Camera = Pervert? It just got more extreme.

What a disgrace. Really hope the guy that was attacked pulls through and is ok.
 
More an indictment of the drinking culture IMO. If more comes to light on this story, I'll try to remember to update. It's more in Pete's (BigStrongMoose) territory than mine. Don't remember hearing anything about this when it happened (back in July).
 
Unbelievable!!!

Getting completely rediculous now, not helped by some of the tabloids fanning the fires as it were.

I was walking with some friends though a park area carrying my camera around my neck, I joked with them that I'd get less attention if I walked through the kid's playground with a certain part of my anatonmy hanging out as opposed to my camera around my neck, sadly it's more reality than a joke :bang:
 
To be honest I don't think this has anything at all to do with cameras, it has everything to do with the fact the guy clearly has serious mental health issues. The trigger for his problems becoming apparent just happened to be some poor sod with a camera (who hopefully will be okay) but I really don't think we can look at this as being indicative of shifting public perception of photographers.
 
Nod said:
Don't remember hearing anything about this when it happened (back in July).
Click to expand...

Probably happened at a time when the news/media was on an anti P**** campaign or the govt was trying to get some new related law passed. Showing innocent people being attacked as a result, wouldn't be conducive.

PMN said:
To be honest I don't think this has anything at all to do with cameras
Click to expand...

I'd like to think it was unrelated, but if I ask myself "would he have been attacked sans camera?" I have to lean toward the idea that he wouldn't.
 
Last edited:
At this point it makes you think about the future, will we require a license for a lens over 200mm due to the chance that it could pick out a toddler in a playground from a bush?

Is there any conclusive proof that Paedophiles use SLR cameras anyway? I'm totally miffed about where this urban myth came from!
 
Is this perception that photographer = possible pervert more common in some parts of the country than in others, or in towns and cities? I live in SW Scotland, in a village about 5 kms from a small town, and I've never come across any suspicion or excessive sensitivity about photography. A local, and well known, man was convicted of having thousands of indecent photographs of kids on his computer a year or two ago, and sentenced to imprisonment. People did find this pretty revolting, but it didn't start any sort of witchhunt or frenzy, and I think a lot of them felt sympathy for his family.
 
Flightphoto said:
Is there any conclusive proof that Paedophiles use SLR cameras anyway? I'm totally miffed about where this urban myth came from!
Click to expand...

Exactly my thoughts too!

It's completely defies logic that someone who was up to no good would parade around in the open with a zonking great DSLR & telephoto lens hanging around their neck, the same can be said about alleged terrorist activities around "sensitive" buildings/areas.

Surely if you're up to no good you'd want to be discrete and not advertise that you're taking photos? :shrug:
 
Flightphoto said:
At this point it makes you think about the future, will we require a license for a lens over 200mm due to the chance that it could pick out a toddler in a playground from a bush?

Is there any conclusive proof that Paedophiles use SLR cameras anyway? I'm totally miffed about where this urban myth came from!
Click to expand...


It's hard to see from a photographer perspective, because we all (I hope) understand what image quality is about, the average Joe thinks it's just all about megapixels and think thinks some cheap point'n'shoot is all you need.

So the impression I get, is that people don't understand why you need such a big camera in any given situation, they think that big camera's are for perving at great distances and then automatically assume your up to no good.

I've been stopped and questioned by Police after walking through a family picnic area at Kinver edge (camera on it's strap, lens cover on), "a complaint from a concerned parent". To be fair the Police probably wouldn't have bothered if the station didn't happen to be a 5min walk down the road and they came at me wielding icecreams from the van parked opposite the picnic area :)
Better the Police than some axe wielding nut case though.
 
Last edited:
Lyonspride said:
So the impression I get, is that people don't understand why you need such a big camera in any given situation, they think that big camera's are for perving at great distances and then automatically assume your up to no good.
Click to expand...

Funny you mention that, someone commented when looking at my 6D + 24 105 saying I can probably see things miles away with that lens. They think its all about 'zoom', their little bridge camera will have a longer telephoto!
 
Flightphoto said:
Is there any conclusive proof that Paedophiles use SLR cameras anyway? I'm totally miffed about where this urban myth came from!
Click to expand...
Probably several factors, but one will be that long lenses are generally seen by the public as being used by paparazzi for spying on people and generally getting up to no good.

