(Man with camera at fusion fest today)

[bignumber5]

perhaps i've missed the sign telling me which end-of-spectrum view point I should be adhering to, and naturally not having sprogs of my own makes my opinion null and void on this one before I've even started, but I think there may be some middle ground. If I've understood events correctly, a parent felt uncomfortable with the way someone was acting around her child and informed the nearby police. They, in turn, did not resort to penning all childless people or a tear-gas 'n' truncheons combo, they discretely approached the individual, had a chat, individual left the area and they then reassured worried party. I think that all sounds extremely reasonable all round.

"You, madam, had every right to be concerned but there was nothing to worry about. Everything's fine"

"You, sir, had every right to pursue your quest for artistic atmosphere shots but it's making someone quite uncomfortable, perhaps you'd not do it just now or move on to a different area. Everthing's fine"

"Thank you officer, sorry to trouble you" x2

"Quite alright sir/madam, this is actually what we always hoped community policing would be when we joined the force - it's not all about stop&search and dubious mass action"

What I don't think I entirely understand is what Becky123 has in mind when starting the thread. The title of MamoraMan's response seems to imply that the original title of the thread was "Parents watch out". Sorry, Becky123, but that is generating hysteria; unnecessary after what seems to have been a well managed and apparently benign incident. If the original post had been more "This happened today, has it happened to anyone else?" or "This happened today, was I being paranoid?" then I suspect that you would be getting a more understanding response. As it is, you do seem to be a bit, well...

http://media.pegasusnews.com/img/categories/HelenLovejoy_t630.jpg

[Gimme]

I find it totally ridiculous that someone can call the police for someone taking photos at a fair while a fair proportion of people on the "Shocking Site: Boys stabbing wheelie bins" thread didn't think that you should call the police when seeing knife wielding youths on the streets.

Since when was it an offence to take photos of fully grown children (and other things) in public, even if it did make you uncomfortable. You'll be off burning down the home of a paediatritian next. This is the effect that tabloids have on people.

Apparently anyone taking a photo in Whitehall can be arrested as a suspected terrorist too.

The worlds gone mad!

[jenren]

Never mind. Thought a different perspective might be of value but was wrong. Won't happen again.

[annaj]

No need for a flounce off jenren.

You provided your perspective and other people provided theirs. Some people agree with you and some people don't. That's kind of what dscussion is all about.

[sophiesofa]

I think some people have over reacted to Becky's post thinking she's trying to start some kind of anti paedophile riot or something. At the end she says "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." She asked a question to the forum and has been given the answer: shooting from the hip photography. She of course has a right to be cautious of a stranger taking a photo of her child. If I saw someone taking photos of children (no i'm not a parent) in what appeared to be a trying to do it on the sly way I would probably ring the police (not 999) and ask them to look into. It's not like she saw him take one photo then start screaming paedophile. Although I do think the original title of the thread was a bit OTT.

[sawyerphin]

.

[annaj]

Ok, so, jenren and sawyerphin, you're both saying that your powerful maternal instinct drives you to fear the worst and, by your own admission jenren, is at times irrational.

So, if that's true then surely it's the duty of non-parents to provide some much needed rational perspective and remind you that just because your protective instincts percieve danger, there might not actually be any? Rather than the whole world adapt to your enhanced and emotional sense of threat.

As I've already said, if the OP didn't feel comfortable she was right to act on that, but like several others on here I didn't think the, now removed, "Parents beware!" was necessary or constructive and I don't really see the point of the thread.

[sawyerphin]

.

[Huggers]

call me naive, but I am wondering what earthly use a photo of a child at a fair is to a 'horrible website' when horrible websites are apparently full of horrible pictures. Also the media/advertising is inundated with images of children already, many inapppropriately sexualised, selling you stuff, which these people can already look at.

On the other hand I find people photographing me or my children without permission annoying and would have no problem approaching the person myself and saying so.

