- Messages
- 453
- Edit My Images
- No
Don't remember hearing anything about this when it happened (back in July).
To be honest I don't think this has anything at all to do with cameras
Is there any conclusive proof that Paedophiles use SLR cameras anyway? I'm totally miffed about where this urban myth came from!
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!
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.
Is there any conclusive proof that Paedophiles use SLR cameras anyway?
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.Is there any conclusive proof that Paedophiles use SLR cameras anyway? I'm totally miffed about where this urban myth came from!
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!
can we just clear somehting up... this was a drunk guy walking around with an axe ? I mean surely thats a crime in itself?
Carrying the axe would be questionable at best.
He was a forestry worker, probably had a small axe fixed to his belt.
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).
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
That's the point. The culprit assumed that the victim was dodgy because he had a camera.
.
It was a drunk guy with mental health problems running amok with an axe.
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.
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
could have read blad blah 30 attacked a 61 year old stranger buying cucumbers in the town in july...[I said:Richard Weddell, 30, attacked a 61-year-old stranger taking photos in the town in July.[/I]
Photographer & mental health problems are just excuses for his drunken behavior.
So going after someone with an axe is fairly normal if people are a bit worse for wear?
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.
Yeah the being a complete P'head is probably a symptom of the mental disturbance.