(Man with camera at fusion fest today)

[Gimme]

Shame when an interesting argument / debate, about the rights of photographers vs the rights of hysterical parents who read the News of the World too much, becomes a slagging match.

Would everyone involved in the slagging match please back down for the sake of those who were enjoying this thread!

Keep it interesting.

[Penguin68]

But Domitianus - I fear you're getting your misanthrope mixed up with your misogynist

A misanthrope dislikes man (i.e. human) kind in general, a misogynist holds women alone in disdain. So a misanthrope hates almost twice as many people as a misogynist.

[LuLu Too]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> But Domitianus - I fear you're getting your

> misanthrope mixed up with your misogynist

>

> A misanthrope dislikes man (i.e. human) kind in

> general, a misogynist holds women alone in

> disdain. So a misanthrope hates almost twice as

> many people as a misogynist.

Indeed, Penguin68. And SeanMacGabhann,I'm sure did mean misanthropic, but Domitianus refuted this specifically in relation to female gender. But I do not want to misinterpret his post and so, in the spirit of comments on this thread, I seek clarification.

[Domitianus]

LuLu Too Wrote:

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

> Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > But Domitianus - I fear you're getting your

> > misanthrope mixed up with your misogynist

> >

> > A misanthrope dislikes man (i.e. human) kind in

> > general, a misogynist holds women alone in

> > disdain. So a misanthrope hates almost twice as

> > many people as a misogynist.

>

>

> Indeed, Penguin68. And SeanMacGabhann,I'm sure did

> mean misanthropic, but Domitianus refuted this

> specifically in relation to female gender. But I

> do not want to misinterpret his post and so, in

> the spirit of comments on this thread, I seek

> clarification.

You are quite correct. I had confused the two terms.

[LuLu Too]

Domitianus - Thank you for clarifying!

Now, let the thread continue.

As you were.

[HAL9000]

Hypothetical question: what if some bloke was caught taking surreptitious photographs of two little boys playing with a broken gardening tool and a wheelie-bin?

[reetpetite]

But they were not "little boys" HAL900 you said they were teenagers not quite the same?

[HAL9000]

What part of "hypothetical question" do you not understand?

[reetpetite]

It didn't seem to be a hypothetical question to me , seeing as it was refering to a thread you posted.

[HAL9000]

It's supposed to be ironic, BTW.

Since you ask about the other thread, the boys turned out to be younger than I had initially thought - so "little boys" is not inaccurate.

[plimsoul]

do any of you guys read private eye? there's this spoof section about internet forums. sadly, it's not a spoof here is it? if you don't read it check it out.

isn't it time someone in admin reminded everyone to stay on topic:

hysterical photographers vs hysterical parents...

[Gimme]

What if you spotted a woman in her 60s taking secret photos of two white young teenagers stabbing a bin with what turned out not to be large knives, but were in fact broken garden shears, and both boys turned out to be called Nigel and both wanted to be bus drivers when they grew up? If you called the police, who would you report and for what crime?

[david_carnell]

Is this what Neighbourhood Watch meetings are like?

[reggie]

I made a video clip of some dulwich kids dancing and clapping along to Sly and Reggie and was about to post it on our tube channel.

I was told by several, even by the happy go lucky Sly that this broke some sad unwritten law.

The results of this are the restriction of spreading an important idea that people including kids can enjoy themselves

on the street, innocent fun...music...dancing..joining in with spontaneous events.

Dont Worry Dulwich

[LuLu Too]

Whilst out running this morning, in Dulwich Park, I saw a lone man with a large camera. And he had a dog.

Perhaps the good Burghers of ED ought to know.

Should I start a thread about this?

[Steph]

Bore off Lu Lu Too - that's not even funny...I mean what is the point of your post?

[Horsebox]

LuLu Too Wrote:

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

> Whilst out running this morning, in Dulwich Park,

> I saw a lone man with a large camera. And he had a

> dog.

> Perhaps the good Burghers of ED ought to know.

> Should I start a thread about this?

Mmmmm, burgers.

I had a lovely burger at Brockwell Lido today.

Then I took some photos of my friend's son.

