I have a camera I must be a P**** !

Status
Not open for further replies.
How long before society bans eyes unless you can prove that they will only be put to 'good' use :(

Sitting watching the world go buy is an innocent pastime (last time i looked anyway), but it's a big no-no for a man on his own these days.
 
Tenubracon said:
Why the assumption that they were paedophiles? Maybe the blokes should mind their own business?
The bloke most likely to be the paedophile, like it or not, is a friend or famiy member.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you are saying that the abuser is usually known to the child.

But when you spend 3 months seeing the same blokes every day watching the kids, there is something odd about that, but we knew that it was an assumption, so didn't do anything about it - but that doesn't stop the blokes on site getting a bit angry about it though.
 
Byker28i said:
Really?

I've posted this picture before, I've no idea who the kids are but they were running through the fountains at the local shopping centre, about 5 years ago
38908886.jpg


You think this is wrong?
Click to expand...


Yes, the exposure's way off and the highlights are blown - plus it's a little back-focussed - look at the water spout behind the lad in the orange trunks compared to him...:D
 
Byker28i said:
Really?

I've posted this picture before, I've no idea who the kids are but they were running through the fountains at the local shopping centre, about 5 years ago
38908886.jpg


You think this is wrong?
Click to expand...

I'm not questioning the wrong or rightness of it - we've established that it's legally perfectly fine.

I'm trying to establish how people would feel about a complete stranger taking candid pictures of their own children (or the children of their ward).

I think many people - especially parents - would be at the very least, rather concerned - regardless of however trendy or right-on liberal values are.

The guy that challenged the photographer - whether or not he was right to, perceived a complete stranger taking photos of his kids, and was - understandably, I think - concerned to the point of questioning the photographer and getting upset.
 
Arkady said:
Yes, the exposure's way off and the highlights are blown - plus it's a little back-focussed - look at the water spout behind the lad in the orange trunks compared to him...:D
Click to expand...

LOL - in my defence it was one of my first shots with a digital SLR, back in the days of a 300D and old slow 70-300. But it illustrates the point just fine.
 
gembobs said:
But when you spend 3 months seeing the same blokes every day watching the kids, there is something odd about that, but we knew that it was an assumption, so didn't do anything about it - but that doesn't stop the blokes on site getting a bit angry about it though.
Click to expand...

When i was unemployed ten years ago for a period of time i used to walk into the three local towns every day to the job centres and agencies looking for work, and then i used to sit on the same bench in the town centre at the same time for two-three hours and 'watch the world go by', quite innocently.
 
Myky D said:
I'm not questioning the wrong or rightness of it - we've established that it's legally perfectly fine.

I'm trying to establish how people would feel about a complete stranger taking candid pictures of their own children (or the children of their ward).

I think many people - especially parents - would be at the very least, rather concerned - regardless of however trendy or right-on liberal values are.

The guy that challenged the photographer - whether or not he was right to, perceived a complete stranger taking photos of his kids, and was - understandably, I think - concerned to the point of questioning the photographer and getting upset.
Click to expand...

But you said:
Myky D said:
I'm not sure I'd be happy if a stranger started taking photos of my nephews and nieces while we were out and about.

In fact, I'd very probably very kick off. I'd be justified to, no?
Click to expand...

How's that any better or worse than other adults we've discussed.

The only time this has happened to me I had a very abusive woman insisting I had to delete the photo's of my own child. he partner then joined in and attracted a crowd at which point I insisted they called the police and when they wouldn't but continued in a threatening manner I called the police and took their photo's. They were even more unhappy that I had called the police and dragged their child off.
I filed a report with the police, gave copies of the photo's of an abusive man with hand raised towards me and wrote an article for the local paper with the photo included.

This is no different to me than your statement above - I'd very probably very kick off. I would be doing nothing wrong, you'd be the one in the wrong.
 
Arkady said:
If there's one thing I've learned, it's that the use of reason to win an argument only works if the person you're arguing with is prepared to be reasonable. Most times you just have to accept that they're stupid bigoted idiots, shoot them dead and be done with it.
Click to expand...

And there's my nomination for Forum Quote of the Year :clap:
 
I agree its wrong for people to think like they do.. but wakey wakey! thats the world we live in...go to the park or the beach or the school play and start taking pictrures.. someone will complain.... unless you where born yesterday then as a photographer you must know this is a possibility? Yet here you all are....drama queens :)
 
I'm trying to establish how people would feel about a complete stranger taking candid pictures of their own children (or the children of their ward).

I think many people - especially parents - would be at the very least, rather concerned - regardless of however trendy or right-on liberal values are.

The guy that challenged the photographer - whether or not he was right to, perceived a complete stranger taking photos of his kids, and was - understandably, I think - concerned to the point of questioning the photographer and getting upset.
Click to expand...

