Here we go again - tourist photographers detained by mums in Southend

magicaxeman said:
The same mother probably has images of her children plastered all over her "public" Facebook page.

I had it happen to me years ago when taking pictures of my teenage niece for her, shooting in a local park I found myself facing outraged mothers and an off duty copper who tried to "seize" my camera.
He got told to b****r off when he started with the threats and nastiness such as threatening to have my home raided etc.
Click to expand...

That's a strange scenario. You would expect most people seeing a teenage girl happily posing for someone fully clothed in a public park would accept it for what it was, quite innocent and walk on. I've seen similar things in my local parks and it has passed without the bat of an eyelid from anyone. It looks legitimate, she is happy and nothing dodgy. Seems you were unlucky to get both a band of outraged mothers and a police officer passing by.

In regard to the off duty policeman then I wonder if he really was or just someone trying it on making out he was? Now as I know a lot of off duty policemen and on duty ones :) most wouldn't engage without being clear about their powers, the offences suspected of being committed and your rights. Even more so, I doubt many would be threatening searches of your home and stuff without actually doing it - or simply being dismissed with a 'b****r off'. Either there were offences or not. It appears they were satisfied not and you were left to continue legitimately. Seems you were unlucky with either some rogue cop, ex cop from the Ashes to Ashes days or maybe someone trying it on. The worst for the power trip in my experience are people with some powers through their job or have had powers, e.g. private security, police civilian staff rather than warranted police officers. Equally you get members of the public who have to argue about everything because they know a bit of the law or feel they are being victimised. Good warning to everyone though that we are in a world where your intentions although good and honourable can be misinterpreted by others as they see the world and you from a different standpoint. Having said that people should also realise that we are in a world of child and adult sexual exploitation on the increase. People may find the police an irritation but sometimes victims are not in a position to help themselves and often abuse and illegal activities are uncovered by noticing things a little unusual or the police simply finding out what is going on and uncovering the tip of an iceberg. Sometimes all of us need to see the bigger picture and from a different perspective. (Not any reflection on you magicaxeman :) )
 
Last edited:
BlackCloud said:
Having said that people should also realise that we are in a world of child and adult sexual exploitation on the increase.
Click to expand...

Are we? The ONS would say that it was steadily falling until 2 years ago when there was a spike due to increased police reporting activity and is now falling again.

Hopefully the tourists have contacted the police regarding the harassment, false arrest and fear these idiots caused.
 
Police resources are being focused more and more upon it with an expectation the more you look the more you find. Maybe not just sexual exploitation but people exploitation and crimes against the person (people trafficking /slavery etc.), child porn etc.
 
Byker28i said:
Nothing like a bit of justification. The police said they found nothing wrong and no specific child images, just scenes, but according to one report a mum insisted there were images of her child on a phone.

https://reportuk.org/2016/04/11/hap...ante-mums-accusing-them-of-being-paedophiles/

But one mum claimed there were seven pictures of her daughter, aged three, on one of the phones.

She wrote: “For the minority of people calling me disgusting!!!!! This could have easily been ur children and u all make it sound like that is ok!!!!! “If that is that case u don”t deserve them .. a child”s protection is priority to me and mine was singled out! I would breath my last breath for my kids so I will dam well detain a stranger wen they have 7-10 pictures of my 3 year old!! No surrondings (sic) just her.”

The mum has received a mixture of harsh criticism and glowing support from people claiming it is a frequent occurrence in the area.

One woman wrote: “This has happened at Margate seafront several times! I”ve stopped going there to be honest, there were blatant groups of foreign men not dressed for the beach, no children, no families just there taking photos! “The police do nothing as they do it blatant, they can make out its an accident kids were in their photos.”

Another wrote: “This isn”t the first time someone has been caught taking pictures of the kids. And when police were called they never showed up.
“The fact that these women take things in to there own hands is because as mums we want to protect our children and the police do nothing to help with that.”
Click to expand...

