Pictures of children

You should meet my neighbours, I expect they would want more than a paper bag. They don't even let the kids in the back garden without supervision and every time I go to the door with a parcel or something for them I hear "dad, it's a man with a box, white shirt and jeans" scares me every time.
 
Here is a totally made up scenario, which could easily happen.

Dad takes son to football match and on the way, they are snapped by a street photographer. Dad is upset that a stranger is taking images of them without permission and sounds off about it.
When dad and son come back from football, and watch Match of the Day, they are both delighted when the camera zooms in on the boy obviously enjoying the match.
Both pictures have been obtained without prior consent, but dad is upset with one and delighted with the other.
Strangely enough, he is delighted with the one which will be broadcast to millions of people.

The above scenario could apply to Facebook, Flickr, or virtually any situation, and simply proves that some people in life have a lot of attitude combined with double standards.

No harm is ever going to come to a child because someone takes a photograph/image of them. It is only the circumstances which could possibly be harmful.
 
andy700 said:
Here is a totally made up scenario, which could easily happen.

Dad takes son to football match and on the way, they are snapped by a street photographer. Dad is upset that a stranger is taking images of them without permission and sounds off about it.
When dad and son come back from football, and watch Match of the Day, they are both delighted when the camera zooms in on the boy obviously enjoying the match.
Both pictures have been obtained without prior consent, but dad is upset with one and delighted with the other.
Strangely enough, he is delighted with the one which will be broadcast to millions of people.

The above scenario could apply to Facebook, Flickr, or virtually any situation, and simply proves that some people in life have a lot of attitude combined with double standards.

No harm is ever going to come to a child because someone takes a photograph/image of them. It is only the circumstances which could possibly be harmful.
Click to expand...

I wonder if the issue at hand here is the proximity of the perceived threat. If a stranger is taking photographs of your kid, perhaps it's not the content of the images itself that worries some people, rather the motives behind the photograph in the first place - "Why are they taking an interest in my kid?"

Paranoia is a strange thing, but we know that high level of emotion shut down our ability to think clearly - call it 'red mist', 'fight, flight or freeze', but people are at their least intelligent when emotionally aroused and perceiving a threat to your nearest and dearest is a sure way of shutting down the thinking brain.

Why do people perceive a threat? Because mainstream and gutter media condition them to. Social media, group think and other peer pressure re-enforce this pattern.
 
Byker28i said:
Does this help move the discussion on? It's not even clear who your rude, aggressive response was aimed at? Would you have responded the same to the persons face?

If this is about the original post, then It's a discussion forum. Sometimes that means the same things are discussed but then they are points of discussion. It's not mandatory for you to join in and write any response, you could ignore it.

One of the good things about this forum against others is that it is British based, so relevant to our experiences, cultures, rules etc. it's also generally a friendly place to be and ask questiions and learn. If we have rude responses then that just doesn't encourage new people to stay. Think there's a problem with the thread then use the report button with your concerns. We've had issues in the past with non mods trying to moderate the forum and driving people away.
Click to expand...

It was in direct response to the post above mine and I stand by it.

Maybe you should read your own reply to me back to yourself and see just how hypocritical it sounds ;)


Lez325 said:
Very constructive input :rolleyes:

Les :confused:
Click to expand...

And yours is what exactly?

No need to reply as it was a rhetorical question

The very kind of veiled accusations and theory put forward by simonblue, which I responded to, are there very sort of thing that cause situations like this in the first place for heavens sake.

People shouldn't bleat on about the general public getting it all wrong about this kind of thing and then perpetuate the issue by spouting the same kind of rubbish and misinformation themselves
 
Social media is the blame, the source, the expansion and the drug that fuels this mania every hour - everyday.

Go back 20 years and you only heard of the bogeyman hours or days after he prowled the area. Now it is forced into your eyes at an alarming rate. Mob mentality dictates the course of social unrest or dislike, rumours of a new mosque being built will stir a frenzy in some parts. People found with images of children are never shown with a camera in a park taking them but the link is already made.
Man with pictures = bogeyman with camera.

You can never educate people who are adamant that what they read in the press/facebook/social media etc is the truth. They are not swayed by reason and logic, they follow what they are told and believe it whole heartedly. Even when you show them that it is lies they disbelieve.

We have relinquished too much power to people who can't handle it, we have given a free pass for the media to bombard us with what they want us to hear/see.

