Pictures of children

[Bassit]

We all know its mainly down to facebook that this ridiculous fear of anyone photographing children is a pedophile exists, i say we give the facebook crowd what they want and petition for the banning of any photos of children on facebook, obviously i am joking but this is the only way to deal with this type of bigotry.

I was told on new years eve there was 20,000 transit vans waiting to enter the country from Bulgaria, the source of this information, facebook.

 

[dinorock]

This is off topic.

But PLEASE never again connect shaved pubic hair with peadophiles. If someone makes such a link in his/her mind then that says more about him/her than about two consenting *adults* enjoying each others company.

absolutely agree with charlotte, no connection.

 

[PMN]

This is off topic.

But PLEASE never again connect shaved pubic hair with peadophiles. If someone makes such a link in his/her mind then that says more about him/her than about two consenting *adults* enjoying each others company.

Was he making a direct connection between shaving certain bits and being a paedophile? I have to admit, I'm not entirely sure why he made that comment but I didn't read his meaning as being what you've interpreted.

 

[connersz]

This thread will effectively achieve nothing, like it's identical predecessors.

 

[Bazza155]

Even a friend mentioned that it was a 'proper pervert camera' when he saw it for the first time (5dmk3).

Surely a 'proper pervert camera' would be one that is not obviously seen.

Why are DSLR owners treated in a different way to compact camera owners?

 

[PMN]

Why are DSLR owners treated in a different way to compact camera owners?

Because there are a great number of narrow minded, ignorant and plain stupid people around. Sadly...

 

[Bazza155]

This thread will effectively achieve nothing, like it's identical predecessors.

It's no different to people discussing politics, football, Alien invasion etc at work.......it will effectively achieve nothing.

Discussion doesn't have to achieve anything, sometimes it's just there to see what's on the other side of the fence, sometimes it just opens your eyes and mind.....good or bad.

 

[dinorock]

This thread will effectively achieve nothing, like it's identical predecessors.

WRONG this thread will allow newbies and others to understand the complicated laws this country has,and the way the media sensationalise every thing. i was recently asked not to take photos in the "oracle" shopping center in Reading due to the fact i had a dslr quite friendly security guard just doing his job but twenty people were taking photos of us with their mobile phones.no problem he said everyone uses their mobile and we can't stop them all just the dslr users then.:banghead: i also think as soon as people (security guards) etc see a dslr they assume "pro" and you have to have permission in these places if you intend to make money from the photos. the local college regularly uses the oracle at night with permission to practise their night photography.

 

[connersz]

You're right but it's on the same dreary subject as usual and I have to say I've never seen repeat threads on here about alien invasion.

 

[Byker28i]

This thread will effectively achieve nothing, like it's identical predecessors.

If it changes one persons perspective...

 

[connersz]

WRONG this thread will allow newbies and others to understand the complicated laws this country has,and the way the media sensationalise every thing. i was recently asked not to take photos in the "oracle" shopping center in Reading due to the fact i had a dslr quite friendly security guard just doing his job but twenty people were taking photos of us with their mobile phones.no problem he said everyone uses their mobile and we can't stop them all just the dslr users then.:banghead:

If they're looking for photography laws then there are much better resources than this nonsense.

 

[connersz]

If it changes one persons perspective...

A drop in the ocean.

 

[Deleted member 67219]

Surely a 'proper pervert camera' would be one that is not obviously seen.

Why are DSLR owners treated in a different way to compact camera owners?

Because people don't understand. Think about the photography that your average lower class person is exposed to on a daily basis.

- First they get up in the morning. They open The Sun and there is a photograph of a young woman from a proper camera with her breasts out who serves as nothing more than porn in a polite wrapper.
- They they get bombard with sexualised fashion images of women for the day from a proper camera. On 'innocent' websites. On billboards. In magazines.
- If they pop to the supermarket for lunch they might see magazines like Nuts on the stand next to where they pick up their sandwiches. More sexualised women from a proper camera.
- When they sit down to watch the news they'll be told that another peadophile was apprehended with images of children in his possession.
- They'll go on the internet and be faced with more pornographic images without really even trying. Facebook is particularly guilty if you have a load of idiots on your friends list.