When I was a lad many people took my photograph when i was out playing in parks etc. (god knows why). My parents didn't mind and, I didn't when my kids were growing up.

No one has the right to get upset over a photographer, it is mis-education and media overhypes that have brought about this state of affairs. It has been said before in this thread that in other countries the photographer does not get hassle in the same way as we do in this country. There is a reason for that.
 
Myky D said:
I think many people - especially parents - would be at the very least, rather concerned - regardless of however trendy or right-on liberal values are.
Click to expand...

It's not trendy or right-on to operate within the framework of the law, which states that you are allowed to photograph people in a public place and to generally go about your business without interference. If there is a trend at work at all here, it's the trend towards unthinking knee-jerk responses, assumed rights over the activites of other people and assumptions about their sexual motives, all of which is driven by 'newspaper' editors wanting to sell more papers. If you don't approve of mob rule, don't be part of the mob.
 
PsiFox said:
When I was a lad many people took my photograph when i was out playing in parks etc. (god knows why). My parents didn't mind and, I didn't when my kids were growing up.

No one has the right to get upset over a photographer, it is mis-education and media overhypes that have brought about this state of affairs. It has been said before in this thread that in other countries the photographer does not get hassle in the same way as we do in this country. There is a reason for that.
Click to expand...

When I were a lad it were all the rage for priests to molest young boys. It seems now that the tide is turning and that attitudes in the Catholic church are changing.

Whether or not whether one has the right to do something is irrelevent to how one feels.

I understand that parents tend to be protective of their children, and will protect said children from whatever threatsto them the parent perceives.

Not having the right to get upset over photographers is what has led us to be the country with one of the most -if not the most - heavy civil surveillance operations in the whole world.

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, right?
 
KIPAX said:
I agree its wrong for people to think like they do.. but wakey wakey! thats the world we live in...go to the park or the beach or the school play and start taking pictrures.. someone will complain.... unless you where born yesterday then as a photographer you must know this is a possibility? Yet here you all are....drama queens :)
Click to expand...

There was a time when the majority of people didn't have a problem with this at all. It's only in recent years, with the excessive media hype, that people have become over-sensitive. No laws are being broken here, except by those who threaten and use violence against 'drama queens'.
 
Tenubracon said:
There was a time when the majority of people didn't have a problem with this at all. It's only in recent years, with the excessive media hype, that people have become over-sensitive. No laws are being broken here, except by those who threaten and use violence against 'drama queens'.
Click to expand...

I know... Thats not my point... I know its all wrong... But your taking pictures in this world in this day and age.. not in the past.. Unless you live in a cotton wool ball then you know what the world is like so ....
 
Myky D said:
Not having the right to get upset over photographers is what has led us to be the country with one of the most -if not the most - heavy civil surveillance operations in the whole world.

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, right?
Click to expand...

Interesting that you bring this up in this context, but I don't see the one as the cause of the other as you suggest. The government is quite prepared to bend the laws to get its own way, so a law preventing, say, the taking pictures of people without their permission would simply have an exemption for CCTV, etc. Actually, stopping amateur photographers from taking pictures is an example of excessive state intrusion into the lives of ordinary people, something which our government has shown itself to be very keen on. The collection of personal information through CCTV, digital surveillance and so on for the convenience and empowerment of the state is just another example of the same authoritarian tendencies at work.
 
If I was out with some of my nieces and nephews and someone was taking pictures, I'd do one of 2 things...

1) ignore it and carry on as usual
2) go and ask what they were doing and talk about photography and photography projects (yes, I'm one of those geeks who will go and talk to random photographers....given the right mood lol)
 
KIPAX said:
I know... Thats not my point... I know its all wrong... But your taking pictures in this world in this day and age.. not in the past.. Unless you live in a cotton wool ball then you know what the world is like so ....
Click to expand...

Would you have told Martin Luther King not to bother and just accept the world is the way it is? (No delusions of grandeur intended, by the way!)
 
Myky D said:
When I were a lad it were all the rage for priests to molest young boys. It seems now that the tide is turning and that attitudes in the Catholic church are changing.
Click to expand...
Though as I understand it the result wasn't to ban all priests, and that it's still acceptable for priests to practice?

We were banned from taking a photo of our 2 month old having her first swim at the pool yesterday on the grounds of "child protection". Surprised? No. Disappointed? Yes.

Once the mob win this one, they'll just move onto the next thing until we all have to stay in our houses. Although then they'll probably ban living in a house just in case one of us is a squatter. :naughty:
 
TheBigYin said:
And there's my nomination for Forum Quote of the Year :clap:
Click to expand...

