and the police said he'd done nothing wrong - points easily missed by bunch of halfwit vigilantes ... I'd agree with you that he was very naive to think that the press would have a positive impact but i'd suspect that was the original thinking

 

[big soft moose]

It's a local rag. Most people who go to the papers have a good idea of what point they are trying to get across, but by the time it goes to print it's been twisted and misreported and they don't get the result they wanted.

to be fair to the journalist in question the article is quite fair and balanced - his tactical error is in assuming that the paedofinder general tendecy can actually read...

 

[viv1969]

because he wants people to know he was innocent and the police said he'd done nothing wrong - points easily missed by bunch of halfwit vigilantes ... I'd agree with you that he was very naive to think that the press would have a positive impact but i'd suspect that was the original thinking

What vigilantes though?
Thus far there have been no attacks (I'm pretty sure they'd have been mentioned)
"A man fears he will be attacked..........."
He's pretty much just guaranteed it!
There was no "bunch of vigilantes".
The was one report to the police. Some questions on scene from the police (one officer). That's it.
How is that life shattering until bringing it to the attention of the www?

 

[Mark Johnson]

Storm in a tea cup.

Only one person accused him, or maybe only brought the fact to the fairground someone was filming in a place where kids play. Maybe there was never an accusation.

If my grandkids go to a fair with me I have no hesitation or guilt or any bad thoughts abuot taking pictures of them.

Move on I guess..............

 

[jakeblu]

Worcester, although it calls itself a city, is like a small village when incidents like this occur, gossip travels quickly and stories get embellished to make them sound more outrageous. If anyone had seen this happen , and obviously whoever reported the incident to the fairground worker was just one, they only have to repeat it, then it is on facebook and so on and on.

Then if its such a small place then I'm sure most people already know of the work he does documenting the city and surely they would have simply have realised it was nothing.

because he wants people to know he was innocent and the police said he'd done nothing wrong - points easily missed by bunch of halfwit vigilantes ... I'd agree with you that he was very naive to think that the press would have a positive impact but i'd suspect that was the original thinking

I had considered that as an option but all he has succeeded in doing is spreading the story. Considering only a few people were aware at all of the incident then it seems strange for him to be bringing it ot the atteention of the wider public.

He is of course disabled and that may be a factor in his decision, especially as that probably heightens his feelings of vulnrability.

 

[big soft moose]

What vigilantes though?
Thus far there have been no attacks (I'm pretty sure they'd have been mentioned)
"A man fears he will be attacked..........."
He's pretty much just guaranteed it!
There was no "bunch of vigilantes".
The was one report to the police. Some questions on scene from the police (one officer). That's it.
How is that life shattering until bringing it to the attention of the www?

The ones he fears ?

It could be that hes utterly paranoid and sees a vigilante lurking behind every tree

it could equally be that theres been a lot of gossip locally and he has a rational fear of some local faction

we don't know

What we do know is that a man who was doing nothing wrong has been badly effected by some paranoid numpty making a spurious complaint ... he isnt to blame for that, and neither are the police or the park employee ... the one to blame is whoever made the complaint about him "illegally photographing children" ... and the redtop media/mummy forums for making "P**** danger" a thing in the first place

 

[Alastair]

b) hes not quite right

I've come across a few that "wear the baseball cap" and have a local website/channel. The usual phrases that apply are "he means well" and "it gives him something to do". But I've never yet found one that's playing with a full 52 card deck.. and they're usually amongst the first to advertise pitchfork sharpening services when the fingers are pointed at someone else.

 

[Sejanus Aelianus]

The real problem we all face is that malicious or negligent complaints are not dealt with appropriately. There was at one time, and may still be, a common law offence of malicious slander. Perhaps it's time to resurrect it?

 

[BillP]

...if he really is that concerned for his safety why publicise it further.

Because things like this, if left unattended, can mushroom overnight into all kind of bad things. I think he did the right thing and immediately got press on how it was a false accusation, otherwise the gossip about it would be free to take off into whatever crazy direction that the worst imagination can conjure up.

 

[viv1969]

The real problem we all face is that malicious or negligent complaints are not dealt with appropriately. There was at one time, and may still be, a common law offence of malicious slander. Perhaps it's time to resurrect it?

Common law, which has no basis in legislation, is best left dying.
If we allow the courts and judges themselves to make the "laws" we're all doomed

 

[viv1969]

Because things like this, if left unattended, can mushroom overnight into all kind of bad things. I think he did the right thing and immediately got press on how it was a false accusation, otherwise the gossip about it would be free to take off into whatever crazy direction that the worst imagination can conjure up.

Oh yeah, because the crazies are all going to calm down after the article, being the bell balanced bunch they are.
And now, instead of one or two crazies, the article has opened the floodgates to many many more....All of whom might fancy a day out.

 

[BillP]

No...they will not calm down. But if his side did not get into the open, then the flood would still happen and there would be no counterpoint available. So never a good tactic to wait to mount a defense until after the opposing force has mounted an overwhelming response. Either way this will get attention, and often in these things silence gets interpreted as guilt.

 

[viv1969]

But if his side did not get into the open, then the flood would still happen.......

We'll agree to disagree then.

 

[big soft moose]

The real problem we all face is that malicious or negligent complaints are not dealt with appropriately. There was at one time, and may still be, a common law offence of malicious slander. Perhaps it's time to resurrect it?

theres still an offence of slander/libel/defamation but the problems are

a) going to court costs a lot of money/time
b) it generate lots of publicity and firmly connects your name with the allegation regardless of who tthe court finds for ( the infamous Mclibel case comes to mind)
c) you have to prove malicious intent which is notoriously hard to do

 

[GreenNinja67]

So anyone who takes photos at a zoo is into bestiality?

Right, got it now.

 

[Sejanus Aelianus]

So anyone who takes photos at a zoo is into bestiality?.

There's this place in North Wales, off the B5429, between Bodfari and Tremeirchion, called Sodom.

Probably inadvisable to take pictures there, then.

 

[GreenNinja67]

This coming from a man who has 2 lots of anus in his moniker?

Hehe.

 

[badlywornroy]

Shame, but I think he wanted his minute in the limelight as 'The victim'

 

[viv1969]

Shame, but I think he wanted his minute in the limelight as 'The victim'

Bingo.....imho

 

[KIPAX]

Misleading thread title..

double Misleading

There's nothing in that article to indicate that he was accused of much at all, let alone being a paedophile.

Or PHOTOGRAPHING!

he was videoing with a go pro and a video camera

OP might want to rethink the way he does his subject lines.