Photographer = candidate for Sex Offenders Register?!

gumbo-67 said:
every time i heaar of something like this happening I want to scream and shout, I read today of a guy accused of being a p**** which was proved not to be the case the girls admitted to police they lied he is now dead.

some people do not know what they are talking about and that is the worst of it.

by the way did you answer her??
Click to expand...

He died due to the stress of the accusation, I think these girls should now be prosecuted for manslaughter.
 
I was shooting a sports day during the summer. The guy doing the announcements told those present that they were being taken and that if anyone objected, they ought to withdraw their child from the races. I still had one woman, backed up by her husband and her freind, ask if I could delete the pictures I had taken that had her child in. I refused, the venue had public access and others were takking photo's with point and shoot camera's. She got rather verbose about it and told me that I had no right and that what I was doing was illegal "I'm a teacher, I know the law" was the classic line. The organiser came over to try and calm things just as the husband offered to upend me if I didn't delete the images. At that stage I phoned the Police.

The upshot was that the husband got a caution for threatening behaviour and the organiser paid my day rate but asked that all the pictures be deleted.

The world has gone mad.
 
Gordon Scott said:
Bit of an idealistic thread this one... if you were too get funny with the irate parent then you would be likely to get decked. They might be wrong and be being pathetic, but parents will do what they think is right to protect their kids. What a stupidly distorted world we live in because of a small minority of perverts and a press that loves to promote extremes.
Click to expand...

I was just a guy wandering around looking for some nice light and a decent scene. Wasn't the slightess bit interested in the football match.

I'm still baffled by what this person though tthey were "protecting" their kid against, as I was 200 yards away, shooting trees and cloudscapes and not even in their general direction!

I did ask her nicely if she would mind getting out my my light as she was casting a shadow, and please be more polite and less shrill.

When that didn't work I told her to **** off and mind her own business! :D
 
puddleduck said:
I was just a guy wandering around looking for some nice light and a decent scene. Wasn't the slightess bit interested in the football match.

I'm still baffled by what this person though tthey were "protecting" their kid against, as I was 200 yards away, shooting trees and cloudscapes and not even in their general direction!

I did ask her nicely if she would mind getting out my my light as she was casting a shadow, and please be more polite and less shrill.

When that didn't work I told her to **** off and mind her own business! :D
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me... it's hard to judge the situation from a discussion thread. I think it's sad that they should have it in their minds to come up to you in the first place and may well have done the same as you did. Not worth a physical fight though... even though you were in the right.
 
It is this sort of overreaction by some of the public, that puts me off street photography. I have a teenage daughter and would probably describe myself as the overprotective father, however I would not object to anyone inocently using a camera near to her presence. Unfortunately photographers seem to be an easy target at the moment, between this and getting challenged by police in London streets and elsewhere.
 
I have met paedophiles, lots of them, my work in the criminal justice system brought me in to contact with individuals who had done some appalling things.
In almost every case the children were a close relative or known well by the assailant, I came across no cases of ‘stranger attack’ although I know this happens.

A few years ago I was photographing the wheel in Manchester, when I was approached by a woman who asked me “did you take a photograph of the girl over there “ I replied’ no’ but she stated that she was a social worker’ and she thought I had.

I considered a thoughtful and cognisant reply, but decided the repost of “ look cloth ears I have answered your question now F…. off” to be more appropriate.
 
Ambermile said:
... but in the current climate perhaps understandable?

However, maybe pointing out it is not up to the general public to do such things would not have been a good idea!


Arthur
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it is understandable. It's a case of people believing what's on the news and what they read in the papers instead of using that lump of gray matter in their skulls.
 
I think in actuality, they are taking their children into a Public area - it is not your place to explain to them what the word "public" means, it is theirs to know what it means before they start shouting. Organised events are another matter though and are covered, I think, by different rules depending on entrance fees or not and so on. Whatever, clearly in this case the parents were in the wrong. Big time.