I'll second that :thumbs:

I can see we're going to have bother integrating him back into society when he gets out of the army. He does have a point though... Nahhh we'd never get away with it :thinking:
 
Tenubracon said:
Interesting that you bring this up in this context, but I don't see the one as the cause of the other as you suggest. The government is quite prepared to bend the laws to get its own way, so a law preventing, say, the taking pictures of people without their permission would simply have an exemption for CCTV, etc. Actually, stopping amateur photographers from taking pictures is an example of excessive state intrusion into the lives of ordinary people, something which our government has shown itself to be very keen on. The collection of personal information through CCTV, digital surveillance and so on for the convenience and empowerment of the state is just another example of the same authoritarian tendencies at work.
Click to expand...

So when the government takes photos of us without our permission it's intrusion, but when a stranger on the street does it it's OK?

That sounds like doublethink to me.
 
Tenubracon said:
Would you have told Martin Luther King not to bother and just accept the world is the way it is? (No delusions of grandeur intended, by the way!)
Click to expand...

MLK (who happens to be on my most admired list) was trying to change the world.. not cry about it.. theres a big difference :)

BTW i didnt say dont bother and accept it ...so please dont put words into my mouth.. Nobody in here is trying to change anything.. they are too busy being.... shall I say it? :)
 
I have read this thread, and others like it with great interest, and from several viewpoints: (1) as a parent/husband, (2) as a tog with a non-so-tiny Canon 7D and various lenses, and (3) as a bloke/male/man.

I think the problem lies with the fact that the 'paranoia' we are all speaking of is not just directed to 'men with cameras' - its everywhere, and I maybe guilty of it too.

If i'm with my boys in a public space - shopping centre, park, the high street, etc.. and anyone who I don't know or recognise approches my boys my 'pay attention alert' kicks in straight away. Are they asking for directions..? the time..? is it a parent of one of their mates just saying hi..? or is it something untoward..? The problem we have nowadays is that it only takes one careless distraction and.. well, we've all seen the news and what can/does happen.

If i'm in a park or open space, or an event, whatever.. if I see someone with a camera I don't start panicing thinking it's a weirdo. Is that because i'm a tog.. or just a person with my head screwed on.? :thinking:

If I see someone with their hands in their pockets talking to my kids or offering sweets I'd be over there like a rocket. Weirdos would be off just as fast.. however the chap doing the promo for the sweet company at the fare or event would just happily carry on, smile at me and so on. Is my initial reaction just general concern or paranoia.? :thinking:

However, I truely believe that half, if not most of the problem, is that people - teens, young adults in particular.. but not just limited to that social group, have simpy lost the ability to communicate with other people face to face. Social skills are virtually non existant thanx 2 txt (gedit!!) and cr*p TV. They simply don't have the knowledge or social skills to asses a situation and if they do feel concerned, simply approach the tog (as this is what the original thread is about) and politely discuss the situation, without the mob or offensive approach.

I like many other togs have had this cr*p at a funday. I'm with my family, my kids are on a ride, and the ride owner starts shouting at me.! I tell him their my kids, he says 'so what' and I begin to loose my rag.. but so as not to ruin the day we just move on. You can't reason with dumb people - end of.:cuckoo:

The big problem here is that once the rot has set it, and I believe is has - or is almost there - it is very difficult indeed to get rid of it.

Yes, I think I would question a person (man or woman) specifically taking photos of my kids in an open space where it appeared to me that he/she had no children of their own with them. If it turned out to be the local paper tog doing a shoot for a particular subject then fine. If it was someone just 'testing out their new camera' I have to say (with my dad head on) I wouldn't be happy about my kids being their subject matter.:thumbsdown:
 
KIPAX said:
MLK (who happens to be on my most admired list) was trying to change the world.. not cry about it.. theres a big difference :)
Click to expand...

Nice straw man, still I guess I should have known better than to leave any room for misinterpretation on a chat forum.
As I'm sure you realise, my point was that you don't have to accept things as they are just because that's what the majority think.
 
dfawkes said:
Though as I understand it the result wasn't to ban all priests, and that it's still acceptable for priests to practice?

We were banned from taking a photo of our 2 month old having her first swim at the pool yesterday on the grounds of "child protection". Surprised? No. Disappointed? Yes.

Once the mob win this one, they'll just move onto the next thing until we all have to stay in our houses. Although then they'll probably ban living in a house just in case one of us is a squatter. :naughty:
Click to expand...

I apologise - I was being flippant and of course the analogy doesn't stand.

But I don't buy into the whole "when I were a lad it were acceptable" debate - to me it's rather hackneyed choir-preaching rhetoric.