The thing is we are bombarded with photographic images that are highly sexualised on an hourly basis during the day. Is it any surprise that people begin to think that the main purpose of a 'good' camera is to create these images? People don't suspect the same thing of compacts because they are aware you can't shoot images like they see all the time on a compact.

 

[dinorock]

If they're looking for photography laws then there are much better resources than this nonsense.

not impressed that you think this is "nonsense" why are you here then?

 

[Pookeyhead]

This isn't about what LAWS there are.. it's about educating people that their stupid, idiotic views on child photography, and taking pictures of children are moronic.

Why is taking pictures of children any different from taking pictures of adults?

To prove my point.

Have a photo of my daughter. It's perfectly innocent... do with it what you want.



How have I endangered her in any way, shape or form? How am I doing ANYTHING that can be regarded as bad in any way? Does it matter WHO'S child this is? The ONLY issue here is whether the person KNOWS they are being photographed and published, and I'm sorry... if you're in a public place, and able to be photographed... tough titties!! That applies for children as much as adults.

please explain... because I'm confused.

 

[PMN]

You're right but it's on the same dreary subject as usual and I have to say I've never seen repeat threads on here about alien invasion.

Don't read it then, you'll save yourself all the hurt and heartache the repetition clearly causes you.

Honestly, comments like this are more frustrating than the actual repeat subjects.

 

[Deleted member 67219]

This isn't about what LAWS there are.. it's about educating people that their stupid, idiotic views on child photography, and taking pictures of children are moronic.

Why is taking pictures of children any different from taking pictures of adults?

Even worse is that people think that somehow only Western children are about to all be attacked by peadophiles. I mean lets look at some of the big images in the news... aren't they worried that these children will be hurt by having their pictures on the internet?

We're always a bit less worried about children a few thousand miles away. I guess it helps if they're not white either.

 

[PMN]

I guess it helps if they're not white either.

What on Earth does that have to do with anything?

 

[Deleted member 67219]

What on Earth does that have to do with anything?

Everything in the context of the sentence before it that you cut out of your quote.

 

[PMN]

Everything in the context of the sentence before it that you cut out of your quote.

I read it in context and your actual meaning wasn't clear, I quoted that line specifically to make it clear it was that bit I was referring to so rather than divert attention away from my question please answer it.

 

[Pookeyhead]

A drop in the ocean.

So sod it then huh? What you say will do no good, so say nothing.

Hmmm....

Perhaps not the subject old 2:2 had in mind when he said that... but I think it's appropriate.


I see it as my duty to respond to things that are wrong. I don't care whether it actually makes a difference or not. I've done what I can. If everyone thought like me, then stuff that's stupid would be got rid of. If everyone thought like you, it would remain and we'd all be far more stupid as a result.

If something is stupid and wrong.... it's your duty as an intelligent, educated person to speak out about it, otherwise.... what's the point in you ever being educated?

 

[Deleted member 67219]

I read it in context and it made no sense, I quoted that line specifically to make it more clear it was that bit I was referring to so rather than distract attention away from my question please answer it.

White, western people are privileged regarding their race/skin colour. Institutional racism is still commonplace in our society.

As a white, western society we care deeply what happens to our little darlings. Preventing them from being exposed to such horrors as photographers with good cameras. However we drink up images of children from thousands of miles away, especially those that are 'alien' to us in race. We, as a society, are not concerned that he peadophiles might enjoy images of them naked after a tsunami on the internet as much as we are concerned about our own little Jack and Jill appearing on the internet fully clothed.

You may have missed it, but there was a great deal of discourse along these lines in the summer when the blonde Roma child was discovered in Greece, harking back to Madeline McCann. We are, as a society, more interested in and more protective of little blonde girls with blue eyes.

 

[PMN]

White, western people are privileged regarding their race/skin colour. Institutional racism is still commonplace in our society.

Since when has the west been exclusively white? I find that statement profoundly puzzling.

We are, as a society, more interested in and more protective of little blonde girls with blue eyes.

I've never read such utter nonsense. I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to bring race into this discussion and I see no reason to bring the sex of the child into it either.

