Every photographer is suspect

Byker28i

Byker28i

Suspended / Banned
Messages
21,339
Edit My Images
Yes
I was researching a possible angle for an essay/ dissertation when I came across this gem.

https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/69952

Petition Photographing children in public without consent

Make it illegal to photograph children in public without consent! Unless it is a media photographer who has a licence or the person has been given permission to photograph the child, it should be illegal to do so without consent! The photography of children in public without consent by stranger is EXTREMELY dangerous as they could privately share what the child looks like and share what location they were at and who with, then target them for child trafficking or some form of pedophilia. Even if the person photoshops the child's face onto a photograph of a naked woman's body for their own pleasure this is sick and wrong and shouldn't be facilitated in the first place! Change the law! No consent = No photographing. Protect our children instead of protecting the criminals!!


Really? In which mad world is this even considered, never mind the rapid conclusions jumped at and the suggested use of the images.
 
Worse that it was rejected because there was already a petition on that subject. I wonder how many others had been submitted?
 
I'm as photographer against such pettition but I always try to avoid taking pictures in play groups or grounds ... as I think it can bother other parents...
 
OldCarlos said:
Bacefook/social media world. (which is ironic given the crap that's posted on that kind of site)
Click to expand...

mumsnet/net mums mentality - won't someone think ofthe children... and the kittens

I've mentioned before how i was villified a few years ago as "the iresponsible ranger who refused to stop the obvious paedophile from photographing their innocent children" - that is there was a bloke taking landscape photos in which little jonny and janey were 3 pixel blobs, I declined to stop him as he wasnt doing anything wrong.

its amazing how many of the mumnutters think like this but also put countless pictures of jonny and janey on facebook (and don't set the account to anything other than public) because obviously no paedophile has ever used the internet to look for pictures of kids ... its well known that they prefer to lug 5k of DSLR gear down to the nearest beach
 
not to mention that something like 85% of child abuse cases involve a relative or a family friend... so strange uncle walter/mummies new boyfriend bob who has permission to take photos at janeys birthday party is statistically a higher risk than the stranger on the beach with a DSLR
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
not to mention that something like 85% of child abuse cases involve a relative or a family friend... so strange uncle walter/mummies boyfriend bob who has permission to take photos at janeys birthday party is statistically a higher risk than the stranger on the beach with a DSLR
Click to expand...

I agree but i think the figure is higher ? :(
 
foggy4ever said:
You have to find the good ones, great selection of ales at Yorkshire prices :beer::beer::beer:
Click to expand...

Yorkshire prices - is that where someone else pays ;)

Simon - you are probably right, that was a best guess (according to dosomething.org the actual stat is 90% are known to the victim in some way - family freinds, teachers, scout masters, priests etc )
 
Last edited:
I was told by a head teacher at one of the schools that I work at one of the reasons they don't like photographs being taken is because if they go on social media a child who has been removed to a location not known to one or both parents for what ever reason my be spotted and then there location is known to them.
 
snooks said:
I was told by a head teacher at one of the schools that I work at one of the reasons they don't like photographs being taken is because if they go on social media a child who has been removed to a location not known to one or both parents for what ever reason my be spotted and then there location is known to them.
Click to expand...
I've heard that too. But I'm not convinced it makes a lot of sense statistically.

And anyway, the petition mentioned by the OP is a whole order of magnitude more stupid than this.
 
These parents really f*** me off, they moan about photographers and then splash s*** loads of photos of their kids on facebook etc. Look at my kiddy on the beach, in the bath etc, in their first day at school uniform just to accommodate kiddy fiddlers that may have a fettish.

Then they send them round strangers houses once a year begging for sweets etc.

Full of double standards and scaremongering, the kid is far more likely to be abused when they are at the pub and uncle jimmy is looking after them. Or when they are all p***ed and drugged up when dads 'friends' come round.
 
snooks said:
I was told by a head teacher at one of the schools that I work at one of the reasons they don't like photographs being taken is because if they go on social media a child who has been removed to a location not known to one or both parents for what ever reason my be spotted and then there location is known to them.
Click to expand...

I've come across that a couple of times when working with a local primary - but it generally applies only to a specific child , and only if you also identify them by name and location ... a random picture of a kid in a park is not going to help an abuser track down his victim ... a photo in the local rag captioned 'billy jones age 9 of xyz school scores the winning goal last sunday is a different matter'
 
Here's an interesting question: A a group of youths (say age 10 to 14) come and smash your car headlights, or smash your front gates, or whatever. You take photos of them to be used as evidence in a court of law. But the new law says that if you took photos of them without permissions, you are breaking the law, so what on Earth are we supposed to do? Get out of your house and grab the nearest stranger on the street, say to him/her: "Look! Look at them! You saw them? Good, thank you, you are now officially a witness."?

Another interesting question: What happens if you attempt to take a photo of a subject (old building, classic car on display, rainbow, F1 racing, a friend of yours, amateur or professional model you hired, whatever), then some kid photo-bomb your photograph. The parent calm you broken the law by taking photos of their kids without permissions, so how do you prove it that those kids did photo-bomb your photograph?
 
its not a law just a pointless petition that will never go anywhere ... they won't even get enough sigs for it to be mentioned in parliment

that said i recomend shooting the little bastards dead and having them stuffed and used as a hood ornament pour le encourage de autres
 
Major Eazy said:
Here's an interesting question: A a group of youths (say age 10 to 14) come and smash your car headlights, or smash your front gates, or whatever. You take photos of them to be used as evidence in a court of law. But the new law says that if you took photos of them without permissions, you are breaking the law, so what on Earth are we supposed to do? Get out of your house and grab the nearest stranger on the street, say to him/her: "Look! Look at them! You saw them? Good, thank you, you are now officially a witness."?