I hope someone sues the silly cow for defamation - if shes publically accused them of paedophillia and published photos of them on facebook saying shes smashed a paedophile ring , its a clear case for libel
 
Perhaps I am being a bit dim here, or missing something as I am not a parent, but even if these people were paedophiles (which I am sure they weren't), how would them photographing a child harm it? Surely we have gone beyond the days when it was believed that a photograph would steal a soul? I am genuinely puzzled.

PS I understand children with child protection issues needing to be kept off social media.
 
Last edited:
It seems fairly simple...

1. Once a photo of a child is posted on the internet, it is seen by paedophiles.
2. By definition, that child has now suffered abuse (because a thought crime is still a crime).
3. An abused child grows up to be an abuser in turn, unless it recieves special counselling.
4. The fact that neither parents nor child realise that it suffered abuse means that it will not be counselled.
5. The child will grow up to be a paedophile and the whole cycle repeats itself.

Quite logical I think (to some minds).
 
MadWoman said:
Perhaps I am being a bit dim here, or missing something as I am not a parent, but even if these people were paedophiles (which I am sure they weren't), how would them photographing a child harm it? Surely we have gone beyond the days when it was believed that a photograph would steal a soul? I am genuinely puzzled.
Click to expand...
Speaking from personal experience it is a horrendous experience. While on holiday in Corfu some 15 years ago, we were in a small taverna in Kalami, I visited the gents leaving my wife and 3 year old daughter to have their meal. When I came back my wife was in a bit of a state, she had caught a guy in his 40's surreptitiously taking photos of my daughter, when my wife noticed him , she went to confront him and he legged it. I searched the area but he was nowhere to be seen. It's a very frightening and unpleasant thing to experience as a parent.
 
@Sejanus Aelianus i wouldnt say Essex or Southend is any worse than any other town for having residents who are idiots, this town gets unfair slagging off sometimes. Granted this woman appears to be an idiot, but she could live anywhere :p

@MadWoman Paedophiles have libraries of photos of children and share them with others, so you wouldnt want your kid in someones collection of horrific things (edited what i just said as it was insensitive). I'm not a parent either.

----------------

I live in the town and saw people i know sharing this on facebook, along with various other things previously for other people like "these blokes are dodgy and seen around X street doing X, share to make their faces known' - it seems the woman may be in some deep doo doo. Were people always this reactionary, but just didnt have an outlet for it? or has social media created this? (its essentially viral gossiping?) There seems to be huge holes in various stories and it's pretty sucky to give Southend extra negative press. Someone has commented on the local news site (not the spoof one) that their american friend wanted to book a holiday to essex (to visit friends i assume) and the travel agent said "dont go there, theres a peodphile problem)... but then, thats just gossip too... The woman certainly dropped herself in it by having publically available photos of her kids on FB (which i do not understand anyone doing, kids or otherwise, people who post photos and status updates publically... no different to me posting on twitter i guess, but different content, ill get me coat)
 
Last edited:
I can see it might be stressful for the parent, imagining who might be looking at the photo, but that still doesn't harm the child, does it?
 
dan_yell said:
@MadWoman Paedophiles have libraries of photos of children and share them with others, so you wouldnt want your kid in someones collection of horrific things (edited what i just said as it was insensitive). I'm not a parent either.
Click to expand...

Are paedophiles more likely to get these images by means of google image search or by hanging arround the seafront with camera though ? - given that there are litterally millions of pics of kids on the internet, mostly put there by proud mummies , it doesnt seem likely that the average P**** is going to hang about in the cold and wet with a DSLR
 
@big soft moose well i dont have much faith in the credibility of the story, so im not trying to justify the lynch mob, but it wasnt a cold and wet on the day in question in this infamous article. i dont know anything about paedophiles either but surely some get photos in this way, i've no idea what they like or want so i dunno
 
blakester said:
I was in Southend today with my camera, I can see the attraction for taking photos at the fountains. There were a few kids around enjoying the sun and the water spouts.
When did we as a society get so paranoid?
Click to expand...

