Strange man near the Peckham Rye Cafe / One o'clock club

[jimbo1964]

Just a bit of a heads up. My mother in law took my little boy to the Peckham Rye cafe yesterday afternoon. Obviously it was very busy with children. She spotted a man outside furtively using a video camera at waist level filming the area where the children were playing. She told the staff in the cafe who put a call into the park wardens but i don't think they got an answer. Then the guy walked away. There maybe a perfectly innocent explanation but just to be on the safe side she's put a call with a description into the police.

[Loz]

I've never understood this. Why would someone filming an area where children were playing be up to no good, and if they are, what no goodness is it? If watching children playing gives you your kicks, then the current holiday ad where thousands of children running over a sand dune would be rated XXX. And banned.

Sometimes I think the biggest danger to children these days is paranoia.

[Ant]

I suppose the implication here is that the filming isn't an end in itself, but preparatory behaviour. Preparatory for what though, and how likely this fear is to prove true, are anyone's guess.

[knackered cow]

I think this same man was in the Hern Tavern garden back in July! He was in his 50's I think and wore a black leather coat. I thought he was quite nice at first because he offered to smoke his cigarette well away from the children but my thought soon changed when I thought I saw him filming at waist level! I wasn't 100% of what I saw and he didn't stick around too long but I'll be looking out for him in the future!

[cdonline]

When I was growing up, there was a guy who was known as the local perv. From what I remember, he used to enjoy the company of young boys. He was just kind of around and we never really took much notice.

Oh well, there's always one.

Perhaps, he'll go on and get hardcore with CBeebies.

[candj]

I have to agree with Jimbo1964 and don't think it's paranoia at all. I personally do not like people taking photos of or filming my children because you never know where it will end up. We were recently outside an art gallery and a photographer took a snap of my 3 year old and my husband promptly made him delete the photo, it was plain rude. Perhaps I'm paranoid, but I think you can't be too careful these days. Good for your mother, Jimbo, for looking out for her grandson.

[jimbo1964]

I don't think watching children playing is in any way odd.. it's a beautiful thing. I also think there's a hell of a lot of paranoia about photographing children. I'm a photographer myself and feel this generation will miss out on having our social history documented. However, it sounds like this particular individual was behaving strangely.

[Loz]

I personally do not like people taking photos of or filming my children because you never know where it will end up.

That's the bit I don't understand. What/where is this place you fear it will end up?

[Louisa]

Unless it is proven that this guy was working as a photographer or on behalf of a local newspaper, I would view him with suspicion as I am sure the police would too.

Louisa.

[cdonline]

What worries me is that somebody with a video camera around children can suddenly escalate in to him being a furtive, possible paedo. The police are called and those involved are reassured that the world is a bad, bad place, where children have to be protected/ smoothered and must not be let out on their own. And that's sad.

Yet many people seem happy enough to share shots and videos of themselves and families all over the web, post all sorts of personal history for anybody to have a shuffty at.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

It is a bit wierd knowing someone is doing stuff like that - but I understand what Loz said, what do you think he's going to do with the film? Do peados use it to get obsessed with a particular kid or something? I'd probably have told him to eff off. I think I might have even been a bit worried that he'd start following my kid around or something, but I'm not sure if filming the kids would make it any easier to get hold of them. Unless it's a kind of snatch to order thing going on where the other peados view before they buy.

Dunno - I find it all a bit depressing being paranoid, but I'd have had a go at him because he may not have just been a harmless perv.

[candj]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I personally do not like people taking photos of

> or filming my children because you never know

> where it will end up.

>

> That's the bit I don't understand. What/where is

> this place you fear it will end up?

Do you have children? Do you like random strangers coming up and taking their photos? I don't know where it will end up, but unless it's in our family photo album it seems odd. I don't think I'm losing out on documenting any social history - take someone else's child's photo. This man sounds like he was being suspicious. Why the furtive camera? Why not openly film children and why not go up to the parents and introduce yourself when doing it furtively? 'Hello, my name is so-in-so and I'm a local film maker doing a documentary on ... '

[KidKruger]

Genuine question:

Can somebody please explicitly tell me what the 'fear' / suspicion is - this is aimed at those who have / can envisage the 'fear' and would welcome the police being called ?

I'm not being antagonistic I genuinly can't comprehend what it can lead to, especially if the child(ren)being 'filmed' are with their guardians.

Don't want any grief, just a plain answer to the question.

[seamusmac]

I must take issue with Loz, either you don't have children or you live in blissful ignorance of the lengths some perverts will go to these days. As for the children in the holiday ad you mention they are paid actors,extras and therefore have consented to having their image put on TV. Children are to be protected as they cannot defend or speak for themselves and therefore for someone to find it acceptable to invade their personal space for their own gain/pleasure is totally unacceptable. Well done Jimbo's mum in law for doing the right thing.

[KateW]

I've worked in the child protection field for a number of years and in my last job worked with girls who had been sexually abused. Paedophiles target areas where children play and I would view the behaviour of the man mentioned as highly suspicious; certainly the police officers I used to work with would like to know about this.

[Pierre]

I don't have any children, yet.

