(Man with camera at fusion fest today)

[Becky123]

I was at the Fusion Fest at Hornimans this afternoon with my friend and our children. I saw an older man aged late 50's, 60's hold his camera at his side and take a photo of my daughter.I followed him and witnessed him take several more photos of children discretely with the camera at his side. I told the police and they checked his camera. They walked him home and told him not to go back to the festival. He said they were atmospheric photos of the event and the police confirmed there were pictures other than kids on his camera. The man may have been innocently taking photos however I am confused why he wouldn't look through the lens and take them. Why would he hold a camera by his knee, press the button and then walk quickly away.

[Marmora Man]

Well done - let's generate more pointless hysteria.

[Mark]

Becky123 Wrote:

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

... I am confused why he wouldn't look through the lens and take them.

It's known as shooting from the hip, the BBC did a documentary about it http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/lomo/

[HAL9000]

Becky123 Wrote:

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

> I am confused why he wouldn't look through the

> lens and take them.

I can't comment about this particular case but there is a well-known school of photography known as "real life reportage" or "street photography" or, more simply, "candid photography" that attempts to capture natural life without allowing the camera to influence or intrude upon the scene. Its most famous exponent, amongst many others, is probably the late Henri Cartier-Bresson.

[woofmarkthedog]

Bravo

Even if it was "innocent" he still deserved a pull.

W**F

[Marmora Man]

woofmarkthedog Wrote:

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

> Bravo

>

> Even if it was "innocent" he still deserved a

> pull.

>

>

> W**F

Why?

a. No evidence of wrong doing

b. Even if the intent was malicious no damage done

c. The OP describes the man as late 50s / early 60s - this could be up to 33% of the male population of ED. Makes all such men potential suspects and damages social cohesion.

[Becky123]

Thanks for the info about candid photography. My intention wasn't to scare monger or create pointless hysteria, I was just concerned that a stranger was secretly taking a close up photo of my child.

[woofmarkthedog]

Marmora Man Wrote:

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

> woofmarkthedog Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Bravo

> >

> > Even if it was "innocent" he still deserved a

> > pull.

> >

> >

> > W**F

>

> Why?

>

> a. No evidence of wrong doing

>

> b. Even if the intent was malicious no damage

> done

>

> c. The OP describes the man as late 50s / early

> 60s - this could be up to 33% of the male

> population of ED. Makes all such men potential

> suspects and damages social cohesion.

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

Do you have children?

[HAL9000]

Whatever he was doing, it was a risky enterprise in today's environment. A search of youtube for, say, "up skirts" reveals the depths some people will plumb for titillation (or so I've been told).

[PeckhamRose]

Ah, the old "Do you have children" question. Of course those of us who do not, by definition care nothing for children, would harm them at the first opportunity, would never think of protecting them if they were in danger, and would automatically pass by a screaming child even if it was near its parent, without a thought.

Wrong. I have gone up to crying children when their parents have been clearly ignoring them and calmed them down just by paying them attention, I have taken first aid courses with children in mind, and I am very very aware of protecting children (and adults) as I go about my business when there is danger around.

But I absolutely refuse to get on this bandwagon of - if a man has a camera in the street and there is a child in front of him he must therefore be a paedophile. And I do NOT see why the very wonderful Marmora Man should be expected to answer the question, either.

Incidentally, the British Journal of Photography has been running articles on the problems people are having just trying to take photographs in the street, if anyone is interested.

[HAL9000]

PeckhamRose Wrote:

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

> Incidentally, the British Journal of Photography

> has been running articles on the problems people

> are having just trying to take photographs in the

> street, if anyone is interested.

Yet another step closer to a police state - they'll be sending troops from Burma to liberate us soon.

[Horsebox]

Was he dressed as a clown?

[macroban]

Was it one of these?

[Loz]

Here we go again. at least the word 'furtive' didn't appear this time.

I've got to ask... would you have been so worried if it was a woman? If not, then Harriet Harman is doing her job well.

[Marmora Man]

woofmarkthedog Wrote:

Do you have children?

Yes.

[Moos]

Good to see the same old characters taking up the same old poses.

My take is that if you are silly enough to take surreptitious photographs of strangers' children, then you need someone to set you straight. It's just not on, however innocent your intent.