KayJay said:
I'm not sure it is understandable. It's a case of people believing what's on the news and what they read in the papers instead of using that lump of gray matter in their skulls.
Click to expand...

... or not reading the thread properly?

Arthur
 
It seems that my opinion in my previous post that generally, abuse is by family members or friends, and not by people in the street with cameras, is supported by some of the recent comments.

To carry on with the slight off thread comments, I have had two experiences, one was at a school nativity play when I went to see my grandchildren aged 4 and 5. Before the play started, we were told that we could take photographs but to be considerate to other people and not to block their view. At the end, all the children were gathered in a group on stage and we were invited by the headmaster to come down to take pictures if we wanted to. Naturally I did together with many other people.

However, just over 3 years ago, my son and his wife took their 2 lads to a swimming pool. My son was using a point and shoot to take some pool side pictures of his wife and children in the water, there were no other children or people any where near them and certainly not in shot. An attendant came up to him and vociferously ordered him to leave the premises saying he had no right to take pictures of children even though they were his children and they were posing for him. He was escorted off the premises in front of everyone else in there. There was no notice on the site to indicate that photography was not allowed.
Sadly my son is no longer with us due to cancer, but for a long time after this event he was extremely upset by this treatment and the massive embarrassment that was caused, he even felt he had to explain to me that he was doing nothing wrong, all he wanted was some pictures for his family album.
Has the world gone mad, I think so!
 
Ambermile said:
I think in actuality, they are taking their children into a Public area - it is not your place to explain to them what the word "public" means, it is theirs to know what it means before they start shouting. Organised events are another matter though and are covered, I think, by different rules depending on entrance fees or not and so on. Whatever, clearly in this case the parents were in the wrong. Big time.



... or not reading the thread properly?

Arthur
Click to expand...

Maybe. :dummy:

Sorry, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
 
Puddleduck Think of the positives, at least it was not the police trying to arrest you for being a terrorist.
 
KayJay said:
Maybe. :dummy:

Sorry, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
Click to expand...

My point in the comment you replied to was clearly not what you thought it was, as explained later in the thread - but by quoting me and making your point you are making it appear that I hold a contrary view.

Arthur
 
Oh God - not you as well? Maybe I should go back and add a pointer to make sure everyone reads the whole damned thread first before making this same comment. Again.

Arthur
 
Peter10d said:
I have a teenage daughter and would probably describe myself as the overprotective father, however I would not object to anyone inocently using a camera near to her presence.
Click to expand...

I have a twelve year old daughter and I can't think of a single reason why I would object to anyone taking a picture which included her either incidentally or as the subject if she was out in public.


Steve.
 
Ambermile said:
Oh God - not you as well? Maybe I should go back and add a pointer to make sure everyone reads the whole damned thread first before making this same comment. Again./QUOTE]

As I don't have a clue to the point you are trying to make then yes, perhaps you should.


Steve.
Click to expand...
 
This is really quite pathetic, It wouldnt of been so bad if she came over and asked to make sure you wansnt taking pics of the kids. But to straight away assume you are is wrong. You only have to be seen "looking" at a child to be called a p***. And this is one of them things that it only takes a second to be classed something your not. And it can take a lifetime to be forgotten. You can understand her being protective of her children. But i think she just badly over reacted. Hope this didnt put you off togging!.. I get abit nervous just being watched with my cam. Let alone being accused of that.

Gav
 
Steve Smith said:
As I don't have a clue to the point you are trying to make then yes, perhaps you should.


Steve.
Click to expand...

His point is that he has already answered your question earlier in the thread, if you'd read it then you'd already know that.
 
I think the answer to stupid parents is to say that you're not the slightest bit interested in their kids but would they move out of the shot you are taking of the CCTV system for your mate Osama. You might like to advise them if they want to keep their offspring safe they would be best keeping them indoors for the next few months as Osama has just bought a large van and a couple of tons of fertalizer ;)

Well, if it's not one stereotype it's the other :shake:

You could of course state some bogus stat like their child is 37 times more at risk of being at risk of paedophiles at school and 105 times more at risk in their own home than they are on the street. I say bogus but it's probably quite close to the truth.
 
