Concerned mum wants law changed

jamesev said:
If we purposely don’t ask permission to photograph children would Steve McCurry ever have captured “the Afghan girl” or the photo of the Napalm Girl from the Vietnam conflict. Images that are iconic now.
Click to expand...

I thought he probably did ask her. But looking at the info, and it says he used the Nikkor 105mm Ai-S F2.5 lens. So he could take of taken it at a short distance.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I think you'd have to ask a barrister. So far as I understand it the following is how it might play out...
  • Police arrest and caution a suspect.
  • Police ask the suspect "where were you"?
  • Suspect refuses to answer
  • In court: barrister asks the suspect "where were you"?
  • Suspect replies "having a drink with Fred"
  • In his summing up the judge says "Given that the suspect did not tell the police where he was but has now said he was having a drink with Fred you might well choose to ignore that answer in considering your verdict".
Not being a lawyer this is just what I've gathered from general reading.
Click to expand...

Often wondered in what way not mentioning something, at time of arrest could harm your defence. A bit clearer now, thanks.
 
jamesev said:
If we purposely don’t ask permission to photograph children would Steve McCurry ever have captured “the Afghan girl” or the photo of the Napalm Girl from the Vietnam conflict. Images that are iconic now.
Click to expand...
I think we’re getting too far from topic now. This isn’t about street or reportage photography in any way. The group of men weren’t even photographers (at least not what we would class as one) it was some random men with phone cameras who were for whatever reason zooming in and isolating an image of what will probably be a very pixelated grab shot of someone else’s child.

To compare this ‘Concerning’ behaviour with iconic photos from history does demonstrate how silly we are getting.
 
Last edited:
Brazo said:
I think we’re getting too far from topic now. This isn’t about street or reportage photography in any way. The group of men weren’t even photographers (at least not what we would class as one) it was some random men with phone cameras who were for whatever reason zooming in and isolating an image of what will probably be a very pixelated grab shot of someone else’s child.

To compare this ‘Concerning’ behaviour with iconic photos from history does demonstrate how silly we are getting.
Click to expand...

It does seem to veering off topic, but back on topic.

The behaviour of these silly people, not photographers, they were just tourist. Could their actions, ruin it for the rest of us. Yes of course it could, if we were unable to go about freely, photographing street scenes, and just general street life.
 
jamesev said:
Difficulty with that being if you ask them then you don’t capture natural “social reportage” you capture staged.
Click to expand...
jamesev said:
If we purposely don’t ask permission to photograph children would Steve McCurry ever have captured “the Afghan girl” or the photo of the Napalm Girl from the Vietnam conflict. Images that are iconic now.
Click to expand...


No way were those photos taken by skulking around with a long lens - apparently McCurry
"peered in and asked the teacher if he might be allowed to observe and take some pictures"
Click to expand...
https://www.artspace.com/magazine/a...d-how-he-found-her-again-20-years-later-55612

My point being that people should at least be open and honest. Make it clear that you are taking photos and give people the chance to avoid you if they want.
 
It seems these people were taking photos openly, and not hiding what they were doing.
 
Brazo said:
I think we’re getting too far from topic now. This isn’t about street or reportage photography in any way. The group of men weren’t even photographers (at least not what we would class as one) it was some random men with phone cameras who were for whatever reason zooming in and isolating an image of what will probably be a very pixelated grab shot of someone else’s child.

To compare this ‘Concerning’ behaviour with iconic photos from history does demonstrate how silly we are getting.
Click to expand...
But it does have a bearing if the laws are changed. Ok they would be changed for the right reasons, to give children more protection in public, but that could mean in a round about way erosion of rights to photograph. if I take a photo of someone in public at say f1.8 and there’s a child 50m behind them.... ok it’s an extreme situation but all of a sudden it’s now a legal consideration.
 
Playing 'devil's advocate' perhaps the law should be changed to prevent anyone posting images of children up on any form of social media! :coat:
 
jamesev said:
But it does have a bearing if the laws are changed. Ok they would be changed for the right reasons, to give children more protection in public, but that could mean in a round about way erosion of rights to photograph. if I take a photo of someone in public at say f1.8 and there’s a child 50m behind them.... ok it’s an extreme situation but all of a sudden it’s now a legal consideration.
Click to expand...

But surely that child would not be visible. They would be part of the bokeh, defocused.
 
jamesev said:
But it does have a bearing if the laws are changed. Ok they would be changed for the right reasons, to give children more protection in public, but that could mean in a round about way erosion of rights to photograph. if I take a photo of someone in public at say f1.8 and there’s a child 50m behind them.... ok it’s an extreme situation but all of a sudden it’s now a legal consideration.
Click to expand...
Mens Rea. I think one has to consider ‘intent’, a guilty action has to correspond (to some degree) to a guilty mind. Again inadvertently capturing a child or including one as part of a street scene aka @dancook excellent image above is a very different thing to what we are led to believe this group of men did. The end photos are very different too.
 