The paranoia, IMHO started when

1. Education became directed to not teaching children to think, to explore, to challenge themselves but merely to PASS EXAMINATIONS

2. The basic subjects (Reading Writing and Arithmetic) were dumbed down so that Grammar, Spelling and Structure no longer mattered so the less able would not be 'left behind' and basic mathematics were replaced with non formulaic visiual structures to replace 'mental arimetic. So patterns of learning 'times tables' by repetition and seeing ratios and percentiles were also discarded so the 'language' of numbers were lost. (Hence the pocket calculator came to the rescue as an example.

3. Jumping forward, discovery of nature, the competitive edge (class rankings, competitive sport limited removing challenge, discipline and planning)

Loads more but our children homegenised into an equal quagmire of passing exams but losing individuality.

Too complex? No.....

Those kids went on to be parents and mass rumour with a 'paedophile' on every corner, reinforced by 'social media' feeding off dumbed down print and electronic media added to a tasteless stew of ignorance, stupidity and mob rule.. Even a paediatrician had her home attacked....

On TP a while ago a photographer in Sheffield, taking macro pictures of daffodils in a park was accosted bu a 'mumsie' who went on to post warnings about a 'P****' in the park followed by someone on her facebook offering to sort said 'P****' out with his 'nail studded baseball bat'...... At the same time, 'mumsie's open FB account showed pictures of partly dressed kids in her garden surround by her drunken friends.

So what is a paedophile? The press even talk about men being charged with 'paedophilia' - really? I wonder what staute in law that falls under? Adam Johnson is described as 'the convicted paedophile'.... Sorry but the mental state involving the paedophilia is for the desire of those of 'pre-pubescent' children not a 15 year old.

Unfotunately a mass movement of ill educated people feeding off mass hysteria and the promotion of a rumour mill from a declining, less profitable, 'news reporting' medium, a social media whisper mill allied to some seriously mentally under educated mass has got to a point that everyone who has a smartphone has a discrete high qualitycamera but get caught carrying a large 5Kg £1500 lump of glass/metal and polymer, legally in a public place, then that person must be a 'P****'.

Some of these people are so stupid tgey should have (NOT SHOULD OF) been sterilised before breeding commenced.

It could be too late for a sane, balanced future in 'our country'.

It would make a very funny film.... except it is not funny.

The rational and sane may eventually die out.....

As a final thought - a study a long time back determined that 'most' child abuse occurs within families or by people known to or friends with said families. Sadly that was borne out by the experience of one of my emplyees many years ago and a friend of 20+ years betraying trust. That 'friend' was not a photographer.
 
Nah, not a new thing at all. Lynch mobs have been around since the year dot. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say they are probably less prevalent now than they were many years ago - certainly (generally) less serious in their actions, and are more likely to have their motives and behaviour questioned by the public at large / powers that be.

People are stupid, always have been, always will be.
 
Jayst84 said:
Nah, not a new thing at all. Lynch mobs have been around since the year dot. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say they are probably less prevalent now than they were many years ago - certainly (generally) less serious in their actions, and are more likely to have their motives and behaviour questioned by the public at large / powers that be.

People are stupid, always have been, always will be.
Click to expand...
You are not wrong but the mixing bowl is way bigger.
The 'new' element is that the role of village idiot is held by many and it can be Town, City, County, Country or Globally co-owned.

The idiots of centuries past could be understood by the availability or lack of education. Now it is slipping away again.

The 'Little Britailn' mantra of "The computer says no" is reality.......

There was a reason for keeping the masses dumb and in their place before education became a right.... now we are told we need to 'educate', retrain and up-skill... for what. The UK manufacturing base is highly technical and skilled but in a world of 7.5 billion and growing, and a country of 30 million in work, the majority of whom are in jobs not in design/manufacturing..... is it any wonder that the need for an upskilled and flexible intellingent workforce is really not there..... Service industries, packing Amazon parcels...... call centre staff. In the meantime let's denigrate teachers as being 'not fit for purpose'

The last thing we need is a workforce that says 'why?'........
 
StephenM said:
It seems fairly simple...

