photos and the police

Why do people think that their children are so glorious that their unique children should be hidden from all? Don't people realise that everywhere you go there's CCTV? That your children are captured on CCTV, playing, fighting, walking down the street, kissing their girlfiend/boyfriend at the bus stop, doing handstands and cartwheels, etc, doing all the things that you don't get to see them do or know about them doing, - more people have access to those images more reguarly than someone taking a random photo.

The owner of a shop may be a pervert or paedophile, the same shop your children buy their sweets from and they may sit and watch the videos over and over and over - are you going to ask the shop owner not to film CCTV while your child on a pedistal is in the vacinity of the CCTV?

In 20 years time, if there's some fantastic photographer whose taken photographs of life in a particular area, as has happened in time gone by and the photos of those 20 years between now and then are made public (like a gentleman in Benwell, Newcastle) wouldn't you be a bit gutted if your child wasn't on any of images, making history, but everyone else in the neighbourhood was? Wouldn't your child be a bit gutted?

The photographing of children paranoia, IMHO has come more prevalant in the past 10-15 years, since the internet got big. Yes, it's a big bad world we live in, but you can't have it both ways. You can have it so that you can take photos and have freedom, or you can have it where cameras are illegal. They're the 2 extemes, - I know which one I want.
 
Well said Nat.

The real losers in this are the children. In two ways. One they will not have a record of their childhood in the same way that we do and two, by the time they are old enough to take photography seriously it is likely to be punishable by imprisonment the way things are going.

If people really get a kick out of seeing fully clothed children they can easily pick up a freemans catalogue and head for the kiddy clothes section.

Living at the seaside and near a children's play area it would be very easy for me to become paranoid about walking round with my camera but why should I let others paranoia spoil my innocent hobby.

One other thing to think about is the good that a photographer with a long lens can do. If I'm out and about and I spot something that looks a bit suspicious I will photograph it. This could be someone acting suspiciously around cars or behaving oddly around children. If a stranger was offering your child sweets wouldn't you want a record of it? Also someone waving a big lens around could deter people from illegal activities.

I could go on all day here but I won't as I need to get out and take some pictures before it's banned.

Mike
 
Joel Roberts said:
Then ask him to delete the photos if any of my children....
Click to expand...
You know you have no right to demand any photographs are 'deleted'.

What if 'he' (and why you are presuming it is a male photographer?) refuses?
 
And what happens when I politly decline your invitation to delete MY images? :wacky:

Joel Roberts said:
Well being into photography I would walk over and ask him what equipment hes using.... Then ask him to delete the photos if any of my children.... If he was actually taking photos... he could just be photographing the scenery....
Click to expand...
 
Please please please please please please please please x 1000...

...can we stop having these tiresome debates time and time and time again !!!

this is a photography forum and I really wish that some of you would out more energy into the core of what this forum is about i.e. photos !! Post some more, comment on some more, but please can we stop going round and round in circles with the same old arguments and debates.


*toys now recovered and placed neatly back in pram*
 
Is there anything more tedious than people coming onto a thread only to say how bored they are by it all?

Incidentally, I'd regard the legality of where you can and can't take photos and under what circumstances they can be deleted (etc) as pretty important for a photography forum to address.
 
gingerjon said:
Is there anything more tedious than people coming onto a thread only to say how bored they are by it all?

Incidentally, I'd regard the legality of where you can and can't take photos and under what circumstances they can be deleted (etc) as pretty important for a photography forum to address.
Click to expand...

Anything that stops us looking like a bunch of freaking nonces is also something I'd be interested in reading about...
 
gingerjon said:
Is there anything more tedious than people coming onto a thread only to say how bored they are by it all?
Click to expand...

Yes there is...for example a thread that is repeated time and time again, always remains unresolved and ends up getting closed either because it gets personal or dwindles into nothing :D

:D

The suns out, its Easter! :D

Get those cameras out and shoot! (y)
 
Raining with a possibility of schnee-regen later...
 
I find it incredibly tiresome to be honest... some german can be quite expressive - such as the impressive list of invective I'm accumulating, but for example the German for 'Squirrel' is Eichhörnchen... roughly translating as 'horn-shaped-ears-rat'...it's also the most difficult German word to say correctly...
 
