Mad? I'm ****** Seething!

goldenlight said:
Ouch! I was trying to keep it anonymous as he's obviously suffered a lot and probably just wants to be left alone at the moment. I'm starting to regret starting this thread as it might make him feel worse, but I was (and still am) so sad and angry that he's been driven to give up his hobby.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry about it John. If he's posted about it in his 365 then he's obviously happy for it to be out in the open on the forum - and if you hadn't commented the chances are that somebody else would have.
 
He posted it in his 365 anyway, John, and I'm sure no one will be PM'ing him and upsetting him.... I'm sure you know this isn't a recent thing anyway....

Don't regret starting the thread - if it stops someone else doing the same as Chris it can only be a good thing.
 
I'm also of the mind that if I was taking pics of my kids in the park and someone asked me anything about it and was polite I would be polite back.

If they were abusive I would be abusive back.

I have a great video clip of my youngest trying to poo in his potty foe the first time - of course he missed.

I am so looking forward to playing that at his wedding...

I do agree that we have gone mad in this country due to media hysteria.

Luckily for me at both my kids' school, you signed a form when they started to say it was encouraged for parents & the school to take photos.

Also in their primary school I video'd as many Xmas plays etc as I could. There were loads of other parents doing the same.

Getting back on topic. 6 months ago my youngest's football team was on their annual football tour at Camber Sands (what a ***** hole that is).

Anyway I got in to a discussion with the manager's wife who was a month away from giving birth. She got really irate and loud about how there would NO photos of her baby going on FB as people could hack the account etc.

I politely explained that she best not let the child be in any class photos in a few years as those photos would be scanned and on FB in an instant.

Well she wouldn't have it and I walked away. So I just checked her FB account and guess what her profile pic is - her baby.

I am SO tempted to write a comment and remind her of our "discussion" !!!
 
No Timmy don't tempt me even more when I've a few glasses of vino.

Words can look bad in emails and on FB.

I'll have a chat with her when I see her and see what she says - when I tell her she capitulated so easily.
 
So frustrating, I went to an exhibition in London of a photographer called Sally Mann.
She photographed her kids, and a lot of the time they were nude, this didn't effect her however it caused tons of controversy.
Our group was split between the ones that appreciated the outstanding portraits she'd achieved, to the ones that thought it was sickening and shouldn't be displayed in a gallery.

Her images can be found here: http://www.kochgallery.com/artists/contemporary/Mann/index.html

People should be able to take pictures of their own flesh and blood!
 
SophA said:
People should be able to take pictures of their own flesh and blood!
Click to expand...

They can. The problem is how much some people think other people should be allowed to do.
 
SophA said:
So frustrating, I went to an exhibition in London of a photographer called Sally Mann.
She photographed her kids, and a lot of the time they were nude, this didn't effect her however it caused tons of controversy.
Our group was split between the ones that appreciated the outstanding portraits she'd achieved, to the ones that thought it was sickening and shouldn't be displayed in a gallery.

Her images can be found here: http://www.kochgallery.com/artists/contemporary/Mann/index.html

People should be able to take pictures of their own flesh and blood!
Click to expand...

As said people cant use their brains any more, they fail to realise that as in this case they are seeing something that is completely innocent, it is THEY who are putting the sexual connotation on it, so what is in fact happening is those with the sick minds that see innocent behaviour as sexual behaviour are actually sexualising ALL innocent interaction between adults and children.

Some know the facts, that stranger danger is very rare and that most abuse occurs either within the family/extended family or involves close family friends.

I will end this with a question.

What age group represents the age range of those commiting the most sexual offences against children in both the real world and online?

18-25 yr olds?
26-35 yr olds?
36-50 yr olds?
51-70 yr olds?
 
Last edited:
Sadly, the answer is .... 18-25, so drop those thoughts of old geezers in raincoats.
 
iancandler said:
I will end this with a question.

What age group represents the age range of those commiting the most sexual offences against children in both the real world and online?

18-25 yr olds?
26-35 yr olds?
36-50 yr olds?
51-70 yr olds?
Click to expand...

