(Man with camera at fusion fest today)

[jenren]

We do need to have things put into perspective, fair enough.

But look at how distorted and personal the threads against me became for suggesting that parenting might be a bit different than it looks from the outside. Is that perspective?

[annaj]

I'm sorry? Have I missed something? Where have I said anything personal or distorted against you?

If you mean PRs posts they were, perhaps, a little defensive, but they weren't personal against you. I read them as simply the frustration of someone who is tired of being singled out and patronised for being childless. But I suppose we all read from our own perspective, don't we.

[HAL9000]

An initial subjective reaction often gives way to a more objective view after due consideration. It is sometimes wise not to act on the knee-jerk reaction. I experienced this transition during the wheelie bin stabbing thread and was accused of appearing inconsistent.

[Loz]

I don't want to seem like I'm also jumping on your original post jenren, as you've copped it a bit, but it's worth pointing out one fallacy:

including my right to not have my child's image on someone's "photography" webpage

UK law says that you have no rights over your, or your child's, image if it is taken in a public place. Photographers are free to use their photographs of people taken in public places as they wish - including for commercial gain.

There is no legal restriction on photography in public places, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place.

[KalamityKel]

Erm... I'm not too sure it's others that are making it more personal than you are jenren. No no I'm not jumping on the bandwagon with the others who you feel are trying to personall attack you. No really I'm not. I just dont see why the feeling of this thread has picked up tension.

:-S

[jenren]

Sorry annaj, I didn't mean you. There just seemed to be a run of threads by several people that took a definite "f*&k you jenren!" tone. I was childless for a very long time, but it never occurred to me that I could or should really understand what it felt like. I didn't feel patronized, it just is what it is. I guess because I have experience on both sides (which actually is what perspective is) I forget to clarify that I understand and can consider both sides. Didn't feel that here today.

[Marmora Man]

Loz Wrote:

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

There is no legal restriction on photography in public places, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place.

But I think this is changing under counter terrorism laws which is, at least on some occasions, used incorrectly to stop perfectly innocent photography of trains, planes, ships, street scenes, fairs, etc etc.

I'm tempted to go along Whitehall and take a photo of the police at entrance to Downing Street - I fear that I'd be at least cautioned if I did so.

[Loz]

You are confusing the actual law vs what the police do, Marmora Man!

[jenren]

Oh boy, this certainly has become a bit, odd? No tension intended.

I don't believe in laws against taking pictures either. I spent years on amateur photography and loved it. But even then I had the sense to approach children differently. I absolutely support any photographer's right to public visual interest. What I was trying to say (badly, agreed ) is that if he was doing nothing wrong than perhaps sneaking (maybe? juries still out on that one) photos of individual children in a park setting is bound to raise a few eyebrows, especially with parents, who, admittedly ,spend every minute of our lives with a nervous twitch). If I was sitting by myself and a stranger walked up to me and discreetly took a photo I'd feel kind of the same way (without the 'get away from my child, creep! thing we tend to do. Yes I do get it :)

[lenk]

This is all hypothetical, and forgive me for being 'dark' here, but I am pretty sure that the majority of dubious images of children are not taken in busy public parks with their parents nearby.

[PeckhamRose]

Well done lenk. Absolutely.

And to earlier posts I am childfree, not childless.

But I am very childaware.

[clara-b]

going back to the original post the best course of action if you are suspicious of someone talking photos of you or your children is to take a photo of them - if they are just innocently taking pictures in a public place then they won't mind you doing the same.

[HAL9000]

Perhaps we should all start wearing hoodies?

[lenk]

Simply smash the suspect's camera to pieces with a hammer - if they had nothing to hide they would simply look on in horror.

If they were in guilty of something heinous they would scream out 'my beloved mucky pictures!'

Easy.

[sophiesofa]

Hmmn

[Loz]

I think we should all just stay indoors and live out our lives in terror and suspicion. You can't be too careful, you know.

[sophiesofa]

But what if you have a computer in the house that has access to... chat rooms with lurkers on!

[HAL9000]

If we had more covert police surveillance cameras, that might deter the miscreants?

The police could finance the project via a pay-to-view website of the candid images they capture?

Problem solved, I reckon. Win-win all round!

[tiger ranks]

i put a thread on this last year while in dulwich park this man done the same thing but by the time i questioned the ladys who was sitting with thier childern he had dissapeared.

Sorry to say but taking pictures of childern in public without parents permission is not acceptable and as this man is known if i see him i know what i am going to do if he tries to take a photo of my child

[lenk]

Does anyone read the 'from the message boards' bit of Private Eye?

Just having deja vu.

Back on topic, yes if anyone comes near my daughters I swear I'll do time.

[Loz]

Sorry to say but taking pictures of childern in public without parents permission is not acceptable

I can assure you it happens many, many times every day. If not hundreds of times. And you have no idea who is on the other side of those cameras...

[clara-b]

sophiesofa - I assume from your post that you think I am a "lurker" - no just new to east dulwich and this forum.

[sophiesofa]

No my lurker comment wasn't aimed at you or anyone else on the forum. I'm also relatively new to the forum and East Dulwich, welcome. I was just adding to Loz's joke comment about staying indoors by saying the internet is also a potentially dangerous place - although i obviously failed. I think taking a photo can be effective. My mate has this sort of stalker and I happened to be with her one time when he appeared and commenced following her round lots of shops. I took a photo of him really obviously and he then left. She didn't see him for a few months (very unusual for him) but sadly he reappeared a couple of weeks ago. She also had a photo to show the police, which she did.

[thebeard]

Ban all photography in public places!

Ban all cameras in public places!

Ban all old men in public places!

Ban public places.

Ban public events.

I wonder

Whilst

?They walked him home and told him not to go back to the festival.?

What crimes were being committed?

Maybe the crime of dressing kids like teenagers?

Dressing children MJ style ?masks etc? maybe the only solution.

I can see a fortune to be made out of such clothing would do a cracking business on LL.

The kid mask shops anyone.

Would that be ironic?

[????]

and going back to the OP....rather than the hysteria of ban all photos in public/defend photography to the death

"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."

Is the camera by the knee and the run away a new reportage technique?