Taking pictures of children is not wrong, allowing the foolish and ignorant to form standards is.

Phil.
 
the chances are most pictures of children posted on facebook have been taken by children on their phone / compact camera
i pretty much guarantee if you look at most childrens phone gallery it will have pictures of their mates and a significant amount of them will be uploaded to facebook it's the world we live in
i try to encourage my kids not to post photos on facebook and in general they don't but you still see the odd one

it does annoy me sometimes that people think if you have a big camera you must be up to no good but it's never stopped me taking photos of my own children or other members of my families children i don't really care what other people think but i am mindful of whose in the frame and tend to try and avoid including unknown children unless completely unavoidable the main reason is i don't really want photos of unknowns unless they are directly involved in what my lot are doing at the time
i have noticed over the years when looking at the photos when back at home after a day out with the kids the odd person in the background looking straight into the camera with a glaring look and some go back years so it's not a new thing but none have approached me to put forward their views on the subject
i enjoy taking photo's of my children and they enjoy looking at them and at the end of the day it's one of the main reasons i own a camera

in my experience the majority of the general public don't care if your taking photos of your kids doing what kids do be that in the local park or on the beach in a theme park or in some picturesque village we find but i would not like to be approached or accosted for it as some photographers have been
thankfully it has not happened yet but there's time and they would be welcome to view the images if they do have something to say
if it would spoil my day i don't know it's not happened yet

another thing i notice is you don't see that many dslr's in the hands of parents it's usually a phone or a compact at best it will be a low end dslr and kit lens i see very few pro bodies on my travels
 
Keith W said:
It was in direct response to the post above mine and I stand by it.

Maybe you should read your own reply to me back to yourself and see just how hypocritical it sounds ;)
Click to expand...

I don't think so, more a request for a decent response rather than what could ( and was) perceived by many as a rude and aggressive post.
 
phil8139 said:
You can never educate people who are adamant that what they read in the press/facebook/social media etc is the truth. They are not swayed by reason and logic, they follow what they are told and believe it whole heartedly. Even when you show them that it is lies they disbelieve.
Click to expand...

I hope your wrong. I don't believe that at the moment and always try to put over my opinion in a reasonable manner.
 
Is what other people do with photos of kids important to you if you have no knowledge of it?

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

It may not be right or legal but....
 
Byker28i said:
I hope your wrong. I don't believe that at the moment and always try to put over my opinion in a reasonable manner.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, it's not wrong.
There are folk out there that believe all they read on FB, EG: there was a spate of click and like *allsorts* and win an ipad, a car, a holiday etc. Even posting links to show that they were scams never deterred them from taking a chance anyway - you never know.
There are plenty of folks that still click links in emails to gather login details for their banking, even after getting letters from the banks saying they never do that. You never know.
There are folks that follow the hype and mob frenzy that ensued when pictures of an innocent man were touted as a released sex offender.
The list is endless of lemming culture just because it's on the net, they are idiotic fools and an increasing danger. The internet is supposed to empower and inform, it does that in bucket loads. What it can't do is educate people who are beyond reasoned logic and generally ignorant (thick).

Phil.
 
phil8139 said:
Unfortunately, it's not wrong.
There are folk out there that believe all they read on FB, EG: there was a spate of click and like *allsorts* and win an ipad, a car, a holiday etc. Even posting links to show that they were scams never deterred them from taking a chance anyway - you never know.
There are plenty of folks that still click links in emails to gather login details for their banking, even after getting letters from the banks saying they never do that. You never know.
There are folks that follow the hype and mob frenzy that ensued when pictures of an innocent man were touted as a released sex offender.
The list is endless of lemming culture just because it's on the net, they are idiotic fools and an increasing danger. The internet is supposed to empower and inform, it does that in bucket loads. What it can't do is educate people who are beyond reasoned logic and generally ignorant (thick).

Phil.
Click to expand...
My only rants on Facebook are about people reposting rubbish. I'm utterly aghast at what people will choose to believe, appalled when it's clearly the kind of guff designed to propagate a right wing agenda. Just gobsmacked when it makes no sense at all 'don't accept a friend request from... they're hackers', never a thought as to how it's possible to hack someone's account just because they're your 'friend'.
 