It's an unhelpful question. It presents a picture of young people being the most dangerous in relation to sex offending which simply isnt the case. It also lumps all sex offences into one level of seriousness, which also isnt the case. Young people in the main tend to commit offences at the lesser end of the spectrum of abuse (though clearly not all) and their abuse is more often short periods or one-off incidents. Most young people who sexually offend do not go on to offend as adults.

Making sweeping statements about sexual offences is also a little problematic due to the fact that by it's very nature, sexual abuse is secretive and there are many people who go through life never disclosing their own abuse. People from all walks of life, whether that be race, gender, socio-economic status, age etc abuse.
 
Auwyn said:
It's an unhelpful question. It presents a picture of young people being the most dangerous in relation to sex offending which simply isnt the case. It also lumps all sex offences into one level of seriousness, which also isnt the case. Young people in the main tend to commit offences at the lesser end of the spectrum of abuse (though clearly not all) and their abuse is more often short periods or one-off incidents. Most young people who sexually offend do not go on to offend as adults.
Click to expand...

So, it's okay for one off offences then? especially for young offenders! Why are you (apparently) defending young abusers? and why does the age of offenders make a difference?
 
Splog said:
So, it's okay for one off offences then? especially for young offenders! Why are you (apparently) defending young abusers? and why does the age of offenders make a difference?
Click to expand...

Not sure where you got any of that from my post.

The question Ian asked what about the age of the people who commit the majority of sex offences. I was simply pointing out that the information that statistic is based upon is flawed, both in terms of gathering the information and in what it means.

In terms of the impact on the victim, yes it makes a huge difference whether an abusive incident was a one-off or frequent and sustained over a lengthy period. Does it make the one-off incident right? Of course not. But it is very different from heavy end abuse for a number of years.

And quite simply, I don't defend young abusers. I do my utmost to stop abuse and hold the offenders to task, regardless of their age.

It is, however, as unhelpful to be painting perpetrators of abuse as 18-25 as it is to be saying it is 30+ year old men with cameras.

I think I should shut up now anyway.
 
Auwyn said:
Not sure where you got any of that from my post.

The question Ian asked what about the age of the people who commit the majority of sex offences. I was simply pointing out that the information that statistic is based upon is flawed, both in terms of gathering the information and in what it means.

In terms of the impact on the victim, yes it makes a huge difference whether an abusive incident was a one-off or frequent and sustained over a lengthy period. Does it make the one-off incident right? Of course not. But it is very different from heavy end abuse for a number of years.

And quite simply, I don't defend young abusers. I do my utmost to stop abuse and hold the offenders to task, regardless of their age.

It is, however, as unhelpful to be painting perpetrators of abuse as 18-25 as it is to be saying it is 30+ year old men with cameras.

I think I should shut up now anyway.
Click to expand...

Young people in the main tend to commit offences at the lesser end of the spectrum of abuse (though clearly not all) and their abuse is more often short periods or one-off incidents
Click to expand...

Emma, sounds to me like the above is defending young offenders! ... Why does age come into the offence? .... I find the above quote very misleading and wrong! If you are going to make such a statement then you should quantify it against other statistics of age related offences! .... Sorry but age is totally irrelevant to an offence :shrug:
 
Splog said:
Emma, sounds to me like the above is defending young offenders!
Click to expand...

Not to me it doesnt.

Why does age come into the offence? ....
Click to expand...

Because Ian asked:
What age group represents the age range of those commiting the most sexual offences against children in both the real world and online?

18-25 yr olds?
26-35 yr olds?
36-50 yr olds?
51-70 yr olds?
Click to expand...

I find the above quote very misleading and wrong!
Click to expand...

Which part do you find wrong, exactly? And based on what?

If you are going to make such a statement then you should quantify it against other statistics of age related offences! .... Sorry but age is totally irrelevant to an offence :shrug:
Click to expand...

You kind of contradicted yourself there. As part of my work I am trained to undertake risk assessments of young people who sexually offend. I have also been trained by CEOP to undertake risk assessments of adults who sexually offend. What I have learned from my work and training is that pigeonholing any particular group into being the people to look out for in relation to sex offending is mildly unhelpful, to say the least. It is as misleading to say that 18-25 year-olds are the people to look out for as it is to say it's dirty old men in flasher macs. That's the point I was making.
 