 

[Phil Young]

Even worse is that people think that somehow only Western children are about to all be attacked by peadophiles. I mean lets look at some of the big images in the news... aren't they worried that these children will be hurt by having their pictures on the internet?

We're always a bit less worried about children a few thousand miles away. I guess it helps if they're not white either.

VERY powerful image that last one.

 

[Deleted member 67219]

Since when has the west been exclusively white? I find that statement profoundly puzzling.

Are you deliberately obtuse or what?

 

[Deleted member 67219]

VERY powerful image that last one.

Yes, and imagine if people had said 'Better not publish that one, the peadophiles might get hold of it'.

 

[PMN]

Are you deliberately obtuse or what?

No, I'm just failing to see how you can manage to turn most threads you comment on into a male v female thing. I'm also failing to understand what race has to do with it. Or how your "white western" comment is accurate.

In fact, I'm failing to comprehend your entire outlook on the whole subject. Funnily enough the only person who's ever had a go at me for taking a photo of his kid (when I actually wasn't) was a black guy in London, right here in the west. Ironic, eh?

 

[Deleted member 67219]

No, I'm just failing to see how you can manage to turn most threads you comment on into a male v female thing. I'm also failing to understand what race has to do with it. Or how your "white western" comment is accurate.

In fact, I'm failing to comprehend your entire outlook on the whole subject. Funnily enough the only person who's ever had a go at me for taking a photo of his kid (when I actually wasn't) was a black guy in London, right here in the west. Ironic, eh?

Oh please do point out where I turned this into a male vs female thing? Actually don't. Because it would only serve to drag this silly thing on longer. Seriously. Just because you don't like me and apparently you don't like feminism doesn't mean you have to try and make each one of my posts into a feminist rant when there is no such intent.

Very simply:

People in the West care deeply about 'perverts' taking pictures of their children and putting their pictures on the internet. However they LOVE 'photographers' taking pictures of poor children in third world countries and putting them on the internet.

My apologies for trying to look a little bit deeper at the reasoning that might be behind it.

 

[PMN]

Oh please do point out where I turned this into a male vs female thing?

Perhaps I worded it badly in this particular thread by saying male v female but nonetheless, you've managed to bring the sex of the child into it when I see absolutely no possible reason to.

We are, as a society, more interested in and more protective of little blonde girls with blue eyes.

apparently you don't like feminism

I think you'd better explain just how you came to that conclusion because that's a mighty large assumption to make.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Very simply:

People in the West care deeply about 'perverts' taking pictures of their children and putting their pictures on the internet. However they LOVE 'photographers' taking pictures of poor children in third world countries and putting them on the internet.

My apologies for trying to look a little bit deeper at the reasoning that might be behind it.

I'll go one further and say that they also love putting images of their children on the internet so long as it's THEIR images, and on THEIR terms... like that would matter if there WERE paedophiles looking!!

The minute someone ELSE takes an image of their kids and puts it on the internet, then clearly it's for perverted reasons!!

Just LOL @ stupid people being stupid.

God save us from the Daily Mail reading "Mums" of this world.

 

[Furtim]

Very simply:

People in the West care deeply about 'perverts' taking pictures of their children and putting their pictures on the internet. However they LOVE 'photographers' taking pictures of poor children in third world countries and putting them on the internet.

My apologies for trying to look a little bit deeper at the reasoning that might be behind it.

That is in itself as offensive generalisation as the one put forward at the start of this thread!

 

[Deleted member 67219]

That is in itself as offensive generalisation as the one put forward at the start of this thread!

I was trying to make it as simple as possible for PMN to be able to understand the points I was making.

 

[PMN]

I was trying to make it as simple as possible for PMN to be able to understand the points I was making.

Don't hide behind your computer screen and patronise me, Charlotte. It's not big or clever.

I'm still waiting to hear your explanation, by the way. And I am expecting one.

 

[Deleted member 67219]

This. Perhaps I worded it badly in this particular thread by saying male v female but nonetheless, you've managed to bring the sex of the child into it when I see absolutely no possible reason to.

Seriously?