[annaj]

Ah, yes, Huggers The Sun Paradox. Frontpage headlines screaming "PAEDOS ARE EVERYWHERE" and page three showing Tiffany from Leicester - just turned 16... she's luuurverley...

Edited (just for you MickMac) to say that, of course I'm not saying that all sun readers or page three admirers are paedophiles (I mean it should go without saying, but on here nothing does). I'm just agreeing with huggers in his/her opinion that society sends out some confused and confusing messages.

[lenk]

annaj Wrote:

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

> Ah, yes, Huggers The Sun Paradox. Frontpage

> headlines screaming "PAEDOS ARE EVERYWHERE" and

> page three showing Tiffany from Leicester - just

> turned 16... she's luuurverley...

Sam Fox, was, of course, technically underage when her pics appeared in the Sun - the shots had had to be taken before her 16th birthday so they could be in the paper on the day itself.

[annaj]

Nice piece of trivia knowledge, lenk, although I don't suppose it comes up in pub quizzes that often.

Unfortunately, just the mention of Sam Fox leaves me with her song "Touch Me" going round in my head and I'm holding you repsonsible...

[HonaloochieB]

Mind 'Touch Me' was a career high compared to her and Mick Fleetwood 'hosting'The Brit Awards in 1989.

[Jeremy]

"Touch Me" is not an appropriate song to mention on this thread.

Neither is "Can I Touch You There" by Michael Bolton.

[Administrator]

Please stay on topic

[HAL9000]

We just don't know who is photographing whom these days.

The police have high-resolution cameras fitted with telephoto lenses all over the place: they can capture close up images from miles away. Shops are equipped with covert and overt security cameras. Tiny body-worn cameras are available on eBay: they are so small, they can be hidden in the toe of a shoe. Tiny cameras are ubiquitous in mobile phones and PDAs.

YouTube features candid clips filmed in toilets and hotel rooms - harder material is available on dedicated spy cam porn sites. We are probably only aware of the tip of the surveillance iceberg.

Can we turn back the technological clock? I don't think so.

[Loz]

Given the database state we now live in, there is another perspective to consider.

Assume this person was a innocent photographer, getting candid photos of a public event (which is a perfectly legal hobby). As the police were called to 'check him out' there is every chance that they took his name and address, especially as they asked him to leave the area. This information will almost certainly be entered onto the Criminal Justice Bureau's database that is used to produce the Enhanced Check.

So, what if this innocent photographer has a career that requires him to have the two-yearly enhanced check? In other words, not only jobs that involve regularly caring for, training, supervising or being solely in charge of children or vulnerable adults. Oh, no. Also covered are occupations connected with lotteries; placing children with foster parents; being a school governor; jobs that allow access to data concerning children and vulnerable adults; being a medical practitioner, dentist, ophthalmologist or pharmacist.

If he has a job in any of these areas, this photographer's career is now effectively over.

Don't believe me? This is what happens when the police 'speak to you'

[JohnL]

So by shouting Paedo loudly enough at certain people -- I can end their career. !!!!

Loz Wrote:

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

> Given the database state we now live in, there is

> another perspective to consider.

>

> Assume this person was a innocent photographer,

> getting candid photos of a public event (which is

> a perfectly legal hobby). As the police were

> called to 'check him out' there is every chance

> that they took his name and address, especially as

> they asked him to leave the area. This

> information will almost certainly be entered onto

> the Criminal Justice Bureau's database that is

> used to produce the Enhanced Check.

>

> So, what if this innocent photographer has a

> career that requires him to have the two-yearly

> enhanced check? In other words, not only jobs

> that involve regularly caring for, training,

> supervising or being solely in charge of children

> or vulnerable adults. Oh, no. Also covered are

> occupations connected with lotteries; placing

> children with foster parents; being a school

> governor; jobs that allow access to data

> concerning children and vulnerable adults; being a

> medical practitioner, dentist, ophthalmologist or

> pharmacist.