1. Once a photo of a child is posted on the internet, it is seen by paedophiles.
2. By definition, that child has now suffered abuse (because a thought crime is still a crime).
3. An abused child grows up to be an abuser in turn, unless it recieves special counselling.
4. The fact that neither parents nor child realise that it suffered abuse means that it will not be counselled.
5. The child will grow up to be a paedophile and the whole cycle repeats itself.

Quite logical I think (to some minds).
Click to expand...

So all abused children grow up to be paedophiles in the absence of counselling?
Sorry but IMO that's rubbish.
There are tens of millions of innocent images of children posted online, probably every day.

By your thinking, if a paedophile trawls through Facebook, then every child whose image he happens to see is then a victim of abuse, and will itself become an abuser because of this "silent abuse"?

No, I'm sorry...utter tosh.
 
viv1969 said:
So all abused children grow up to be paedophiles in the absence of counselling?
Sorry but IMO that's rubbish.
There are tens of millions of innocent images of children posted online, probably every day.

By your thinking, if a paedophile trawls through Facebook, then every child whose image he happens to see is then a victim of abuse, and will itself become an abuser because of this "silent abuse"?

No, I'm sorry...utter tosh.
Click to expand...

Ruth - he was saying that this is the form of thinking that's used to justify a certain group of mums getting angry at people taking pictures, rather than this IS reality. So yes, it is tosh, but not Stephen's tosh. :)
 
I do wish people would stop using that word "paedophile" to describe child abusers and rapists. There's zero love involved is assaulting a child and any sexual interaction with a child is, by definition, an assault.
 
StephenM said:
It seems fairly simple...

1. Once a photo of a child is posted on the internet, it is seen by paedophiles.
2. By definition, that child has now suffered abuse (because a thought crime is still a crime).
3. An abused child grows up to be an abuser in turn, unless it recieves special counselling.
4. The fact that neither parents nor child realise that it suffered abuse means that it will not be counselled.
5. The child will grow up to be a paedophile and the whole cycle repeats itself.

Quite logical I think (to some minds).
Click to expand...

I'm thinking this is some sort of cryptic hidden message thats gone straight over my head but on initial reading its a load of tosh.

I don't like to make light of such a serious matter because children who are abused do suffer terribly both at the time of the abuse and for years after, but how can a child, who is unaware that strangers are maybe using his photo for nefarious reasons feel abused?
viv1969 said:
So all abused children grow up to be paedophiles in the absence of counselling?
Sorry but IMO that's rubbish.
There are tens of millions of innocent images of children posted online, probably every day.

By your thinking, if a paedophile trawls through Facebook, then every child whose image he happens to see is then a victim of abuse, and will itself become an abuser because of this "silent abuse"?

No, I'm sorry...utter tosh.
Click to expand...
Absolutely
 
jakeblu said:
I'm thinking this is some sort of cryptic hidden message thats gone straight over my head but on initial reading its a load of tosh.

I don't like to make light of such a serious matter because children who are abused do suffer terribly both at the time of the abuse and for years after, but how can a child, who is unaware that strangers are maybe using his photo for nefarious reasons feel abused?

Absolutely
Click to expand...

ancient_mariner said:
Ruth - he was saying that this is the form of thinking that's used to justify a certain group of mums getting angry at people taking pictures, rather than this IS reality. So yes, it is tosh, but not Stephen's tosh. :)
Click to expand...
 
I don't think that someone taking sexual pictures of a child is necessarily abuse, but I do think that people are right to be mortified and angry if such a thing was to happen.

Harm is not the only bad thing in the world, and regardless of the effect on an individual - child pornography is quite bad.

It seems pedantry to quibble with how and why it's bad in order to, what, prove that someone spoke irrationally about an emotive subject?

It would perhaps be more beneficial for photographers to side together and say 'yes, people being concerned about their children is a good thing, but we aren't a concern' rather than asking 'but what harm does child porn really do?'.
 
StephenM said:
It seems fairly simple...