SophA said:
So frustrating, I went to an exhibition in London of a photographer called Sally Mann.
She photographed her kids, and a lot of the time they were nude, this didn't effect her however it caused tons of controversy.
Our group was split between the ones that appreciated the outstanding portraits she'd achieved, to the ones that thought it was sickening and shouldn't be displayed in a gallery.

Her images can be found here: http://www.kochgallery.com/artists/contemporary/Mann/index.html

People should be able to take pictures of their own flesh and blood!
Click to expand...
I've seen her book, there was a lot of controversy about it when it was first published. I'm not sure which Act specifically targets illegal images, I know that the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 has a section about it and specifically talks about images being part of a narrative, even if the image on it's own were pornographic, if taken as a whole it may not be considered such.
 
I'm just back from the US, Las Vegas to be precise. Known for it's stupid law suits, but much more liberal, indoors I was able to gamble, drink and smoke in the same seat if I so wished. This country is so stuck up it's own bum it's no wonder there's so many folk suffering depression. We're incarcerated within our own borders.
 
Coldeh said:
I've seen her book, there was a lot of controversy about it when it was first published. I'm not sure which Act specifically targets illegal images, I know that the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 has a section about it and specifically talks about images being part of a narrative, even if the image on it's own were pornographic, if taken as a whole it may not be considered such.
Click to expand...


Covered by:

Obscene Publications Act 1964

and

Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
 
Thw world is bonkers

Read this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/7063564.stm

Here is the image they are talking about: *** NSFW *** http://www.thefileroom.org/documents/dyn/DisplayCase.cfm/id/1310 (dont click this until you read the article above, it contains an image of a naked child leaving nothing to the imagination

here is an alternate view: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article2557637.ece

Forgetting the "is it art" question - In my opinion, If I took this to boots to get processed, I ought to be arrested and charged
 
Last edited:
for what, taking pictures of your kids playing. ooo I'll have to delete all those images of my kids in the bath and what about the ones of me in the bath with them thats just asking for trouble. Lets not forget about the ones of them on the potty thats just sick.


Richard King said:
Forgetting the "is it art" question - In my opinion, If I took this to boots to get processed, I ought to be arrested and charged
Click to expand...
 
Richard King said:
Thw world is bonkers

Read this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/7063564.stm

Here is the image they are talking about: *** NSFW *** http://www.thefileroom.org/documents/dyn/DisplayCase.cfm/id/1310 (dont click this until you read the article above, it contains an image of a naked child leaving nothing to the imagination

here is an alternate view: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article2557637.ece

Forgetting the "is it art" question - In my opinion, If I took this to boots to get processed, I ought to be arrested and charged
Click to expand...
Art or not, that is not a photo i would have taken. I have to say, if the child on the floor was dressed the shot to me is not worthy of putting in a gallery or even posting on here for crit, it's a candid. i know nothing of the artist in question but think they use shock value to gain......attention.
 
POAH said:
for what, taking pictures of your kids playing. ooo I'll have to delete all those images of my kids in the bath and what about the ones of me in the bath with them thats just asking for trouble. Lets not forget about the ones of them on the potty thats just sick.
Click to expand...

to be fair to Richard, there is a subjective line between art and indecent and for many, many people thos photos will certainly be pushing the definition
 
What I would like to see from this thread is for Auwyn/Emma to go to her 'Employers' and show her the facts that indeed 99% of people are fed up with the minority having the upper hand and ask some of these questions below so we can get feedback.

Why do her employers never stand up for the wrongly accused.

Why do they never push for accusers anonymity until proven guilty

Why, just cause I have a big 'un am I deemed to be up to no good (camera lens).

Why are peoples accusations and their backgrounds never scrutinised to the same extent as the accused.

Why does her employer fail to support the majority.


I have read most of the thread and I get the impression that you are a social worker of some description, I hope I have that correct, ignore if wrong.

I am not defending offenders, I am trying to stand up for the innocent.
 
boyfalldown said:
to be fair to Richard, there is a subjective line between art and indecent and for many, many people thos photos will certainly be pushing the definition
Click to expand...


:eek: what kind of sick people are you talking about :cuckoo:


although the pictures of my kids is not art, they are record shots of them growing up. I'd not choose to share them with strangers on the internet.
 