Another interesting question: What happens if you attempt to take a photo of a subject (old building, classic car on display, rainbow, F1 racing, a friend of yours, amateur or professional model you hired, whatever), then some kid photo-bomb your photograph. The parent calm you broken the law by taking photos of their kids without permissions, so how do you prove it that those kids did photo-bomb your photograph?
Click to expand...

It would also make the use of CCTV illegal in case an image of a child were to ever be captured
 
snooks said:
I was told by a head teacher at one of the schools that I work at one of the reasons they don't like photographs being taken is because if they go on social media a child who has been removed to a location not known to one or both parents for what ever reason my be spotted and then there location is known to them.
Click to expand...

It's the new reason trotted out instead of data protection, only sometimes valid.
 
big soft moose said:
its not a law just a pointless petition that will never go anywhere ... they won't even get enough sigs for it to be mentioned in parliment
Click to expand...

Yup brought up as a discussion point really as the most ridiculous reason given to ban public photography, but it's a common held belief amongst many.

Can we put a date on when the change in public perception changed? 10-15 years ago? Certainly the media stories and scaremongering didn't help around that time.
 
big soft moose said:
not to mention that something like 85% of child abuse cases involve a relative or a family friend... so strange uncle walter/mummies new boyfriend bob who has permission to take photos at janeys birthday party is statistically a higher risk than the stranger on the beach with a DSLR
Click to expand...
Your bang on the money there! Having a working knowledge of prosecutions through a previous employment, I never heard of a kiddy fiddler having a computer full of images of kids playing on the street/beach/playground. They were very grim and could only have been taken in private either by, or with the collusion of someone who was in a trusted position.
 
BBR said:
IIRC the original petition was motivated by a celebrity complaining about paps taking photos of her kids.
.
Click to expand...

That was different IIRC it was Paul Wellers partner and she won her case but that was to do with the paper identifying her children by name in their publication - it is a big step away from just taking pictures with random kids in them
 
It's ridic. I go into the park (with my daughter) and feel uneasy with a camera around my neck...the looks!..why?. Welcomed like a jobby in a bath.
The looks grow if I need to pop in to the parks bogs ...that man must be taking pictures of middle wickets!
 
Thatchapthere said:
It's ridic. I go into the park (with my daughter) and feel uneasy with a camera around my neck...the looks!..why?. Welcomed like a jobby in a bath.
The looks grow if I need to pop in to the parks bogs ...that man must be taking pictures of middle wickets!
Click to expand...
You should try taking photos of wildlife in a park, the looks and comments can very interesting! I had one incident where I was photographing squirrels, had a 300mm f4 (supposedly a big lens by the comments I got). I was far away from the playground or any kids playing. The only ones in sight we're ones walking on the nearby path with a parent. Supposedly parks are only places for children, not placed to enjoy wildlife or take a nice walk. Of course the 'strange' guy with a camera is out to abuse kids.
 
Byker28i said:
I was researching a possible angle for an essay/ dissertation when I came across this gem.

https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/69952

Petition Photographing children in public without consent


Really? In which mad world is this even considered, never mind the rapid conclusions jumped at and the suggested use of the images.
Click to expand...

It's not in the mad world, it's just this country, nowhere else seems to have these weird ideas. I don't remember any children appearing on tv shows or in films being targeted for child trafficking or pedophilia....

It's probably just the press trying to protect their own interests.
 
Last edited:
Major Eazy said:
Another interesting question: What happens if you attempt to take a photo of a subject (old building, classic car on display, rainbow, F1 racing, a friend of yours, amateur or professional model you hired, whatever), then some kid photo-bomb your photograph. The parent calm you broken the law by taking photos of their kids without permissions, so how do you prove it that those kids did photo-bomb your photograph?
Click to expand...

A few years ago I was walking home along a river bank looking for waterbird photo opportunities. It was a very hot sunny afternoon. I noticed I was approaching a gang of young mothers with pre-school toddlers who were having an alcoholic picnic. So as not to invite suspicion I slung my camera back over my shoulder and walked past them, studiously avoiding looking anywhere near a child. A drunk mother came up and asked me to photograph her child. Had she not been drunk I would probably have agreed. I said I was in a hurry, no time. She tried flattering my big camera and obviously professional skills. When that didn't work she offered to pay me cash on the spot. When I declined she offered to go to a cash machine and pay me an absurdly excessive amount. I declined and kept walking. She lost her temper and started kicking and punching me. I kept walking and dodging most of her blows. Eventually she gave up and stood still screaming abuse while I walked away.

I was unhurt, my camera had suffered a smashed lens hood. The police said they'd look into it. If they did they never told me.

When I mentioned this to other photographers they told me this was a known trick. Get a passing photographer, preferably the kind of scruffy old bloke like me who might easily be a paedophile, to photograph some of their children, then ask for money or else they'd call the police and claim the photographs were taken despite their objections by this paedophile with the big paedophile camera. Evidence in the camera.
 
Last edited:
sounds doubtful as the police would just tell them to p*** off as photographing someone in public isnt an offence. More likely she was just p***ed and being a gobs***e
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top