[jenren]

Peckham Rose, I'm not sure why the question "do you have children" made you so defensive. It's a valid question. There are things I understand now that I just couldn't have known before my son came along, mainly a deep, constant mother bear type instinct to protect my child. And the constant fear of something bad happening to him. Often it's not rational, most of us know that. But whenever there is even a whiff of threat against children all parents quietly nod in recognition of that awful little "what if?" knot we get in our guts. And no, I had absolutely nothing to compare it to before I was a parent.

The photography may be innocent, or it could easily end up on some horrible website, who knows? But this society can only function if we respect both our rights AND our responsibilities. We all have a responsibility to our broader community to make it comfortable for everyone....... so I won't take my tired cranky son to a restaurant and in return hopefully most people won't challenge my sense of security by pushing the limits of personal space (including my right to not have my child's image on someone's "photography" webpage). There's nothing I can do about it except hope that the other person can appreciate and respect my feelings.

Frankly, I'm certain that there are more dirty old men than reportage photographers lurking around our parks.

[lozzyloz]

I'm a photographer and I've often been stopped by the police under the prevention of terrorism act. It's a hassle but usually the police are polite and after a few minutes I'm free to continue.

I'd never take photo's in public of individual children unless I'd sought the permission of the parents or a carer. Similarly with adults, unless it's a crowd I'll ask for permission first. The way this guy was taking photo's isn't the accepted norm and he obviously wasn't using a LOMO but could well have been taking arty shots. A non photographer wouldn't know this though and if someone is acting suspiciously around children (with or without a camera and regardless of age) then I think it's fair to challenge (not aggressively confront) them. It might be perfectly innocent. It might not. But don't jump to the conclusion that this is hysteria.

The OP has every right to check it out. If it was someone carrying a rucksack and looking nervous and acting strangely on the tube would you just ignore it on the basis of nothing malicious having been done yet?

[PeckhamRose]

Being a biological parent does not a caring conscientous loving parent automatically make.

Having a womb doesn't guarantee you are going to be a brilliant mother. Those hormones don't automatically kick in.

Maybe I wanted but could not have children, maybe I am transgender, maybe something else.

But I Care. And if I take a photograph like I did recently of a landscape shot and there happen to be kids in the photo I will not wait ten hours for all the kids to go home and the light to fade before I take the photo. The problem here is common sense. Again, look at the British Journal of Photography link to see the problems ordinary folk are facing. And I am dead pleased for you lozzyloz that the police were polite and reasonable because often they are not.

[first mate]

PR, I'm with you on this. You don't have to be a parent to understand the power of the bond with a child. The human imagination allows us enough insight to understand things beyond our direct experience. The notion that non child bearing adults "just don't understand" is somewhat patronising and narrow minded, it is also rather undermining of those who adopt.

[PeckhamRose]

Thank you, and it is also undermining of people concerned with and conscientous about The Human Condition.

However, back to topic, obviously if I saw someone furtively, dodgily*, taking a photo of a kid and it was obvious that he** was not interested in the landscape around the kid, I would raise the issue with him first and use my judgement whether to alert the parent or the police second.

*is that a word?

** leave it alone

[first mate]

PR,

Yes, I agree. It's probably worth reminding ourselves that anyone can be dodgy in this area too, not just older men. The most recent child abuse allegations to hit the press concerned two women working in child care.

[cdonline]

Wouldn't it just be safer if we kept the kids inside? Playing in parks and other provocative behaviour by misguided parents could easily lead to such despicable acts such as people taking their children's photograph.

I for one would to do not want to see any further spread of these shocking children at play websites that keep popping up. Though I've not seen one personally.

[annaj]

I don't dsipute the OP's right to take action if she felt uncomfortable about the actions of another adult around her child, but I do wonder why she didn't approach the man herself and why, since the police seem to have acted entirely appropriately and felt there was nothing untoward, she felt the need to post here about it. There may well be good answers to both those questions and I'd be interested to know what they are.

I have no desire to get in to any kind of parent versus non-parent debate, but I do agree with PR that to say a non-parent can't understand or have valid opinion is nonsense. I don't doubt that the feeling of becoming a parent is unique and powerful and no, I have not experienced it, but I have empathy and reasoning and I am able to imagine myself in all kinds of situations that I haven't, and may never, experience.

Besides, Mamora Man, at whom the original question was aimed, has said he does have children, thus demonstraing that not all parents agree and proving how meaningless it was as a question.

[*Bob*]

PeckhamRose Wrote:

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

> Wrong. I have gone up to crying children when

> their parents have been clearly ignoring them and

> calmed them down just by paying them attention,

Maybe they're ignoring them for a reason.

We do, when 'our kid' is in a strop.