POAH said:
:eek: what kind of sick people are you talking about :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

well evidently the gallery owners in that case, from his posts, I assume Richard, and having seen thise photos I think they're pushing the boundary quite alot. I imagine there are alot of other people think that too. But its my opinion, I'm perfectly entitled too it. I realise yours is probably different.

edit just to be clear, I certainly am and I think Richard was only refering to the Nan Goldin photos in the BBC article referenced, not someones kids in the bath
 
Last edited:
right crossed lines there.

Its a bit odd for someone not a parent to take that kind of shot

Art its not but its not indecent either like the CPS said.

boyfalldown said:
edit just to be clear, I certainly am and I think Richard was only refering to the Nan Goldin photos in the BBC article referenced, not someones kids in the bath
Click to expand...
 
SophA said:
So frustrating, I went to an exhibition in London of a photographer called Sally Mann.
She photographed her kids, and a lot of the time they were nude, this didn't effect her however it caused tons of controversy.
Our group was split between the ones that appreciated the outstanding portraits she'd achieved, to the ones that thought it was sickening and shouldn't be displayed in a gallery.

Her images can be found here: http://www.kochgallery.com/artists/contemporary/Mann/index.html

People should be able to take pictures of their own flesh and blood!
Click to expand...

Anyone who finds a photograph of a nude child sick has a problem themselves. Most of us wouldn't even think of such a photograph in a sexual context.

Of course, if the photgraph itself deliberately depicts the child in a sexual way then that is a very different matter.
 
hmmm, can't see what the child being naked adds to the picture - as opposed to the shock factor, mentioned above.........

Also cannot see why anyone would want to take such a picture - again mentioned above - it's not a great photo, compositionally or technically. - its a snapshot candid pic..........

I can only assume the photographer was intending to shock and cause controversy - which s/he has clearly done. Personally I am not offended by it, but don't other than "Lowry", I tend to not "get" art............
 
Richard King said:
Thw world is bonkers

Read this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/7063564.stm

Here is the image they are talking about: *** NSFW *** http://www.thefileroom.org/documents/dyn/DisplayCase.cfm/id/1310 (dont click this until you read the article above, it contains an image of a naked child leaving nothing to the imagination

here is an alternate view: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article2557637.ece

Forgetting the "is it art" question - In my opinion, If I took this to boots to get processed, I ought to be arrested and charged
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting this, Richard, it is very thought provoking. I agree with everything said in the Times comment and think it is a very sad reflection on our society.

Regarding the picture by Nan Goldin, it's simply horrible. If not indecent it is certainly tastless, the sort of picture you might take by accident during a sequence and promptly delete when reviewing. It's full of basic photographic errors, too and I cannot think of one thing to commend it.

I've taken time to look at some more of Goldin's work and cannot see why she is so highly rated. I can only imagine it is for the provocative and shock tactics employed in her work. I've noticed that photographers of little talent tend to style themselves as artists. If my own work was this bad I would give up and take up gardening instead. I can only assume the reason for her success is related to the 'Emperor's Clothes' story. Remove the cloak of sensationalized and gratuitous nudity from her work and it will stand naked for what it really is - a sham.

It annoys me that people like Goldin can bring photography into disrepute and not only get away with it but positively thrive on it, whilst photographers of real talent like Chillimonster can be driven to give it up.
 
Richard King said:
Thw world is bonkers

Read this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/7063564.stm

Here is the image they are talking about: *** NSFW *** http://www.thefileroom.org/documents/dyn/DisplayCase.cfm/id/1310 (dont click this until you read the article above, it contains an image of a naked child leaving nothing to the imagination

here is an alternate view: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article2557637.ece
Click to expand...

That's a very interesting read and I suppose I can agree with both sides.
 
You kind of contradicted yourself there. As part of my work I am trained to undertake risk assessments of young people who sexually offend. I have also been trained by CEOP to undertake risk assessments of adults who sexually offend. What I have learned from my work and training is that pigeonholing any particular group into being the people to look out for in relation to sex offending is mildly unhelpful, to say the least. It is as misleading to say that 18-25 year-olds are the people to look out for as it is to say it's dirty old men in flasher macs. That's the point I was making.
Click to expand...