Ambermile said:
My point in the comment you replied to was clearly not what you thought it was, as explained later in the thread - but by quoting me and making your point you are making it appear that I hold a contrary view.

Arthur
Click to expand...

Uh huh? So how is that my problem? Maybe you should namake your thoughts clearer instead of suggesting others read the thread properly.
 
You could of course state some bogus stat like their child is 37 times more at risk of being at risk of paedophiles at school and 105 times more at risk in their own home than they are on the street. I say bogus but it's probably quite close to the truth.[/QUOTE said:
:plusone:

If they spent more time concentrating on watching thier kids then there wouldnt be a probleme.
Click to expand...
 
Ambermile said:
Oh God - not you as well? Maybe I should go back and add a pointer to make sure everyone reads the whole damned thread first before making this same comment. Again.

Arthur
Click to expand...


Guys,

People seem to be getting annoyed at Ambermile for his 'current climate' statement - in his defence, he did clarify what he meant in post 12...

We get enough trouble as photographers sometimes without sniping at each other on here!
 
Why not just update the original post? If it's a thread of 30 pages can you imagine how much worse it would have been? I'm not sniping, but for some reason Arthur thinks I'm having a go at him which took me by surprise, so I got defensive.
 
SimonTALM said:
What the one the Daily Fail decided was in bad taste and got 1/2 the british public to complain about desipte only 1 in 4000 actually watching it??
Click to expand...

Probably :D Just watching it now on Google videos, it's hilarious! The first 2 minutes are actually quite relevant.

Gary Linekar, sat holding a photograph of a hill side.. and asks if it is just a picture of a hill side. He answers, 'no, if we look closer there is a child in the picture' (about the size of your thumbnail!). He continues, 'if you show this to a paedophile, he will attack you to try and get the picture' :lol:
 
dlh said:
No photography allowed because it distracts the performers and annoys the viewers (apparently). You can take a picture of your own child at the end though on their own. Strangely enough the Christmas school plays have an official videographer and go on sale for 20 quid a time. Needless to say my daughter will grow up with no pictures from her school activities.
Click to expand...

I feel so sorry of parents of young kids today who will not have the photographic memories I have of my kids growing up both at home and at school,for ***** sake I once shot a nativity play on a Bronica SQB,with a camera that size today I would be regarded as the arch Pervert of the UK
 
Holden Caulfield said:
I have met paedophiles, lots of them, my work in the criminal justice system brought me in to contact with individuals who had done some appalling things.
In almost every case the children were a close relative or known well by the assailant, I came across no cases of ‘stranger attack’ although I know this happens.

A few years ago I was photographing the wheel in Manchester, when I was approached by a woman who asked me “did you take a photograph of the girl over there “ I replied’ no’ but she stated that she was a social worker’ and she thought I had.

I considered a thoughtful and cognisant reply, but decided the repost of “ look cloth ears I have answered your question now F…. off” to be more appropriate.
Click to expand...



I do like a subtle and measured response.
 
KayJay said:
Why not just update the original post? If it's a thread of 30 pages can you imagine how much worse it would have been? I'm not sniping, but for some reason Arthur thinks I'm having a go at him which took me by surprise, so I got defensive.
Click to expand...


You wanna jump in a discussion half way without knowing what you are talking about and then complain when it is pointed out you missed something?

Man, you need to get your reality back.

Please look here:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=2136232&postcount=12

and also note that for those that cannot bear to read a discussion through so they don't look silly by re-stating points already made, I have added a link in my original post too.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=2136137&postcount=2

I guess that's me out of here then - I was having fun too :(

Arthur
 
cyclone said:
His point is that he has already answered your question earlier in the thread, if you'd read it then you'd already know that.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I do tend to reply to posts before reading the rest of the thread but if I said something which is the same as someone elses post then that just backs up the feeling or reasoning for the point being made.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Fair enough. I do tend to reply to posts before reading the rest of the thread but if I said something which is the same as someone elses post then that just backs up the feeling or reasoning for the point being made.