Last edited:
Where do you draw the line? I don't know if others have noticed but when a factual TV show (news broadcast etc.) are doing a video report on primary/secondary schools that involve pupils, in order to prevent the children being identified a view that seems to be very common is a low level viewpoint (camera below 3 ft off the ground) showing the kids from the waist down. OK no faces can be seen but many school uniforms use skirts. If it were my daughter I'd rather the view be waist up than waist down.
 
Pound Coin said:
We could just prevent children, and solve the population problem at the same time.
Click to expand...
How would you solve the abundance of 10 year olds with mobiles (see bbc article on 50% of 10 year olds have phones) taking photos. Do you want to tell them they can’t take photos of their friends. What would they do with the 10 hrs a week extra that they weren’t currently tied up in photo taking activities?

Brazo said:
Mens Rea. I think one has to consider ‘intent’, a guilty action has to correspond (to some degree) to a guilty mind. Again inadvertently capturing a child or including one as part of a street scene aka @dancook excellent image above is a very different thing to what we are led to believe this group of men did. The end photos are very different too.
Click to expand...
yes and of course, what’s not been mentioned is whats within the law and what’s common sense. Talking photos of children in public spaces might not be against the law but the resultant confrontation with protective adults who think they can invoke their own justice, is another photography challenge.
 
Last edited:
Dangerous said:
Where do you draw the line? I don't know if others have noticed but when a factual TV show (news broadcast etc.) are doing a video report on primary/secondary schools that involve pupils, in order to prevent the children being identified a view that seems to be very common is a low level viewpoint (camera below 3 ft off the ground) showing the kids from the waist down. OK no faces can be seen but many school uniforms use skirts. If it were my daughter I'd rather the view be waist up than waist down.
Click to expand...

Yup.

This all makes me wonder why they go through the expense and trouble of doing an outside broadcast as they very often seem to add absolutely nothing. Ditto those pieces done outside a police station, law court or wherever. In these days of bashing people over the head over carbon emissions and the continued demonisation of car use one thing which could be easily cut is the duplication of personnel between the studio and a needless location and all of the travel, expense and carbon emissions involved in getting to that needless location.
 
Dangerous said:
Where do you draw the line? I don't know if others have noticed but when a factual TV show (news broadcast etc.) are doing a video report on primary/secondary schools that involve pupils, in order to prevent the children being identified a view that seems to be very common is a low level viewpoint (camera below 3 ft off the ground) showing the kids from the waist down. OK no faces can be seen but many school uniforms use skirts. If it were my daughter I'd rather the view be waist up than waist down.
Click to expand...
The way this is going, one wonders if the 'face recognition and tracking' algorithms on cameras and phones won't someday evolve to determine the likely age of subjects and, if judged to be too young, apply a suitable blur to said boat race! :runaway:!
 
This thread made me think back to Halloween.

My wife is Thai and although she's seen a few now she's still relatively new to Halloween in the UK. She and I love to see the children who come to the door. We save change for them and buy a tub of chocolates and everyone gets a warm happy greeting and money and a sweet and they can take one back for their mam if they want. Some kids come with painted faces and Mrs WW's reaction is a joy to behold and she'd love to take pictures of them but of course that could lead to trouble PDQ so every year I have to remind her that taking pictures of other people and especially other peoples children in the UK could very quickly lead to trouble. I've explained that we might be able to take a picture if we ask the parents but is it really worth the possible bad reaction and Gosh forbid the possible accusations which may come immediately or at some time in the future?

I know there are real world issues but isn't it also sad that we can't in a completely innocent way easily have the joy of interacting with and watching children/children and their parents?

As I've said before, there are aspects of life in the UK that make me think some people would be kicked out of the Taliban for being too extreme.
 
Last edited:
Brazo said:
I think we’re getting too far from topic now. This isn’t about street or reportage photography in any way. The group of men weren’t even photographers (at least not what we would class as one) it was some random men with phone cameras who were for whatever reason zooming in and isolating an image of what will probably be a very pixelated grab shot of someone else’s child.

To compare this ‘Concerning’ behaviour with iconic photos from history does demonstrate how silly we are getting.
Click to expand...
It’s not even about photos really. The mother says she “had a feeling they were planning to snatch” her child (not sure exact wording) ! No explanation of why she has those feelings. Most child kidnapping is done by partners/ex-partners AFAIK ... same with abuse of various kinds too of course :(.
 
woof woof said:
This thread made me think back to Halloween.