The longer the lens, the further away you can spy on someone from. I've tried to explain angle of view and perspective compression to people before and it's been lost on them.

No idea what the current statistics are, but photographers generally haven't been at the top of paedophile demographic.
 
The 'long lens' thing is ridiculous though, the longest lens I own is a 70-200, and the pocket sized compact goes a bit longer than that 'effectively'.

But my SLR lens is a massive white thing, I'll bet most non-photographers would guess it's a really long telephoto, perfect for 'snooping'. The opposite is clearly the truth - but try explaining that to mr average.
 
Thmaga said:
Funny you mention that, someone commented when looking at my 6D + 24 105 saying I can probably see things miles away with that lens. They think its all about 'zoom', their little bridge camera will have a longer telephoto!
Click to expand...

If I'm sporting my 100-400mm lens I often get the remark "I bet that's got a lot of zooms?".... the look of bewilderment on their face when I say "no, only 4 zooms" is hilarious :LOL:
 
Terrible event....hope the victim has recovered.
 
can we just clear somehting up... this was a drunk guy walking around with an axe ? I mean surely thats a crime in itself?
 
KIPAX said:
can we just clear somehting up... this was a drunk guy walking around with an axe ? I mean surely thats a crime in itself?
Click to expand...

He was a forestry worker, probably had a small axe fixed to his belt.

The law on knives also covers axes, as such the blade (or edge) must be less than 3 inches and non-locking for EDC (every day carry), but there are exceptions, for example a chef can carry knives to and from their place of work. In fact you can pretty much carry anything as long as you've a genuine valid reason to do so.

Carrying the axe would be questionable at best.
 
Last edited:
Lyonspride said:
He was a forestry worker, probably had a small axe fixed to his belt.
Click to expand...

I suspect that the description of 'tree axe' indicates something a litle bit larger than a hand axe!


Tony, he's been done for possession as well! :)
 
Nod said:
More an indictment of the drinking culture IMO. If more comes to light on this story, I'll try to remember to update. It's more in Pete's (BigStrongMoose) territory than mine. Don't remember hearing anything about this when it happened (back in July).
Click to expand...

This has very little to do with photographers imo - as i recall from reports when it actually happened there had been some indecent behaviour issues in the area and the culprit clearly formed the wrong impression that the victim was something to do with that

I don't know the offender myself, but local gossip suggested at the time that he was/is somewhat unstable and not just because he was a p'head (incidentally i seriously doubt a forestry worker would be walking arround with a felling axe - even down here in devon we mostly use chainsaws to fell trees. I suspect it will have been a snedding axe and IRRC from reports at the time he went and got it out of his truck when he "saw someone lurking near the toilets" )
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
This has very little to do with photographers imo - as i recall from reports when it actually happened there had been some indecent behaviour issues in the area and the culprit clearly formed the wrong impression that the victim was something to do with that
Click to expand...

That's the point. The culprit assumed that the victim was dodgy because he had a camera.

Just like security guards assume someone photographing in a city is suspicious for terrorist activity just because they have a camera.

Photographers are being demonised.
 
Steve said:
That's the point. The culprit assumed that the victim was dodgy because he had a camera.
.
Click to expand...

no he didn't - according to the reports locally at the time, he assumed he was dodgy because he was "lurking outside the toilets" - the camera was incidental

He could equally have assaulted the guy because he looked at him funny, or because the voices in his head told him to, and then made the other crap up for justification later - from what I hear locally he's something of a loose cannon anyway (hence why he's been sent for psychriatric assessment)
 
Last edited:
Freudian slip there Pete (and the opposite way from the usual one!) - he's a loose cannon.

(Please excuse the levity in a thread with a serious point.)
 
"Camera = Pervert? It just got more extreme."

A rather ridiculous and frankly slightly pathetic header.

It was a drunk guy with mental health problems running amok with an axe.
 
awphot said:
It was a drunk guy with mental health problems running amok with an axe.
Click to expand...

exactly

we had an incident two years back locally where one bloke assaulted another total stranger because he was driving a lotus elise ! (and in his head at least was trying to impress his girlfriend so that she'd leave him :wacky: )

does this mean that there's a strong public perception that elise drivers are out to cuckold us all ? or that if you drive an elise there's a good chance you'll get assaulted

or does it just mean that some head case isn't wrapped too snug and had a deeply illogical thought and acted on it ?

this is the original report from the sidmouth herald http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/news/man_in_court_over_alleged_axe_attack_in_sidmouth_1_2269028 - note that cameras aren't mentioned at all - apparently the victim was 'walking in the garden with friends'
 
Last edited:
Steve said:
That's the point. The culprit assumed that the victim was dodgy because he had a camera.