Steve.
Click to expand...

So if you had read the whole thread, you'd still have asked the same question again?
Surely if you wanted to back somebody up you'd just quote and agree? And thank the other person for answering.

Anyway, a little less off topic.
I'm off to some sort of Christmas event today, hopefully I'll be taking photo's of my nephew and the rest of my family, maybe some stalls and stall owners.
Wish me luck :D
 
I had a similar experience last year, I was working on a project, a typology of water towers in Norfolk. This particular instance was a large tower surrounded open grass land which had a large playing area to the left, due to the size of it I was some distance away. I had my camera set up for portrait shots of the tower which just about fit into the frame, just how I wanted it. Took about 10 photographs and was about to leave when I heared a boy shouting in the distance, he was on his bike riding towards me.

He said that they had seen me photographing them and that one of the others had gone to fetch thier parents.

I immediately felt panicked! I knew I had done nothing wrong, and to make things worse I said what I was doing and that he could look at the pictures on my camera, he looked at me as if I was using it to get him to come closer. Now I felt really uncomfortable.

I had finished my shoot but waited there anyway but I was not going until this parent arrived as I was not going to make myself look guilty. They never turned up and the boy rode off, I waited a little longer and took ages to pack my stuff up then strolled off to my car to make the point that I was not running off.

I had to reshoot about a fortnight later, I went there with the thought of what happened before, but walked to my location. I knew I had nothing to be ashamed of or feel guilty about and that I had every right to be there, if anyone had a problem then they could come and see me. Nobody did!
 
Blundred77 said:
I had a similar experience last year, I was working on a project, a typology of water towers in Norfolk. This particular instance was a large tower surrounded open grass land which had a large playing area to the left, due to the size of it I was some distance away. I had my camera set up for portrait shots of the tower which just about fit into the frame, just how I wanted it. Took about 10 photographs and was about to leave when I heared a boy shouting in the distance, he was on his bike riding towards me.

He said that they had seen me photographing them and that one of the others had gone to fetch thier parents.

I immediately felt panicked! I knew I had done nothing wrong, and to make things worse I said what I was doing and that he could look at the pictures on my camera, he looked at me as if I was using it to get him to come closer. Now I felt really uncomfortable.

I had finished my shoot but waited there anyway but I was not going until this parent arrived as I was not going to make myself look guilty. They never turned up and the boy rode off, I waited a little longer and took ages to pack my stuff up then strolled off to my car to make the point that I was not running off.

I had to reshoot about a fortnight later, I went there with the thought of what happened before, but walked to my location. I knew I had nothing to be ashamed of or feel guilty about and that I had every right to be there, if anyone had a problem then they could come and see me. Nobody did!
Click to expand...

This sort of thing has never happened to me but I defo get some funny looks strolling round the the beach carrying what looks like a bazooka on a stick. Maybe it's the two snarling muts that usually accompany me.
 
purpleclouds said:
Probably :D Just watching it now on Google videos, it's hilarious! The first 2 minutes are actually quite relevant.

Gary Linekar, sat holding a photograph of a hill side.. and asks if it is just a picture of a hill side. He answers, 'no, if we look closer there is a child in the picture' (about the size of your thumbnail!). He continues, 'if you show this to a paedophile, he will attack you to try and get the picture' :lol:
Click to expand...

I just watched it too - completely agree; hilarious :lol:

I've also found out that unsurprisingly the Daily Fail condemed the programme but failed to spot the double standards of printing close-ups of Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie in their bikinis on the same day (they were 13 and 11 at the time). The Star ironically printed their version of the "isn't it dreadful" story right next to a picture of Charlotte Church in a tight top with the caption 'She's a big girl now ... chest swell!'. Church was 15! :bang:

Source
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top