I agree completely with you Emma, the point in my posing that question was to highlight/challenge the media and public stereotype that is often the root cause of innocent togs being challenged in the first place.
The simple fact is if you put a fresh faced 18 yr old, or a female in a park with a camera and also put a 40 yr old man with a camera I know which one will get challenged 1st and which one will probably not be challenged at all, this is a direct result of media hysteria and miss information.
As someone who has had training in this field you will know the facts and where the greatest risk's lie and I defer to your better knowledge of the subject than myself.
 
This sort of accusation is horrific and should never happen! I think the worse thing is the way others jump on the bandwagon knowing nothing about the situation,
However i am not sure were i fall on the situation someone spoke about earlier on the thread were someone asked there child if they new this man (referring to them, the dad), it may have been slightly upsetting/frustrating at the time and unfair that it was aimed at you because you had a camera, BUT had your child been taken and someone was doing this would you not be glad that the women took the time to ask your kid if they new the man they were with ?? (not sure on my feelings on this so i am playing devils advocate with myself abit here)

there was also once a librarian at my school, he was into cameras and seemed like a nice guy (if not a bit odd) no one ever questioned him, he always took pictures of us, we didn't think anything of it. When the police raided his house they found excessive amounts of child porn on his computer... I never really made a connection but one of my friends did, he had spent alot of time with her and taken pictures of her too, the news upset her so much she had to take time of school.
I put this in to to make people think of it when people don't ask about "questionable" actions.

I suppose we just need to find the right balance .
 
Last edited:
Llama said:
This sort of accusation is horrific and should never happen! I think the worse thing is the way others jump on the bandwagon knowing nothing about the situation,
However i am not sure were i fall on the situation someone spoke about earlier on the thread were someone asked there child if they new this man (referring to them, the dad), it may have been slightly upsetting/frustrating at the time and unfair that it was aimed at you because you had a camera, BUT had your child been taken and someone was doing this would you not be glad that the women took the time to ask your kid if they new the man they were with ?? (not sure on my feelings on this so i am playing devils advocate with myself abit here)

there was also once a librarian at my school, he was into cameras and seemed like a nice guy (if not a bit odd) no one ever questioned him, he always took pictures of us, we didn't think anything of it. When the police raided his house they found excessive amounts of child porn on his computer... I never really made a connection but one of my friends did, he had spent alot of time with her and taken pictures of her too, the news upset her so much she had to take time of school.
I put this in to to make people think of it when people don't ask about "questionable" actions.

I suppose we just need to find the right balance .
Click to expand...

Hi Jack, that was me. It's not so much that I minded her intervention as the fact that I was singled out because I was using a camera. Why not the man handing his "daughter" an ice cream or the man talking to "his" little boy? Surely they were potentially just as suspicious? Of course I would be glad if someone intervened when my daughter was being accosted, but I'd also be glad if they intervened while she was being bribed with an ice cream by a stranger or promised a bag of sweets if she got in his car. Potentially either of those scenarios could be far more serious than some saddo grabbing a few quick pictures for indecent (?? she was fully clothed) purposes. Clearly, it's the camera that was really under suspicion and I find that very disturbing and unhealthy - next of all people will be claiming it steals their soul!

Clearly, certain people do abuse cameras and photography, using them for immoral and illegal purposes. But they also abuse ice creams, bags of sweets, their cars, hairbands bearing the child's name and many other things. We stopped our daughter wearing a hairband with her name when she was much younger and addressed by name by a complete stranger - the potential risks became very apparent.
 
yea i sort of realised what you meant after i postedc but was interetsted by the responses so i left it up there, i think my point is, is that we can get to uptight about it and worry everything to do with children reltes to pedphila but we also must be wary of it.

thank you for your response, its an intersting thread :)
 
Was at a Christening here in Germany yesterday: accidentally photographed several children that were nothing at all to do with 'our' party and was met with smiles and nods from all the parents concerned. No animosity or suspicion at all...

Handed out half a dozen business cards for 'proper' portraits to be arranged.

And people ask me if I'm planning to move back to UK? Nope...not even for a laugh...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top