There is massive discourse on the fact that as a society we are more protective of girls than boys. Since we are discussing peoples protectiveness of children I would have thought that this was a 100% relevant point to bring to the table.

 

[PMN]

And still you fail to explain your ridiculous and frankly out of order assumption regarding my views on feminism. What a huge surprise. You'll say these things quite happily but back out immediately when questioned, so typical of people who hide behind the veil of the Internet trying to look clever.

Now, back to the point. Surely we're talking about taking photos of children as a general principle and this extrapolation goes beyond what we're actually discussing?

 

[Deleted member 67219]

And still you fail to explain your ridiculous and frankly out of order assumption regarding my views on feminism. What a huge surprise. You'll say these things quite happily but back out immediately when questioned, so typical of people who hide behind the veil of the Internet trying to look clever.

Now, back to the point. Surely we're talking about taking photos of children as a general principle and this extrapolation goes beyond what we're actually discussing?

My apologies. From your comment I assumed you were one of the small group of people that had a whinge at me just before Christmas on a thread I started where I mentioned I had no interest in working for misogynists. You weren't and therefore it was an unfair comment to make.

However I do think that not everyone wants to discuss things in such a superficial way. If people want to look deeper into a subject and you don't want to, just simply skip those posts.

No, I'm just failing to see how you can manage to turn most threads you comment on into a male v female thing.

But I want to clarify this. I have just been through all my of postings back to December 1st. About 250 in total (I have really been procrastinating during exam season).

I noted that I commented on approximately eighty five threads with no mention of gender. On one thread I called someone out on some language I didn't find appropriate as a female. On a second thread I explained to someone how glamour photography could be perceived as trashy due to gender power imbalances. A third thread I had hijacked because I mentioned I didn't want to work for misogynistic clients.

Now please, I believe that you also owe me an apology? I don't think that two/three out of eighty eight is anything near 'most threads'.

 

[PMN]

My apologies. From your comment I assumed you were one of the small group of people that had a whinge at me just before Christmas on a thread I started where I mentioned I had no interest in working for misogynists. You weren't and therefore it was an unfair comment to make.

Apology accepted, thanks.

However I do think that not everyone wants to discuss things in such a superficial way. If people want to look deeper into a subject and you don't want to, just simply skip those posts.

As much as I understand your point there's a difference between discussion things superficially and shifting the subject entirely, which is what you seemed to be doing.

I don't think that two/three out of eighty eight is anything near 'most threads'.

Indeed it isn't, and you're right. My apologies for that comment, it was rather ill-thought out on reflection.

 

[Deleted member 67219]

As much as I understand your point there's a difference between discussion things superficially and shifting the subject entirely, which is what you seemed to be doing.

I appreciate that sometimes I make jumps that people can find hard to follow. It's a major criticism of my university work and my professors go mental at me for it. I get a bit caught up in the info and put it down on paper assuming everyone else knows what I'm talking about. My ex used to whinge at me for it too. He'd go 'Char, you've done that thing where you've started talking to me after having the first half of the conversation entirely in your head'.

I merely thought it was interesting how protective some people can be of their own children over certain things, including (and often) photographers, while they are happy to see other peoples children subjected to that. The 'not in my back yard' mentality reins supreme which was what I was highlighting with news images and discussion of race.

There is much discussion over the presentation of children in the media in academic discourse which I felt was relevant to the fact that like it or not, it is generally a modern AND white AND western point of view that everyone is out to get our children. It's just interesting how the media presentation of children trickles down into our personal lives and then we behave accordingly.

Or I dunno, maybe it's not interesting. I thought it was interesting. I reckon Pookeyhead might think it's interesting, but I'm not sure he's a good barometer for such things.

 

[Im Bald Ok]

Have a photo of my daughter. It's perfectly innocent... do with it what you want.

We can't, you ticked the 'Do not edit my image' box!
And how dare you take your child out in public without a paper bag over their head, don't you know there are peadophiles about with cameras!

 

[Pookeyhead]

We can't, you ticked the 'Do not edit my image' box!
And how dare you take your child out in public without a paper bag over their head, don't you know there are peadophiles about with cameras!

LOL.... i never said you can edit it Feel free to disseminate as you wish though