(Just declaring an interest - my friend is the owner of the new Lido cafe)

[KateMontero]

In my view any decent photographer will ask permission before taking pictures of anyone else. If someone started snapping picutres of me randomly I'd certainly have something to say about it, and this should be no different for a child. Regardless of intent (although I would perhaps fleetingly think the worst)I would not let a stranger take photos of my child.

[mockney piers]

Eek. Always remember to use a lenghty taper, light the bue touch paper and stand well back.

Remember never to return to an unspent thread even if it looks like it's fizzled out.

[HAL9000]

Spare a thought - not everyone can type as fast as you, MoP.

[Asset]

Yeah, great reportage photography would occur if the photographer stopped and asked every time.........

[belladonna]

Man I can't believe this discussion. If you believe someone's behaviour is unacceptable, turn around and confront them directly rather than hollering for the boys in blue. You might have an interesting discussion with someone who's been taking pictures all their life as a hobby or a profession, you might even learn about shooting from the hip. How unfortunate to grow old and therefore become suspect. People are so suspicious of photographers these days it's hard to take a natural reportage photograph Look back at the work of Bert Hardycould be interpreted as suspect gosh young boys fighting with no shirts on. Bert Hardy took fantastic pictures of ordinary people on the streets that remind us of a bygone era, when a child in trouble could turn to an adult and ask for help, instead of fearing the worst. How often i've heard kids say 'are you a paedo or something' to any adult trying to be human around them. Oh it's a mad mad world.

[iaineasy]

I think that the mother concerned with the well being of her child is ABSOLOUTLEY NATURAL and ABSOLOUTLEY RIGHT!

If someone is surreptitously taking photos of your child you have every right to be protectitive and to say that that person is stirring up social hysteria. ( Well done - let's generate more pointless hysteria.) is frankly the view of an idiot.Who's to say that the person was involved in an innocent act?? Surely if someone wants to take photos of your children then the responsible thing to do is ask your permission first or let you know afterwards and offer you either A ) a copy of the pics in question or B ) the opportunity to delete the photos if you are not happy with the situation, there by avoiding the possibility of causing hysteria? What if he was a peadophile, and the actions of Becky had him busted and prevented more children being abused? Would you have ignored his action Marmora if they had been you kids or grandkids??

As a man I would have done exactly the same or something far less reasonable and responsible and challenged him directly to his face. As a woman out with her children Becky did exactly the best thing she could of done and any suggestion otherwise is ridiculous and insane.

Child Protection is themost important thing in this case and screw the rights of the reportage artist or anyone who is stupid enough to think it was a good thing to do with the camera. If they are innocent then the embarrassment will last an Hour or two. If they are guilty of more then the affects can last a lifetime to a child.

WELL DONE BECKY!

[Loz]

Child Protection and Terrorism are the two scourges of modern society. Not because they are particularly dangerous, but that they are used for people to hang their neuroses upon and for governments to enact more and more legislation that kills freedom.

Iaineasy takes the dreadful (and discredited) 'if it saves one child' argument. Unfortunately this is doing more harm than good to children. It's this argument that has bought us the scourge of the Independent Safeguarding Authority (aka the Gossip Database). It's this that is killing junior sport, scouts, and other good healthy things that children can do. Instead we have a plague of child obesity - figures out yesterday show that 36 per cent of 10 and 11 year old children in London are overweight or obese. 36 PERCENT!! A good proportion of these children are going to have severe health issues and die early.

This will only get worse because the paranoia will continue and there will be less and less people willing to open themselves up to the danger of working with children.

Yes, Iaineasy, the hysteria of you and people like you may save one child. But at the cost of the future of many overweight, unhappy children.

Well done you.

[iaineasy]

what has child obesity got to do with a man acting suspiciously with a camera, this wasn,t a sports event was it? And how is a mother acting in defence of her child paranoia, Im not against freedom of any sort, and I am very pro-using a camera with respect! And I am certainly not hysterical in supporting becky.

Not one bit of your statement makes any sense to me or has anything to do with what I said above.

If you want to rant about the goverment and terrorist laws on a thread that has to do with a mum looking after her child and warning other parents who may feel the same about it, go ahead Loz what ever makes You feel better is fine with me, as is whatever makes Becky feel better about protecting her family.

I wander what the view of the local neighborhood policing team.

I think they would agree with her actions

now I'll let you get on with it.