1. Once a photo of a child is posted on the internet, it is seen by paedophiles.
2. By definition, that child has now suffered abuse (because a thought crime is still a crime).
3. An abused child grows up to be an abuser in turn, unless it recieves special counselling.
4. The fact that neither parents nor child realise that it suffered abuse means that it will not be counselled.
5. The child will grow up to be a paedophile and the whole cycle repeats itself.

Quite logical I think (to some minds).
Click to expand...

Don't worry Stephen, some of us got the joke ;)
 
It would be interesting to know the percentage of convicted paedophiles who have been found to have photos of random kids that they themselves have photographed in public places. Is it even a genuine thing that happens?

One of the many plus sides of now having my own little boy is that I feel way, way less self-conscious out in public with my camera (even though I don't even do street photography!)
 
Sejanus Aelianus said:
I do wish people would stop using that word "paedophile" to describe child abusers and rapists. There's zero love involved is assaulting a child and any sexual interaction with a child is, by definition, an assault.
Click to expand...

Paedophile is used to describe desire or attraction to, rather than selfless love for children:
-philia
ˈfɪlɪə/
combining form
suffix: -philia
  1. denoting fondness, especially an abnormal love for a specified thing.
    "paedophilia"
    • denoting undue inclination.
      "spasmophilia"

Sexual interaction with what we define as a child is only assault in 20th and 21st century thinking. Not that I am defending paedophilia, but we have a very tightly defined and narrow understanding in present society in a way that would not be recognised if one were to step back more than, say, 60 years or so.
 
StephenM said:
It seems fairly simple...

1. Once a photo of a child is posted on the internet, it is seen by paedophiles.
2. By definition, that child has now suffered abuse (because a thought crime is still a crime).
3. An abused child grows up to be an abuser in turn, unless it recieves special counselling.
4. The fact that neither parents nor child realise that it suffered abuse means that it will not be counselled.
5. The child will grow up to be a paedophile and the whole cycle repeats itself.

Quite logical I think (to some minds).
Click to expand...
Absolutely brilliant.
 
ukaskew said:
It would be interesting to know the percentage of convicted paedophiles who have been found to have photos of random kids that they themselves have photographed in public places. Is it even a genuine thing that happens?
Click to expand...

It probably happens occasionally , after all there are cases of convicted paedophiles being caught hanging arround play areas, so if they like looking, i'd speculate that taking pictures is a logical step (after all there have been cases of people who collect shots on the street of women for unsavory purposes - like that chap in scotland a while back ) in both cases though i suspect they are more likely to use an inconspicuous phone instead of lugging several grand of kit arround with them
 
ukaskew said:
It would be interesting to know the percentage of convicted paedophiles who have been found to have photos of random kids that they themselves have photographed in public places. Is it even a genuine thing that happens?

One of the many plus sides of now having my own little boy is that I feel way, way less self-conscious out in public with my camera (even though I don't even do street photography!)
Click to expand...
I get where you are coming from but there is no 'legal' term of a "Convicted Paedophine"

Those that take their desire/inclination to the actual act or by having what is deemed to be pornographic material(s) are charges under the requisite legal enactments and further into the various sections of The Sexual Offences Act 2003 and any othe applicable acts where other offences have occurred (physical assault, kidnapping, grooming.....).

We, as parents will protect our children in every way but the low intellect self righteous vigilsntes may believe they have a right to behave as they do but, as a society, after 100s of years, have got a balance and fairness in how we live. Without that balance we are no better than those that have wreaked barbarity across Iraq/Syria and in Africa.

That barbarity has already occurred in our country

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ob-pleaded-with-police-for-help-a6782266.html

Made me less than proud to be British and the conviction of Police Officers for misconduct for failing to prevent a brutal murder of a man who remonstrated with children to stop damaging the plants in his garden, then to be declared a 'P****'.

The murderer's and his accomplise's sentences were derisory for the act the perpetrated.

So the outraged 'mumsies' may be the soft end of a very dark and sinister growing problem.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...thought-he-was-a-paedophile-who-a6981756.html

So how will we feel as members of TP if the day comes and one of our members is called a 'P****' while out photographing in a public area, is chased down by a mob whipped up by a media desperate to 'protect our society' (sorry I mean deliver more on-line click bait), and immolated publicly.... as outed witches were up to the 18th Century.

