Pensioners reprimanded for taking photos of a deserted paddling pool.....

mattyh said:
No... but that part appears to have been glossed over.
Click to expand...

After seeing the two old dears on TV this morning it does seem that there were notices saying that photographing the pool area was prohibited. However the local council did confirm that it was "for the sake of the children, and discretion should be shown".

Now, the fact that the pool was empty at the time shows that there was very little discretion at all.

I still can't get my head round this "all children are off limits" thing... Children make some of the greatest expressions and so can be very photogenic.

PC in overdrive again.......
 
This looks to be a public park and so there are no laws to prevent the taking of photographs at any time. People should be more aware of their rights, as under English law there are no restrictions on taking photos in a public place or on the photography of individuals no mater what age.

Stand up for your rights and tell the jobs worth where to go.
 
"There was a man in the distance with 2 boys"

And if he was a pervo absconding with them? No photo evidence.

I trust the CCTV cameras were turned off until after 6 o'clock. :naughty:
 
I can understand, to a degree, why you might want to discourage photography at a swimming pool where there are children............but surely, legally, they can't stop you.....? Can they?
 
when I was a little girl, my Mum took a photo of me, my sister and my Dad eating an ice cream by the side of that same paddling pool, it is such a precious family photo....all these memories are going to disappear if this over-reactive nonsense continues :shrug:
 
The gov. are getting more involved:

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=805883

What's the betting that it results in restrictions or some kind of licencing scheme?

edit to add:

From the recent House of Lords discussion that prompted the article above:

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, are there not two sides to this? I support absolutely the freedom of the press to go about their business, but does not that freedom carry a certain responsibility? One sees regularly on television the atrocious behaviour of some paparazzi. I hope that the guidelines will be aimed also at the behaviour of photographers.

That last line worries me :(
 
One of my favourite books and one which influenced me greatly to take up photography is called "24 hours in the life of a city" and was shot literally in 24 hours by a team of pro togs in Glasgow in (i think) 1980. It's a snapshot of life in the city on that day.

Some of the best pics are of kids, playing in the street and on council estates, covered in muck, front teeth missing and having a whale of a time. Kids playing in a fountain of water after letting a fire hydrant off.

The really insidious problem that I have with all this is that so many of us who would normally be taking those treasured family pics, can't manage to do so in a lot of public places, either through fear of the reaction that poor chap got last week or being confronted by the authorities.

It seems like you are either a paedophile or a terrorist if you dare take a DSLR out in public these days. Yet sales of DSLR's are rising, so something has to give.

The simple truth is that 99.2% of the population are having their activities restricted rather than deal adequately with the 0.8% that has a problem.
 
this country is going to the dogs. its political correctness gone mad TM (c)

(this is going to me by new cut+paste standard response to these sensationalist DM threads that seem to come up every 2 days. I've had the phrase trade marked and copy righted, so no one else is allowed to use it apart from my good self)
 
As long as you don't use copy and paste in a public paste you'll be fine :lol:
 
AliB said:
The simple truth is that 99.2% of the population are having their activities restricted rather than deal adequately with the 0.8% that has a problem.
Click to expand...
Nail. Head. Hit.

It's the easy way to "prove" they are taking the problem seriously; make new rules/laws instead of using exsiting ones to tackle the real problem.

Just like increasing alcohol duty to stop binge drinking. Doesn't make a blind bit of difference, but the overwhelming majority of the population who can drink alcohol responsibly end up poorer.

badgerbaiter said:
copying is fine, but i'm quite sure pasting in public carries a 12 year sentance :)
Click to expand...
PMSL :lol::lol::lol:
 
Several years ago there was a case of someone who took a roll of film to Boots to be processed. Some of the pics were of the person's child in the bath. Boots called the Police in!!!!
 
badgerbaiter said:
its political correctness gone mad TM (c)
Click to expand...

It's not.
Political Correctness is a different thing entirely (it's about not causing offense through ignorance).
"PC gone mad" always boils down to one of two things. It's usually some numpty who doesn't have a clue what PC is about, and so does something stupid in a vain attempt to be more PC (i.e. incompetence) or in something is done to save money but the "it's PC" defense is used to deflect attention from the money (see Christmas lights in towns, for example)

This isn't PC gone mad, it's paranoia.
 