I like to see children playing. I think it's great when children play, when they are unashamedly children, not growing up too fast and not trying to be the little adults that all children's advertising seems to be telling them to be. I think it's fascinating to see how they play, how they develop their own characters and experiment with imagined situations.

I suppose if I wasn't married, was thirty years older and had never married, was lonely and knew I'd never have children of my own, I'd probably continue to get some sort of joy from watching children playing.

As far as I can see, nothing of the above is sinister or sexual. While I know I'm going to get the tired old "until you have children you won't understand" blather wheeled out at me, but I'd actually counter that and say that just because you _have_ children doesn't mean you have to stop understanding others.

Not entirely sure what my point is, just playing devil's advocate I suppose. But I'm fed up with every adult encounter with children being subject to fear and suspicion.

: P

[KateW]

The difference being Pierre that he was FILMING the children.

[Louisa]

Nothing is sinister about walking around the park with a video camera taking footage of children on a work day when most adults would be busy with other things! I find it difficult to appreciate how anyone can possibly suggest that this is normal harmless behaviour? If I had been there I would have asked the man (politely of course) what he was doing and why he was doing it. The explanation may well have been perfectly innocent and if he was working for a newspaper or some sort of media outlet he would have happily produced some sort of badge or offered a telephone number of his boss giving a valid explanation. No issue then.

Louisa.

[Loz]

KateW

Why is that different? It comes back to my original question, which no one has yet to offer anything like an answer.

[cdonline]

KateW Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The difference being Pierre that he was FILMING

> the children.

At the moment, we only have the report that Jimbo's Mother in Law saw this. I'm sure that she is a fine upstanding woman, but as yet, it ain't necessarily a fact.

[KateW]

I'm completely with Louisa on this one. It's not normal behaviour to film other people's children, without their permission, using a video camera that is at waist level (suggesting to me he was trying to hide the fact he was filming the kids). Loz, in answer to your question, paedophile's circulate and exchange footage of children for their own sick pleasure. Not so long ago I attended a training day about 'safer recruitment' ie how to make sure we in the childcare profession take all the necessary steps to try and prevent paedophiles getting jobs that give them access to children. The training featured interviews with paedophiles and every one of them spoke about the images of children they had collected/gathered/exchanged.

[Loz]

KateW: This is getting closer to an answer, but there's still a lot missing. If the local paedo wanted to collect images of children, there's loads in magazines, on TV, etc, etc. No shortage. Why pop down to the local playground??

The problem is still in the paranoia. As you said, your training day was to make sure "the childcare profession take all the necessary steps to try and prevent paedophiles getting jobs that give them access to children." On one hand this sounds like an admirable target - on the other, it sounds rather dark and ominously 1984-like. It's this sort of approach that led to the case of the, apparently very good, deputy headmaster a few weeks ago being sacked because someone, many years ago, once made a complaint about him that was later proved to be false, but still remains on his record. Already we've gone from lists of known paedophiles (a good thing) to lists of everyone who has ever been accused - rightly or wrongly (borderline fascism). What's next?

As these lists contain mainly men, the obvious extrapolation is that, in a very short period of time less and less men are able to work in teaching/childcare and those that do will have a very short career. Kids aren't stupid - how better to get Mr Smith back for dropping him from the football team for smoking behind the bike shed? Which means less and less male role models and therefore more and more of the society churning effects this is currently believed to be causing.

Finally, since you work in the field, would you agree that the vast majority of abuse occurs within the family? And that stranger abductions are a very small issue in comparison? Or (ridiculously, but to make the point) - should Jimbo be less worried about the fellow his mother-in-law saw and more worried about leaving his child alone with his mother-in-law?

[Louisa]

Loz what a load of dribble, honestly. First off, a peadophile is mentally ill and who is to say what turns one of them on? If he was a paedophile he may well not have access to a television, perhaps he sells these images onto people or puts them onto the internet? I find it hard to believe you can possibly justify someone using a video camera by suggesting that he has easier routes to get hold of footage than this! Paranoia is a good thing when it comes to children, the most precious thing in any parents life. The mother of one young lad who was abducted and abused by Hindley and Brady is still searching for her sons body over 40 years after his disappearance. In those days parents allowed their kids to run free and do as they wished and look where that ended up. You may well think that putting up a warning on a message forum is a step too far for someone who is potentially innocent, but I say, if this person was innocent, they would not really give a toss if their name was put up on this forum would they? Abuse occurs everywhere in all different shapes and forms and it is the responsibility of everyone to report it and to notify other parents of potential abusers (innocent or not) as a matter of course.

Louisa.

[iggy_pop]

good grief

some people just don't know when to stop do they.

i can't think of any truthful, selfless reason why a bloke would be taking unsolicited footage of a playground full of children.

to suggest he's a film maker and possibly capturing some essential moment in british social life is giving a naive amount of benefit to a natural sense of doubt most parents are entitled to.

generally, documentarians still have the decency to ask their subjects for their consent. and one with any nous, or geniune interests, would be sensitive enough to clear their purpose with the parents and/or people who run the park.

good grief (again)

[seamusmac]

You know what Loz, you should send a letter to the parents of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, I'm sure they and the families of other victims of such crimes would find your insight into 1984-like,borderline fascist country most interesting. Prevention is far better than the cure in this case.