Pookeyhead said:
However... more things to consider. Paedophiles are seeking out, producing, and consuming SEXUALISED images of children, as they are mainly doing so for their own sexual gratification. Just as normal people seek out sexualised images of adults for sexual gratification. If I wanted to get my rocks off looking at pics of women on the internet, I wouldn't do so by looking at street photography... I'd go to a porn site!!!

Stop panicking and listening to the daily mail. In reality, your kids are are probably statistically more likely to get killed while you're driving them to school than they are being the victim of some sexual predator.

There's nothing wrong with taking pictures of children. If you think there is, then it's a reflection of your own twisted perceptions of children, not mine.
Click to expand...

Just to address a few of those points...

Were you aware that a number of paedophiles receive gratification, not from sexualised images, but from everyday ones?

The likelihood of a child being the victim of a sexual predator is massively higher than the chances of them dying in an RTC (let alone restricting it by 'en route to school').

Surprisingly, the Daily Mail (and most of the UK press) run very few stories about CSE - it's mostly driven by the utterly ignorant having access to the internet. That, however, doesn't
mean that the threat does not exist - it does.

I've don't have a problem with taking photos of children in the slightest (it's part of my job), but don't let your eyes get covered over by fluffy pink clouds.
Child Sexual Exploitation exists and is rather too widespread - however it's no more prevalent now than it was 35 years ago before the internet and digital cameras.
 
DemiLion said:
The likelihood of a child being the victim of a sexual predator is massively higher than the chances of them dying in an RTC (let alone restricting it by 'en route to school').
Click to expand...

Got any actual facts to back that up?
 
DemiLion said:
The likelihood of a child being the victim of a sexual predator is massively higher than the chances of them dying in an RTC (let alone restricting it by 'en route to school').
Click to expand...
Pookeyhead said:
Got any actual facts to back that up?
Click to expand...
I think it may depend on the definitions of "victim" and "sexual predator". And I think what @Pookeyhead had in mind probably wasn't the same as what @DemiLion had in mind...

I don't want to be a killjoy but I suspect this strand of the discussion isn't going anywhere useful. You might equate death in a road accident to death at the hands of a sexual predator, and then the statistics might mean something. But they wouldn't be very useful because they're both very small. For every one person who is killed there are many more who are injured in some way, but to make a meaningful comparison between the risks you'd have to equate the various kinds of injury. I don't think that's going to work.
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
I think it may depend on the definitions of "victim" and "sexual predator".
Click to expand...

Years ago who would have believed Savile, Harris & co were who we now see in the news.
 
what a fantastic thread to read, I know it might of been done before but I bet it wasn't as amusing to read.
 
phil8139 said:
Unfortunately, it's not wrong.
There are folk out there that believe all they read on FB, EG: there was a spate of click and like *allsorts* and win an ipad, a car, a holiday etc. Even posting links to show that they were scams never deterred them from taking a chance anyway - you never know.
There are plenty of folks that still click links in emails to gather login details for their banking, even after getting letters from the banks saying they never do that. You never know.
There are folks that follow the hype and mob frenzy that ensued when pictures of an innocent man were touted as a released sex offender.
The list is endless of lemming culture just because it's on the net, they are idiotic fools and an increasing danger. The internet is supposed to empower and inform, it does that in bucket loads. What it can't do is educate people who are beyond reasoned logic and generally ignorant (thick).

Phil.
Click to expand...


What I do see is that it's easier to jump on a bandwagon and quickly dash off something on the computer rather than actually take action. The internet has made it very easy for everyones opinion to be heard, whether right or wrong. Take for instance the Jeremy Clarkson comments on The One Show. Complaints after the show were none, but after his 'they should be taken outside and shot' comment was editied and taken out of context the BBC got huge number of complaints - even more so when the media jumped on the bandwagon. It's almost like people want to be on the public bandwagon in case they miss something rather than stop and think.
 
Byker28i said:
What I do see is that it's easier to jump on a bandwagon and quickly dash off something on the computer rather than actually take action. The internet has made it very easy for everyones opinion to be heard, whether right or wrong. Take for instance the Jeremy Clarkson comments on The One Show. Complaints after the show were none, but after his 'they should be taken outside and shot' comment was editied and taken out of context the BBC got huge number of complaints - even more so when the media jumped on the bandwagon. It's almost like people want to be on the public bandwagon in case they miss something rather than stop and think.
Click to expand...

