Photographer Shamed

ConfusedChicca

ConfusedChicca

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,053
Name
Laura
Edit My Images
Yes
http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/6716/tg2in1.jpg

He's a member of a website that I use quite often, and instead of keeping his head down he's been posting photos in the hope they'll get onto the front page (dontstayin.com) and advertising his business.
 
Kinda lost for words with that.
icon_evil.gif
icon_evil.gif
 
its people like this that make honest togs have a hard time with authorities and parents.
 
more sensationalist guff.

took some pics of a 15 year old girl, went to court, got given a punishment.. end of story.
it can only be a matter of time before these newspapers actually tell us to form a mob, light some torches and go house burning.
 
badgerbaiter said:
more sensationalist guff.

took some pics of a 15 year old girl, went to court, got given a punishment.. end of story.
it can only be a matter of time before these newspapers actually tell us to form a mob, light some torches and go house burning.
Click to expand...

Not quite sure i follow you, are you saying what he did wasn't wrong :thinking:
 
tel48 said:
Not quite sure i follow you, are you saying what he did wasn't wrong :thinking:
Click to expand...

It was wrong but without knowing the facts it's a little hard to judge how wrong. Was the girl a willing participant, whose idea was it, etc? The paper has painted a picture of a bloke in a dirty mac hanging around street corners with a bag of sweets but it could be he simply made a mistake. We don't know but the media are going to tell us whichever version they think will sell more fish and chip wrapping.
 
In all fairness, 11 days away from her birthday?
Would the story be different if she was 16?

Now, I'm not saying what he did was right, not at all.
But is this guy a pedophile?
Was he unaware of the girl's age when she (no doubt) asked him to take the photos for her?

I don't think it's fair that they paint such a vivid picture of the stereotypical pedophile when barely anything has been taken into account.
 
Ok, I've found some words now.

Anyone that works with children AND has a photography business would be very well aware of the potential pit falls of not being totally 110% above board.

Even if it was two weeks later, it may be legal to shoot a 16 year old girl topless but would you????
 
He works with Under 18s, that's one of the main issues. He knows that girls dress up to make themselves look older, so asking for I.D. is the bare minimum he should have done.
And the only reason he was found is that his girlfriend at the time (who was allegedly 16) reported him after finding the photos on his computer.

And as has been said, would you take photos of a 16 yr old girl? (the law now states the person has to be at least 18).
 
badgerbaiter said:
more sensationalist guff.

took some pics of a 15 year old girl, went to court, got given a punishment.. end of story.
it can only be a matter of time before these newspapers actually tell us to form a mob, light some torches and go house burning.
Click to expand...

Thats the impression I got from the article too. "ALERT ALERT!! There could be a criminal in your area." It even points out that the media is in a way responsible because he apparently said "It'll be on Page 3" or something. So if he did trick her into it she's dumb for believing that and wanting to be a page 3 model at 15.
 
"If he tricked her into it, she's dumb for believing that and wanting to be a page 3 model at 15"

Are you serious????
If a grown man tricks a 15 yr old girl (who, however mature she feels, is still a child) into getting her boobs out, she's the dumb one, and not the victim?
 
Obviously a very grey area, but very sensationalised.

Didn't a few newpapers run a count down as to when Charlotte Church would be "legal" a few years back.... so I do sense a certain amount of hypocrisy.
 
ConfusedChicca said:
"If he tricked her into it, she's dumb for believing that and wanting to be a page 3 model at 15"

Are you serious????
If a grown man tricks a 15 yr old girl (who, however mature she feels, is still a child) into getting her boobs out, she's the dumb one, and not the victim?
Click to expand...

She's dumb for wanting to be a 15 year old Page 3 model yes. Of course she's a victim but the full story isn't clear. If she did indeed jump at the chance to be in The Sun: p*** edition then yes she's a little silly. Honestly, at 15 if a guy with a camera asked you to get your tits out for Page 3 would you think thats real?
 
I've seen a few threads on photo forums from togs asking for advice after being approached to take glamour/page 3 shots of girls under 18. One was even with the parents blessing. There's at least two sides to every story. Should he have taken the photos, no. Does that make him a crazed pervert who should be hung drawn and quartered? Yes, of course he should because the press could make a mint from the photos :nuts:
 
I'm with Pxl8 et al. He's an ass, and what he did what he was wrong, but it's very difficult to tell *how* wrong without actually knowing what occurred, and that article is hardly well written.

