Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

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 ... '

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.

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.
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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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)

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.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...