Typical kneejerk reactions, sometimes we need to sit back and analyse what's been said before reacting.........try to see things from both sides. It's not necessarily sitting on the fence.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Got any actual facts to back that up?
Click to expand...


It's fairly basic maths.

The chances of a child (ie a sub 18-y-o) being sexually attacked are approximately 10% - look up any study of sexual abuse in the UK over the last 30 years and the figures are all roughly the same.

In 2012 the RTC injury rate in the UK was 0.3% - that's injury, both major and minor. The RTC death rate is approx 0.00003% and we have the second safest roads in Europe.

You picked the wrong statistic to make up!
 
DemiLion said:
It's fairly basic maths.

The chances of a child (ie a sub 18-y-o) being sexually attacked are approximately 10% - look up any study of sexual abuse in the UK over the last 30 years and the figures are all roughly the same.
Click to expand...

With around 96% of those being abuse from parents, family or guardians, or others in a position of trust who has regular access to the child. So in other words.... of no relevance to this debate whatsoever, as stopping men with cameras taking images of your kids in public places will do precisely zip to stop the abuse you've just referred to.

I was referring to random nutjobs stalking and attacking random kids... which, thankfully, is very rare.

If people are so concerned about their kids safety, it looks like they should focus their attentions closer to home it would seem.
 
Pookeyhead said:
With around 96% of those being abuse from parents, family or guardians, or others in a position of trust who has regular access to the child. So in other words.... of no relevance to this debate whatsoever, as stopping men with cameras taking images of your kids in public places will do precisely zip to stop the abuse you've just referred to.

I was referring to random nutjobs stalking and attacking random kids... which, thankfully, is very rare.

If people are so concerned about their kids safety, it looks like they should focus their attentions closer to home it would seem.
Click to expand...


Oh I completely agree that the majority of abuse is from people who are known to the child. However you didn't define the parameters of your statement, you just said 'sexual predators'.

Even given the tighter margins of 'sexual predator' who is not known etc with ' killed in an RTC whilst being driven to school' and given the fractional numbers involved - I'd still suspect that the numbers who
have experienced CSA/CSE will still be higher. I can give you stats for that I'm afraid, just a reasonable judgement based on insider knowledge.

As an add on - the random nut jobs are indeed rare. It's the premeditated, very organised ones that are a threat.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not scaremongering, but sweeping child abuse under the carpet and dismissing it as media hype is a very dangerous attitude - as a number of police forces have found out.
 
:D:D
 
dinorock said:
please delete this comment its outrageous :mad:
Click to expand...


Good. In that case the comment is having the desired effect. It was meant to be outrageous.

However, it's far less outrageous than implying that anyone who depilates their nether regions is a potential child molester!
Or suggesting that women only depilate on command of their husband.


I mean come on. We are living in the twenty first century aren't we?


I've rarely seen a post as sanctimonious as MidnightUK's on here. That's the comment that you should be complaining about - not mine!
 
DemiLion said:
Good. In that case the comment is having the desired effect. It was meant to be outrageous.

However, it's far less outrageous than implying that anyone who depilates their nether regions is a potential child molester!
Or suggesting that women only depilate on command of their husband.


I mean come on. We are living in the twenty first century aren't we?


I've rarely seen a post as sanctimonious as MidnightUK's on here. That's the comment that you should be complaining about - not mine!
Click to expand...
its been reported to the mods i'm out of here :-(
 
Pookeyhead said:
With around 96% of those being abuse from parents, family or guardians, or others in a position of trust who has regular access to the child. So in other words.... of no relevance to this debate whatsoever, as stopping men with cameras taking images of your kids in public places will do precisely zip to stop the abuse you've just referred to.

I was referring to random nutjobs stalking and attacking random kids... which, thankfully, is very rare.

If people are so concerned about their kids safety, it looks like they should focus their attentions closer to home it would seem.
Click to expand...

I once read a figure that said you'd have to leave your child alone on your doorstep for over 1000 years for it to be abducted, statistically speaking. Of course someone will be taken on day one and someone will never be taken. But I still thought it was quite interesting.
 
it may have been outrageous but we all know its true :eek:
 
DemiLion said:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not scaremongering, but sweeping child abuse under the carpet and dismissing it as media hype is a very dangerous attitude - as a number of police forces have found out.
Click to expand...


I hope I'm doing no such thing, but I also think that scaremongering and making people believe that any man with a camera is a pervert should also be put to rights. It's the kind of mass hysteria, and herd mentality that saw a paediatrician being driven out of his home a few years ago.