Due process is a hard won right, the law of the lynch mob has no part in our society, no matter what the Daily Mail would love to publish.

Perhaps when a P**** acclaiming 'mumsie' suffers a life sentece for intentionally provoking serious injury and harm which causes death (or simply a "murder"), then maybe the crass 'I will breath my last breath to protect my child' will come home to her with, say, a life sentence with s minimum of 25 years to be served.

Yes we must protect our children but, as I said earlier, most sexual assaults on children are within families and by people known to the families.

A DSLR is not a badge of bad intention.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
Paedophile is used to describe desire or attraction to, rather than selfless love for children...
:
...Sexual interaction with what we define as a child is only assault in 20th and 21st century thinking. Not that I am defending paedophilia, but we have a very tightly defined and narrow understanding in present society in a way that would not be recognised if one were to step back more than, say, 60 years or so.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that the widespread use of the term dates to 1974 and the notorious "Paedophile Information Exchange", a thoroughly evil bunch of abusers, who adopted the term to place a gloss on their activities.
 
Last edited:
Hugh Jarse said:
So how will we feel as members of TP if the day comes and one of our members is called a 'P****' while out photographing in a public area, is chased down by a mob whipped up by a media desperate to 'protect our society' (sorry I mean deliver more on-line click bait), and immolated publicly.... as outed witches were up to the 18th Century.
Click to expand...

I've been called a P****, it was screamed at me by what looked to be one of the endemic lager soaked cannabis smoking wastes of space that infest my local area. He didn't chase me though as that would have involved effort. It's more usual to see women nudging each other and giving the if looks could kill look. A man with a camera... Shock. Horror.
 
woof woof said:
I've been called a P****, it was screamed at me by what looked to be one of the endemic lager soaked cannabis smoking wastes of space that infest my local area. He didn't chase me though as that would have involved effort. It's more usual to see women nudging each other and giving the if looks could kill look. A man with a camera... Shock. Horror.
Click to expand...
Sad but it will grow because none of the mainstream 'news' organisations see it as a problem as they suck up the racist, manic anti everything disgusted illiterates that fill 'social media' routes with ignorance, innuendo and lies.

Perhaps we need an anti idiot setting on our kit (say an anti personnel fragmentation grenade built into the 5D IV.....

It is a sign of the times that the knuckle draggers walk amongst us in ever increasing numbers. Remember too - local parks are not for camera carrying citizens, even if they pay council tax, they are for children only........ and if you do not have kids with you then you are suspect......
 
Hugh Jarse said:
Sad but it will grow because none of the mainstream 'news' organisations see it as a problem as they suck up the racist, manic anti everything disgusted illiterates that fill 'social media' routes with ignorance, innuendo and lies.

Perhaps we need an anti idiot setting on our kit (say an anti personnel fragmentation grenade built into the 5D IV.....

It is a sign of the times that the knuckle draggers walk amongst us in ever increasing numbers. Remember too - local parks are not for camera carrying citizens, even if they pay council tax, they are for children only........ and if you do not have kids with you then you are suspect......
Click to expand...

These people have always been with us. It raises questions about social equality and empowerment, and whether there should actually be a slightly suppressed underclass who know their place as they have at times, or whether their views should be considered as valid as anyone else's.
 
ancient_mariner said:
These people have always been with us. It raises questions about social equality and empowerment, and whether there should actually be a slightly suppressed underclass who know their place as they have at times, or whether their views should be considered as valid as anyone else's.
Click to expand...
'slightly supressed' is that like only 'slightly' lighting a match?
 
I had a related incident this week. Some Irish travellers camped in our company car park and I was taking pics on my mobile of the caravans to send to the eviction company. The women were sitting on deckchairs and they got very aggressive, made their kids come over into the frame then accused me of being a P**** and filmed me on their camera, intending to upload it to youtube. I laughed it off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top