As for whether the fifteen year old was stupid or a victim, well, she could have been either. Alternatively she could have been intelligent and manipulative, girls certainly were when I was fifteen.
 
Exactly. All we know is that theres a p*** in England somewhere. OMGS!
 
even if you take this all as the most innocent you can, the whole area of photographing children really doesn't need any bad press right now.

....and even at that most innocent point, the court was completely correct in stopping this man from being around more children. Youth-work and sleezyness are not good bedfellows.
 
surprised they used the word sleazy. what newspaper was it in?
 
dazzajl said:
....and even at that most innocent point, the court was completely correct in stopping this man from being around more children. Youth-work and sleezyness are not good bedfellows.
Click to expand...

Borrowing the hat of the devil's advocate for a moment...

You're making assumptions based on the spin of the article rather than any facts. For all we know he could be a good, honest christian soldier who had a moment of weakness after being pestered for months by the girl. That's a very different person to the one you imagine when words like pervert and sleazy are chucked around.

If we're assuming he's a dirty raincoat wearing perv then I think it's fairly safe to assume the 15yo girl was old enough and wise enough to know exactly what she was doing, and dare I go so far as to say, was a willing participant rather than a victim of a horrible and violent crime.

And if we're pre-judging then based on the behaviour of some of the 15yo girls that hang around on the streets drinking and smoking in my area it's the bloke whose safety was in question.
 
Oooh TABLOID ALERT!!!

You got to love the delicious irony of those hacks calling people 'Evil Perverts'
 
foodpoison said:
In all fairness, 11 days away from her birthday?
Would the story be different if she was 16?

Now, I'm not saying what he did was right, not at all.
But is this guy a pedophile?
Was he unaware of the girl's age when she (no doubt) asked him to take the photos for her?

I don't think it's fair that they paint such a vivid picture of the stereotypical pedophile when barely anything has been taken into account.
Click to expand...

Just about what I was thinking.
I've met a 13 year old who looked like a 17 year old. The way she behaved kind of made me be rude a ask how old she was (after that I nearly had to push my eyebrows back down).
My point is that if she looked mature enough and he didn't ask because of that, it's blown out of proportions.
Not that what he did was right, he should have checked if he hadn't.
Still, all media seem to be very subjective these days as if they were trying to sway people's opinions, which they shouldn't be doing.
 
badgerbaiter said:
...it can only be a matter of time before these newspapers actually tell us to form a mob, light some torches and go house burning.
Click to expand...

I'm putting on my hooded robe and digging out the crosses as we speak :thumbs: ;)
Don't have a s*** fit but I do sorta find myself agreeing with you Gary....

Its difficult to know the full story, I am not condoning what he did if he did what the papers say,
but a lot of teenagers are a damned sight more street wise than I was at their age.
They certainly seem to know the score
 
Borrowing the hat of the devil's advocate for a moment...
Click to expand...

It's a fine hat and one of my very favourites. :thumbs:

However, if you work with and around children then surely you would have a good understanding of the issues that surround anything underage. To shoot topless glamour style images with a 15 or 16, or if your me even 17 year old girl would ring so many alarm bells that it would never happen. Let alone to then keep the images on my computer.

<bill bailey mode> Speaking as a mother.... ok, well as a parent, there is a BIG difference between a glamour shot and a fine art portrait, with some flesh. Perhaps I can't describe it but I know I can see it and I bet that pretty much anyone with a little girl of their own would too.

Sure it's been overplayed, hyped and turned out of proportion by our lovely friends at the press but that's not a defence for crossing a line that all decent people can see clearly enough.
 
ConfusedChicca said:
He works with Under 18s, that's one of the main issues. He knows that girls dress up to make themselves look older, so asking for I.D. is the bare minimum he should have done.
And the only reason he was found is that his girlfriend at the time (who was allegedly 16) reported him after finding the photos on his computer.

And as has been said, would you take photos of a 16 yr old girl? (the law now states the person has to be at least 18).
Click to expand...