My wife is Thai and although she's seen a few now she's still relatively new to Halloween in the UK. She and I love to see the children who come to the door. We save change for them and buy a tub of chocolates and everyone gets a warm happy greeting and money and a sweet and they can take one back for their mam if they want. Some kids come with painted faces and Mrs WW's reaction is a joy to behold and she'd love to take pictures of them but of course that could lead to trouble PDQ so every year I have to remind her that taking pictures of other people and especially other peoples children in the UK could very quickly lead to trouble. I've explained that we might be able to take a picture if we ask the parents but is it really worth the possible bad reaction and Gosh forbid the possible accusations which may come immediately or at some time in the future?

I know there are real world issues but isn't it also sad that we can't in a completely innocent way easily have the joy of interacting with and watching children/children and their parents?

As I've said before, there are aspects of life in the UK that make me think some people would be kicked out of the Taliban for being too extreme.
Click to expand...
I don’t have Halloween kids calling but if I did their photos/videos would be on my phone etc from my doorbell camera etc!
 
woof woof said:
This thread made me think back to Halloween.

My wife is Thai and although she's seen a few now she's still relatively new to Halloween in the UK. She and I love to see the children who come to the door. We save change for them and buy a tub of chocolates and everyone gets a warm happy greeting and money and a sweet and they can take one back for their mam if they want. Some kids come with painted faces and Mrs WW's reaction is a joy to behold and she'd love to take pictures of them but of course that could lead to trouble PDQ so every year I have to remind her that taking pictures of other people and especially other peoples children in the UK could very quickly lead to trouble. I've explained that we might be able to take a picture if we ask the parents but is it really worth the possible bad reaction and Gosh forbid the possible accusations which may come immediately or at some time in the future?

I know there are real world issues but isn't it also sad that we can't in a completely innocent way easily have the joy of interacting with and watching children/children and their parents?

As I've said before, there are aspects of life in the UK that make me think some people would be kicked out of the Taliban for being too extreme.
Click to expand...

And all those being captured on security video, when walking up the drive.
 
"Concerned" mum wants attention.

Seems to have worked.

I once got snarked at by one of these self-appointed 'Guardians of Our Children'. It wasn't hard to detect her immense self-satisfaction in effectively accusing a complete stranger, about whom she knew the thin end of FA, of being a prying p***, so pumped up was she on moral indignation and self-righteousness, and a steady diet of sensationalist witch-hunting BS from her Daily Wail feed. It'll be a sad day indeed if the law is ever changed to 'validate' the hateful prejudices of such bitter, twisted zealots.

And breathe...

(The whole encounter enrages me to this day. Does it show?)
 
PaddyODawes said:
"Concerned" mum wants attention.

Seems to have worked.

I once got snarked at by one of these self-appointed 'Guardians of Our Children'. It wasn't hard to detect her immense self-satisfaction in effectively accusing a complete stranger, about whom she knew the thin end of FA, of being a prying p***, so pumped up was she on moral indignation and self-righteousness, and a steady diet of sensationalist witch-hunting BS from her Daily Wail feed. It'll be a sad day indeed if the law is ever changed to 'validate' the hateful prejudices of such bitter, twisted zealots.

And breathe...

(The whole encounter enrages me to this day. Does it show?)
Click to expand...

Oh hello, welcome to the forum. :)
 
PaddyODawes said:
"Concerned" mum wants attention.

Seems to have worked.

I once got snarked at by one of these self-appointed 'Guardians of Our Children'. It wasn't hard to detect her immense self-satisfaction in effectively accusing a complete stranger, about whom she knew the thin end of FA, of being a prying p***, so pumped up was she on moral indignation and self-righteousness, and a steady diet of sensationalist witch-hunting BS from her Daily Wail feed. It'll be a sad day indeed if the law is ever changed to 'validate' the hateful prejudices of such bitter, twisted zealots.

And breathe...

(The whole encounter enrages me to this day. Does it show?)
Click to expand...

Hello and welcome, hope you enjoy it here (y);)
 
woof woof said:
This thread made me think back to Halloween.

My wife is Thai and although she's seen a few now she's still relatively new to Halloween in the UK. She and I love to see the children who come to the door. We save change for them and buy a tub of chocolates and everyone gets a warm happy greeting and money and a sweet and they can take one back for their mam if they want. Some kids come with painted faces and Mrs WW's reaction is a joy to behold and she'd love to take pictures of them but of course that could lead to trouble PDQ so every year I have to remind her that taking pictures of other people and especially other peoples children in the UK could very quickly lead to trouble. I've explained that we might be able to take a picture if we ask the parents but is it really worth the possible bad reaction and Gosh forbid the possible accusations which may come immediately or at some time in the future?