Just like security guards assume someone photographing in a city is suspicious for terrorist activity just because they have a camera.

Photographers are being demonised.
Click to expand...

But why, and by whom? Does this happen in other countries too? I haven't spent much time in the UK over the last 30 odd years, and I never came across this in South Africa, so I really don't know.
 
Spent most of today wandering around Lyme Regis. Nice day. Hundreds of kids on the beach and in the sea. Took perhaps 200 shots on various lenses, including plenty on a rather large Big White 70-200.

No one even seemed to notice.

Have a chip and stop panicking.

1147678_4766949986366_1196864277_o_zps93c785b9.jpg
[/IMG]
 
don't cross the Devon border Jon - maniacs with axes rule our streets and no photographer is safe [/paranoia]

(incidentally I was out with the camera today - in sidmouth no less - and no one gave a monkeys )
 
Last edited:
Weird, isn't it? I must have shot tens of thousands of kids, and not once been accused of anything. Not saying it doesn't happen, but it's a bit like comets - they only turn up occasionally, and then the event tends to get blown up out of all proportion.
 
big soft moose said:
no he didn't - according to the reports locally at the time, he assumed he was dodgy because he was "lurking outside the toilets" - the camera was incidental
Click to expand...

Well, you have seen reports I have not. But I quote from the BBC article:

Richard Weddell, 30, attacked a 61-year-old stranger taking photos in the town in July.

So the inference from this sentence is clearly that the act of taking photos was relevant to the attack.

I don't know the truth...I wasn't there. So in reality I am guessing as much as you are.
 
Or possibly his mind was disturbed and anything could have set him off?
 
yeah none of us really know what happened

but the thing is even if it was because the victim had a camera , the perpetrator clearly didn't have all his paddles in the water , so its hardly photographers being demonised

if he'd decided to attack someone because they were carrying an umbrella, we wouldn't be going on about umbrella users being demonised
 
To me just another case of somebody being far to drunk,every town & city seem to have theses idiots walking around totally out of their head day & night.

Photographer & mental health problems are just excuses for his drunken behavior. :(
 
simonblue said:
Photographer & mental health problems are just excuses for his drunken behavior. :(
Click to expand...

So going after someone with an axe is fairly normal if people are a bit worse for wear? :thinking:

The photographer bit is an excuse, the mental health bit is a reason. People get drunk and occasionally start mouthing off, being drunk is their 'excuse' and as much as I think you shouldn't drink at all if you get like that people still do. Irritating and sad as it is, to a point we have to just accept that will always happen. Going after someone with an axe isn't drunken behaviour, that's a much deeper problem than just having a few too many beers and needs to be looked into much more seriously.
 
PMN said:
So going after someone with an axe is fairly normal if people are a bit worse for wear? :thinking:

The photographer bit is an excuse, the mental health bit is a reason. People get drunk and occasionally start mouthing off, being drunk is their 'excuse' and as much as I think you shouldn't drink at all if you get like that people still do. Irritating and sad as it is, to a point we have to just accept that will always happen. Going after someone with an axe isn't drunken behaviour, that's a much deeper problem than just having a few too many beers and needs to be looked into much more seriously.
Click to expand...

Yeah the being a complete P'head is probably a symptom of the mental disturbance.

To be honest he can't have been that drunk if he was still able to carry out the attack (although by the same token the wound sustained was a cut needing 5 stitches , so it wasnt much of an axe either)
 
big soft moose said:
Yeah the being a complete P'head is probably a symptom of the mental disturbance.
Click to expand...

I'd have thought it's fairly likely the two are related somewhere along the line but I guess they'll evaluate that when they try figure out what's wrong with the guy.

As far as not being that drunk goes, it's actually incredible just how much alcohol some people can consume and still function relatively well. I've known musicians drink 2-3 bottles of wine in the couple of hours leading up to going on stage and play complex stuff without dropping a single note, if this guy is used to drinking large amounts every day then he's probably more than capable of inflicting some serious damage after an amount of alcohol that would have most people on their backs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top