What law is that then?? Wayne
 
The law has changed recently, so what is 'wrong' now is not the same as what was 'wrong' ten years ago. Tricky, isn't it?

And I don't think anyone's defending the guy, only saying that the report is biased and unfair.
 
dazzajl said:
Sure it's been overplayed, hyped and turned out of proportion by our lovely friends at the press but that's not a defence for crossing a line that all decent people can see clearly enough.
Click to expand...

It's not a defence for the crime but the handing out of pitchforks is also wrong. The press would have us believe she was an innocent that this man cruelly and violently attacked for his own sordid pleasures and that he's nothing more than a monster sent by the devil to sully our bodies and destroy our souls. Hmm, am I am being over dramatic?

Without the half-hearted attempts at wit, it was your comment about youth work and sleazyiness that tripped the alarms for me. Is lusting after pictures of 15yo girls sleazy, yes (unless you're a 15yo boy then it's natural). Is that what he was doing? We don't know. Facts are thin on the ground so assumptions are made. It's very easy to assume that he's a no good sleazebag and next thing we know the readers of the Daily Mail will sharpening their pitchforks and chasing down any bloke with a camera because that other pervert had one and the press will be there with a big jerry can and a large set of bellows. :(
 
readers of the Daily Mail will shrarpening their pitchforks and chasing down any bloke with a camera
Click to expand...

That was a large part of my comment. We really don't need the bad press right now and this bloke as a snapper AND a youth worker (of sorts) should have known this better than any.

Yes, the press are responsible for this current hysteria about children and cameras and we may well be mostly innocent but the fact is that in this witch hunt era, we need to be thinking a little ahead and playing smart.

Lose the battle but win the war and all that.
 
pxl8 said:
It was wrong but without knowing the facts it's a little hard to judge how wrong. Was the girl a willing participant, whose idea was it, etc? The paper has painted a picture of a bloke in a dirty mac hanging around street corners with a bag of sweets but it could be he simply made a mistake. We don't know but the media are going to tell us whichever version they think will sell more fish and chip wrapping.
Click to expand...

exactamundo.. thanks for saving me typing that
 
all i know is that i pay my taxes so the police and legal system sort these things out so i dont have to worry about them.. i'm sure they dont always get it right, but you have to assume they are right.
the guy has taken his punishment but is now being punished by some crappy little newspaper i've never heard of who hasnt been given any authority to go out dishing out punishments.

i am glad to see just how many TPF'ers can see through this lazy, crap and dangerous journalism. Maybe there is some hope for the world after all.
 
The original newspaper report, on the Isle of Wight where the offence took place, was a lot less sensationalist, I just can't find the link right now.

My main concern is he moved over to the UK because everyone on the IoW knew about the court case, and he kept working with Under 18s. This was a very very silly move, and is bound to be misconstrued.

It turns out the reason someone went to the newspaper here in the UK is that because the offender threatened him with legal action because he said he would inform the papers.
 
33L said:
its people like this that make honest togs have a hard time with authorities and parents.
Click to expand...

badgerbaiter said:
more sensationalist guff.

took some pics of a 15 year old girl, went to court, got given a punishment.. end of story.
it can only be a matter of time before these newspapers actually tell us to form a mob, light some torches and go house burning.
Click to expand...

dazzajl said:
Ok, I've found some words now

Anyone that works with children AND has a photography business would be very well aware of the potential pit falls of not being totally 110% above board.

Even if it was two weeks later, it may be legal to shoot a 16 year old girl topless but would you????
Click to expand...


Hi i used to work with Children many years ago i was a detached youth worker on the streets not center based, that was an education i will tell you, i am also a governor of my childs local school, and we host children from chernobyl -re disaster for a rest bite . from all that fall out
http://www.chernobylchildlifeline.org/

I have CRB'S coming out of my ear's enhanced ones at that, they go further than a normal CRB, but whenever in the company of children you must always be aware that what my be innocent to you could be derived as being abusive to others, are photographers CRB (Criminal records bureau) who have studios or who are commissioned to take picture of children, this way your are 110% above board in the government's eyes, on a enhanced disclosure you can not hide anything that may slip through the net, and even standard disclosures are getting tougher, lets hope these issues do not spiral out of control. but any tog taking picture's of my child would only be stood 2 feet away from me, for his/her own safety.

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