I know there are real world issues but isn't it also sad that we can't in a completely innocent way easily have the joy of interacting with and watching children/children and their parents?

As I've said before, there are aspects of life in the UK that make me think some people would be kicked out of the Taliban for being too extreme.
Click to expand...
How times change. Kids used to be warned not to take sweets from strangers.
 
Newspapers just print this stuff to wind people up and get/keep readers. it does a lot of insidious damage to society:(.
The current reaction to “terror” incidents is another example. Two people were stabbed by a nutcase in London and now we have ‘terror stalks the streets‘ etc. Very bad experience for all involved I’m sure but the repeated use of “terror” is just encouraging the nutcases and certainly shouldn’t be an excuse for a knee-jerk change in laws.
 
PaddyODawes said:
"Concerned" mum wants attention.

Seems to have worked.

I once got snarked at by one of these self-appointed 'Guardians of Our Children'. It wasn't hard to detect her immense self-satisfaction in effectively accusing a complete stranger, about whom she knew the thin end of FA, of being a prying p***, so pumped up was she on moral indignation and self-righteousness, and a steady diet of sensationalist witch-hunting BS from her Daily Wail feed. It'll be a sad day indeed if the law is ever changed to 'validate' the hateful prejudices of such bitter, twisted zealots.

And breathe...

(The whole encounter enrages me to this day. Does it show?)
Click to expand...

Alan,

What an excellent 1st post :D and I do hope you can keep it up after such a good start :D
 
Ed Sutton said:
How times change. Kids used to be warned not to take sweets from strangers.
Click to expand...

Halloween would be a lot cheaper if that was still the case.

I try to give them a chocolate each but some reach in with both hands. Diabetes and a host of issues may await them.
 
PaddyODawes said:
"Concerned" mum wants attention.

Seems to have worked.

I once got snarked at by one of these self-appointed 'Guardians of Our Children'. It wasn't hard to detect her immense self-satisfaction in effectively accusing a complete stranger, about whom she knew the thin end of FA, of being a prying p***, so pumped up was she on moral indignation and self-righteousness, and a steady diet of sensationalist witch-hunting BS from her Daily Wail feed. It'll be a sad day indeed if the law is ever changed to 'validate' the hateful prejudices of such bitter, twisted zealots.

And breathe...

(The whole encounter enrages me to this day. Does it show?)
Click to expand...
I spotted the merest hint of mild annoyance but I did have to look hard. lol
 
I run a small village website and a few years ago someone sent me school photos from the 1920s.
I put a couple on the site and got a nasty email about the risk of paedophiles online seeing children I should take it down.
I was at a loss what harm it would do even in the unlikely event a paedophile did look at it since the few survivors were already in their 90s.
 
Just wondering how easy would it be to search and find the mum on social media and see if she has posted any photos of her child after all she asks the question "Where is that picture of my little girl now?" and she might have posted photos of "her little girl" on t'interweb already.
 
4wd said:
I run a small village website and a few years ago someone sent me school photos from the 1920s.
I put a couple on the site and got a nasty email about the risk of paedophiles online seeing children I should take it down.
I was at a loss what harm it would do even in the unlikely event a paedophile did look at it since the few survivors were already in their 90s.
Click to expand...

Amazing but then again not amazing and it's so sad this is the way we're going. I don't see any way that this can be corrected. Maybe if there's some high profile tragedy or string of tragedies people may turn against whatever is turning their minds. Is it social media, group think, the media or a combination of these and other things? Other than that almost unimaginable set of circumstances what can stop people believing these extreme things and acting in such reactionary ways? It's maybe analogous to some form of indoctrination or grooming almost like that which victims of religious extremist or paedophiles go through.

Maybe we should do as the Chinese and round up thousands of people for re education? In our case it wouldn't be Muslim minorities but those who's brains seem to have been addled by collective group think and paranoia accompanied by feelings theirs and only theirs is the true and acceptable world view.

I remember a documentary about Nazi prisoners of war in the UK who underwent a course of reprogramming, if I can use that term. One of them said being made to think for himself was a revelation and that it was the best few weeks of his life.

It seems as if we're facing two diametrically opposite points of view and ways to go. Many people want equality and freedom and respect for everyone and all of the good things but at the same time we're almost bombarded with examples of people or groups of people casting the first stone and restrictively dictating how people should be allowed to behave.

These are indeed interesting times.
 
4wd said:
I run a small village website and a few years ago someone sent me school photos from the 1920s.
I put a couple on the site and got a nasty email about the risk of paedophiles online seeing children I should take it down.
I was at a loss what harm it would do even in the unlikely event a paedophile did look at it since the few survivors were already in their 90s.
Click to expand...
You should have replied asking what in particular in the photos excited them...
 
Nothings working for me but don't worry about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top