My London Candids include kids playing on the beach - I've posted one of 3 or 4 I took - and yes, I was a little uneasy taking them and yes, I was a bit uneasy posting them but I thought sod it its a natural thing with no bad intentions on my part and an unusual sight of kids playing on the beach along the Thames.

I keep waiting for a knock on the door :(
 
Eau Rouge said:
It's not.
Political Correctness is a different thing entirely (it's about not causing offense through ignorance).
"PC gone mad" always boils down to one of two things. It's usually some numpty who doesn't have a clue what PC is about, and so does something stupid in a vain attempt to be more PC (i.e. incompetence) or in something is done to save money but the "it's PC" defense is used to deflect attention from the money (see Christmas lights in towns, for example)

This isn't PC gone mad, it's paranoia.
Click to expand...

so now you understand the whole point in my post

it was meant ironically, and i'm so used to hearing those two phrases that i trademarked them so no one can use them and i dont have to hear that rubbish in every one of these daily mail threads
 
Here we go again :(

I think toggers need to be a bit more resilient and aware of their rights.

Photography in public, whether of children or anyone else, isn't against the law.

A condition of entry to a privately-owned place to which the public are implicitly permitted access, e.g. a shop or park, *might* be that photography is prohibited. In which case, you might get asked to leave if you start taking pictures. (Try taking a few snaps in your local bank to see what I mean!) However it still isn't against the law.

If the police (i.e. a constable, not a PCSO) get involved, just about the worst thing that can happen (assuming you're just taking pictures and not actively making a nuisance of yourself) is that they can stop and search you under S44 Prevention of Terrorism Act. Assuming all is kosher, this is likely to take 30 seconds or so. They'll take your details and let you go on your way.

If you're hassled in the street by private security guards or PCSOs who clearly don't know the law, my advice is to stand your ground - you're not breaking the law. If more people did this, we might do something to dispel some of the prejudice against photographers.

A.
 
Wouldn't it just be safer if we banned children from going outside ?

Towns would be cleaner
Open spaces would be quieter
Less windows would get smashed
Road casualties would drop

and all the paedophiles would move abroad.





;)
 
mrgubby said:
Wouldn't it just be safer if we banned children from going outside ?

Towns would be cleaner
Open spaces would be quieter
Less windows would get smashed
Road casualties would drop

and all the paedophiles would move abroad.
Click to expand...

I like your style :D
 
Good job it wasnt two blokes otherwise they would have been in a cell without question
 
I was in Boscastle on Wednesday, they were having a bit of a charity shindig, I was shooting b/w film with a standard lens.
I was with some old granny's and my OH, walked down through the village and shot a few frames then followed the stream right to the mouth of the harbour, and took the last frame on the roll.
Walking back about half way appeared a bloke and three kids maybe 4 or 5 years old, he sat on the jetty and sent the kids to play in the stream.
What was strange to me was the fact the kids didn't have a stitch on, there were a lot of people about and it was clear the kids nudity wasn't a private event, y'know, like something that would happen in a small village when all the tourists weren't around.
Well...the old biddy's I was with were completely made up, "aww isn't that lovely" "how it should be" "when we were kids blah blah" "natural"
I'm thinking, y'know what they're probably right, but the stigma attached to this kind of thing by a few sicko's make scenes like this that used to be common place, completely off the paranoia scale.
Granny's just don't understand it, it's a sign of the times that they just aren't part of any more.
I've never been so gutted about running out of film before in my life, you can keep your stop action surfers, and you're beautiful Cornish scenics, that was a never to be repeated fabulous scene, of how things used to be.
I should add, I would have asked permission ofcourse, I mean, I'm not oblivious to the implications, and thinking about it now I would have felt un-easy doing it, but it seemed like a duty I failed to complete...:shrug:
Anyway, I was outta film, so it doesn't matter...
 
Seems strange that as most children are abused by either a family member or a close family friend, they have the least restrictions. If a happy smiling parent had been videoing their kids splashing in the pool I'm sure there would have been no problem.

Its a fear driven society and it sucks ass.
 
....and lets face it, paedophiles are such an extreme minority the chances of a child being abused by a paedophile who is not a relation or close family friend is almost 0. The media sensationalism would have you believe that just letting your child outside the house is a risk which is bound to end in misery... What a load of tosh....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top