I admit there's a problem - I live in Mordor, and as such am stopped on a regular basis - generally by the bored or power-happy PSCOs. However, I'm sensitive to others. I also understand that - rightly or wrongly - the atmosphere surrounding children is very, very volatile. Likewise I find myself feeling similar - if a random stranger on the street wanted to start taking photos of my nephews and/or nieces while they were in my care I would expect at the very least for them to ask me very, very nicely indeed and expect to be able to see the photos once they'd taken them. Whether this is right or wrong it is how I feel, and I'd venture that plenty more feel that way, regardless of how they think they "should" feel.
 
Myky D said:
When I were a lad it were all the rage for priests to molest young boys. It seems now that the tide is turning and that attitudes in the Catholic church are changing.

Whether or not whether one has the right to do something is irrelevent to how one feels.

I understand that parents tend to be protective of their children, and will protect said children from whatever threatsto them the parent perceives.

Not having the right to get upset over photographers is what has led us to be the country with one of the most -if not the most - heavy civil surveillance operations in the whole world.

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, right?
Click to expand...

Ah see I'm protestant;) and I was a chorister.

I choose not to live my life in fear, things will always happen.

That doesn't mean I don't asess rsks but I don't believe thatjust because something happens to one person it will happen to me or mine.

Remember most real paedophiles are known to the family so perhaps parents must not allow friends to join them in the park
 
Myky D said:
if a random stranger on the street wanted to start taking photos of my nephews and/or nieces while they were in my care I would expect at the very least for them to ask me very, very nicely indeed and expect to be able to see the photos once they'd taken them. Whether this is right or wrong it is how I feel, and I'd venture that plenty more feel that way, regardless of how they think they "should" feel.
Click to expand...
But what if you're taking pictures of your own kids and the mob descends?

IMO, there are three important points in the discussion in that case.

1. They're my kids
2. It's my camera
3. It's none of their bl**dy business.
 
Myky D said:
So when the government takes photos of us without our permission it's intrusion, but when a stranger on the street does it it's OK?

That sounds like doublethink to me.
Click to expand...

This is a tricky one, but I don't think it requires the mental gymnastics of doublethink to get a meaningful answer. If you believe that the state should intrude into people's lives as little as possible, then the state should not be allowed to hold information about the citizens it serves without their consent. The reason for this is that history teaches us that states have a nasty habit of misusing powers once they are granted; see wheely bins and councils for a nice, if relatively trivial, example. Following the same logic (state non-intrusion), laws that restrict people's behaviour, such as photography in public, should also be kept to a minimum. Laws should be made based on the need for them, rather than based on perceived dangers and political expediency. We're all arguing here about paedophiles taking pictures of kids in public, but how much evidence is there that they actually do this? How many convicted paedophiles actually had collections of pics they'd taken in the way people are describing? (Genuine question). In other words, does history tell us that allowing individuals to take pictures poses the same dangers as allowing the state to do so?
 
But I don't buy into the whole "when I were a lad it were acceptable" debate
Click to expand...

Why is it hackneyed or rhetoric? It is fact.

What has changed since, nothing except more widespread reporting and scre mongering.
 
Boney Boy said:
Yes, I think I would question a person (man or woman) specifically taking photos of my kids in an open space where it appeared to me that he/she had no children of their own with them. If it turned out to be the local paper tog doing a shoot for a particular subject then fine. If it was someone just 'testing out their new camera' I have to say (with my dad head on) I wouldn't be happy about my kids being their subject matter.:thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

ok, now think why? Why not go and chat to the tog (ok I probably chat to other people too much :D) but they may have spotted something and have a great shot of your kids. A quick chat and you may end up with a free shot you didn't have before - I've done this for people.

Is this just the internet driven world we live in where we've actually forgotten the skills of conversation?
 
PsiFox said:
Why is it hackneyed or rhetoric? It is fact.

What has changed since, nothing except more widespread reporting and scre mongering.
Click to expand...

A lot of things have changed since "we were lads".

Y'know - allowing black people to have civil rights, women's sufferage, child-labour being outlawed ...

The world moves on.

"I remember the days when you could leave your front door open."

Would you do that now?
 
I regularly shoot family events run by the local wildlife trust. Only once has a parent asked me not to photograph their children, this case being some sort of religious objection.
I think if parents see you there in some sort of official capacity then they are much more accepting. A badge with the trust logo and my name certainly helps, as does a photo website address where they can view pictures of the event and get copies.
 
Myky D said:
A lot of things have changed since "we were lads".

Y'know - allowing black people to have civil rights, women's sufferage, child-labour being outlawed ...

The world moves on.

"I remember the days when you could leave your front door open."

Would you do that now?
Click to expand...

Where I live people do

I don't but then my German Shepherd would eat you if you came in:)
 
This debate seems to be going round covering the same ground over and over again. I wonder whether it is adding anything of value to the matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top