By sexual predator BTW, I was referring not to organised paedophilia.. just random snatching of children. Organised paedophilia will no doubt revolve around access to the children.... that will inevitably rule out weird blokes hanging around parks. Let's be honest, the paranoia around cameras and kids is propagated by the belief that paedophiles do operate by hanging around parks snatching kids... which just shows the levels of ignorance prevalent out there.

I'm wondering so much about the paranoia surrounding paedophilia, that I'm actually worried that I've typed the word paedophilia so many times in this post, a red light is flashing in some office somewhere now :)
 
So posting pics of kids is frowned upon as they could be used by the mac men, most abused kids are preyed on by someone known to them, ergo if you post pics of your kids on fb it would be safer to have an open profile and block your friends and family - kinda ironic eh?

Phil.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I hope I'm doing no such thing, but I also think that scaremongering and making people believe that any man with a camera is a pervert should also be put to rights. It's the kind of mass hysteria, and herd mentality that saw a paediatrician being driven out of his home a few years ago.

By sexual predator BTW, I was referring not to organised paedophilia.. just random snatching of children. Organised paedophilia will no doubt revolve around access to the children.... that will inevitably rule out weird blokes hanging around parks. Let's be honest, the paranoia around cameras and kids is propagated by the belief that paedophiles do operate by hanging around parks snatching kids... which just shows the levels of ignorance prevalent out there.

I'm wondering so much about the paranoia surrounding paedophilia, that I'm actually worried that I've typed the word paedophilia so many times in this post, a red light is flashing in some office somewhere now :)
Click to expand...


The thought police are en route! :D

Tbh - I agree with most of what you've said. The idea that public photography is some sort of evil menace is farcical but that has to be weighed up with the fact that CSE/CSA does exist and it's a rather thorny problem
that frequently gets dismissed. Equally, hysteria is not the right approach to counteracting it. Public awareness and education is by far the best approach.

I don't believe that the media over-egg the problems in our society - they report what is actually happening when a case is discovered. There are far more cases being worked on than actually get reported or come to court.

'Peadophiles', in the public conciousness, are the modern day witches - to be hunted out by the brave population. Nowadays that means Facebook campaigns that are usually massive inaccurate.
 
CharlotteM said:
Out of interest - why?
Click to expand...

When we first set up our daughters FB account (I know you have to be 14 but she was 11 at the time) we told her no photos to be posted up, the reason being what can be so inocent to an 11 year old can be construed to others as inapropiate or to people looking for pics quite interesting.
She is now 14 and for the last year or so we have let her post pics but we still keep a close eye (her FB account is in her name but our email and our password so we can enter as we please) on what she post and to whom and what groups she is joining.

I see it this as way of protecting her from herself than from protecting her from others. We are slowly letting out the ties as some would call it as she gets older and wiser. its worked so far with no porblems at all.
 
SpikeK6 said:
When we first set up our daughters FB account (I know you have to be 14 but she was 11 at the time) we told her no photos to be posted up, the reason being what can be so inocent to an 11 year old can be construed to others as inapropiate or to people looking for pics quite interesting.
She is now 14 and for the last year or so we have let her post pics but we still keep a close eye (her FB account is in her name but our email and our password so we can enter as we please) on what she post and to whom and what groups she is joining.

I see it this as way of protecting her from herself than from protecting her from others. We are slowly letting out the ties as some would call it as she gets older and wiser. its worked so far with no porblems at all.
Click to expand...

With respect, if you genuinely cared about her you would understand that the age of 14 is there for a reason. Because Facebook is not appropriate for an 11 year old. And that's part of the problem with the children and the internet isn't it? Parents don't like thinking that other people might know better for their children.
 
CharlotteM said:
With respect, if you genuinely cared about her you would understand that the age of 14 is there for a reason. Because Facebook is not appropriate for an 11 year old. And that's part of the problem with the children and the internet isn't it? Parents don't like thinking that other people might know better for their children.
Click to expand...

A tad high handed there. At the end of the day, a child's welfare is the parent's responsibility. It's a parent's duty to make the final call for their specific circumstances. That may be bringing forward activities or indeed delaying them as they deem appropriate, with external advice there for guidance.

To suggest that Spike does not genuinely care for his kids is out of order as you know nothing about his individual circumstances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top