>

> If he has a job in any of these areas, this

> photographer's career is now effectively over.

>

> Don't believe me? This is what happens when the

> police 'speak to you'

[Huggers]

actually, shouting 'paedo' is a really good way of getting rid of a mugger.

[lenk]

Huggers Wrote:

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

> actually, shouting 'paedo' is a really good way of

> getting rid of a mugger.

And yet when I tried it during someone's backswing at the US Open, I got escorted from the course.

[Loz]

So by shouting Paedo loudly enough at certain people -- I can end their career. !!!!

Probably not enough. I would suggest instead...

1) Find out where the person lives.

2) Tell a few local parents (confidentially, of course) that you were told by a cousin that the person who lives at that address is, apparently, a known paedo.

3) At least one of these parents, and probably most of them, will ring the police and demand they investigate.

4) The police will pop around and find out the person is actually an innocent local pharmacist who voluntarily teaches sport to deprived kids on weekends. Case closed.

5) The police will enter a report on the interview on the CRB database.

6) Sometime in the next two years, the person then not only be unemployable in his chosen career, but the kids he teaches on the weekend will lose a much respected coach.

Simples.

[jenren]

Peckham Rose, I never once mentioned my child being biological, so why put words in my mouth? I said mother bear instinct, which I know an adoptive parent is just as likely to understand. And how do you even know I have a womb, or at least one that works? Any more assumptions about the circumstances of my parenthood you would like to publicly make? And I made no judgements about anyone's parenting status, not my business. What I did say is that parents (I did not specify what kind!) would understand. We have to make judgements like this a hundred times a day and it never gets easier. I was a schoolteacher for ten years before I became a parent, so yes I do understand what it is like to care for, nurture and worry about other people's children, but it's NOT the same.

What I did say, is that parental fear can only really be understood by a parent, adopted, foster, step-parent or otherwise.

Annaj, one morning not long ago I woke up and went downstairs to find my front door wide open and evidence that someone had been through my house. In what felt like the longest eight seconds of my life, I raced up three flights of stairs with more gripping fear and anguish than I ever thought possible, only to find my son in his room safe and happy. This is not a fear or feeling that can be replicated or "imagined". There is no way to articulate it, it must be felt. So please, when I get "irrational" remember that my job is to protect my son. Nobody is more aware than I am that if I get it wrong and something does happen, I will have myself to blame. If I have to get called hysterical in the process I consider a small price.

I absolutely do not believe that recreational photographers should have their rights questioned, nor do I believe it to be a police matter when I have a "bad feeling". I understood the original message to be a warning to be a little more vigilant with our children and strangers. I misread.

[lenk]

jenren Wrote:

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

This is not a fear or feeling that can be

> replicated or "imagined". There is no way to

> articulate it, it must be felt. So please, when I

> get "irrational" remember that my job is to

> protect my son. Nobody is more aware than I am

> that if I get it wrong and something does happen,

> I will have myself to blame. If I have to get

> called hysterical in the process I consider a

> small price.

>

> I absolutely do not believe that recreational

> photographers should have their rights questioned,

> nor do I believe it to be a police matter when I

> have a "bad feeling". I understood the original

> message to be a warning to be a little more

> vigilant with our children and strangers. I

> misread.

I would argue that the risk to your son from paedophiles / bogeymen / anything you care to fear is significantly less than the risk of your son contracting diabetes / walking under a bus.

[jenren]

Oh lenk, I know! :)

[annaj]

The irrational that you've put in quotes was a reference to your original post.

Often it's not rational, most of us know that

At no point have I said that there isn't a fierce and strong protective parental instinct and at no point have I said that I, as a non-parent, have experienced it or know how it feels. Nor have I judged the OPs decision to take action when she wasn't comfortable.

What I have said is that a non-parent can offer a different and equally valid perspective and possibly one not influenced by strong, defensive emotions and fear.