BRASH said:
So Paedos in a public place can photograph children, that's ok:shrug:
Click to expand...

How often do you really think this happens? There is a massive and ridiculous tabloid generated hysteria about paedophiles in this country.

As we know most abuse is carried out by family members so perhaps we should be most concerned about people taking pictures of their own children?

:wacky:
 
grum said:
How often do you really think this happens? There is a massive and ridiculous tabloid generated hysteria about paedophiles in this country.

As we know most abuse is carried out by family members so perhaps we should be most concerned about people taking pictures of their own children?

:wacky:
Click to expand...

Once again - it's not actually illegal for paedophiles to photograph children in a public place...

And how would you even know they were a paedophile? Unless they'd been convicted of a previous offence - in which case, as I mentioned earlier, the act of being near children might be in breach of his/her release or bail conditions, let alone photographing them.
 
Arkady said:
I find it incredibly tiresome to be honest... some german can be quite expressive - such as the impressive list of invective I'm accumulating, but for example the German for 'Squirrel' is Eichhörnchen... roughly translating as 'horn-shaped-ears-rat'...it's also the most difficult German word to say correctly...
Click to expand...

As a schoolboy I always found "buestenhalter" amusing.

And to be fair, I still do, just not in quite the same way.
 
grum said:
How often do you really think this happens? There is a massive and ridiculous tabloid generated hysteria about paedophiles in this country.

As we know most abuse is carried out by family members so perhaps we should be most concerned about people taking pictures of their own children?

:wacky:
Click to expand...

If you were to follow the levels of risk to their 'obvious' conclusion then, yes, what should happen in the park is that a stranger walks up to a parent and demands that they stop taking photos of their children.

This assumes that taking pictures is inofitself somehow abusive.
 
Wouldn't you think if a paedophile was out in a park taking pictures of kids for dubious reasons that he would try and be as discreet as possible ie sat on a bench shooting away with a camera phone while you suspect him of nothing more than texting his mates?
 
Lets get a couple of FACT right shall we.

According to the police there are no more paedophiles in this country than there was in the 40's 50's 60's 70's 80's 90's or 00's. The internet has NOT produce more paedophiles.

Also the number of child abuse cases has NOT risen on average over many many decades.

It is not illegal to take photos of children.
It is not illegal to take photos of nude children of any age. You must not take SEXUAL EXPLICIT photos of a minor, so yes you can take photos of mum bathing your new born child.
 
right
i asked a question that has been mostly answered
a member decided to dissect the post and ask me for answers which i have aswered truthfuly!
here is the original post........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

can someone explain to me what the problem is because im confused
i notice puddleduck has been "spoken to" over this and have noticed a fair few posts around the net rearding the police being involved and questioning people taking pictures in public places.
i can understand if people are at a childrens play area taking photos of other peoples children without permission or covertly taking pictures of them or taking pictures of strategic government sites etc but taking photos of the street you live in???
how can google be allowed to map all our streets and fronts of our houses etc and get no crap for it?

my tv is mounted on my wall and can be seen through my front window so if it catches anyones eye walking past am i supposed to call the police because they may be casing the joint?


now if i am in a park and wish to take pictures of children playing i would ask permission first! its general courtesy and would expect the same from anyone else regardles of what the law is!
i can't help how i feel regarding strangers taking pictures of my children/grandchildren without my permission.
i would still today ask them why they were doing it
i know the law says it is legal

this thread has IMHO been twisted to one on peadophiles just for arguments sake.
as soon as anyone mentions they are uncomfortable with people taking pictures of their children in certain contexts then everyone starts screaming about their rights and the law as if they were getting accused of being predators themselves WHICH IS NOT THE CASE HERE!
this thread is not and never has been about stoping anyone going about their legal every day hobby!


now back to the question...
google took pictures from a height of around 6ft or so and looked into private property and took pictures of private property so am i right in believing that as long as you are on public land that you can take pictures of private land & property? there is a reason behind this by the way
 
shaggy said:
... am i right in believing that as long as you are on public land that you can take pictures of private land & property? there is a reason behind this by the way...
Click to expand...

Yes.
Providing they're not 'prohibited structures' as defined by the Official Secrets Act.
Airfields, military barracks, some Government buildings, rail and bus stations, post offices (and telephone exchanges, apparently).
 
NigelPaul said:
QUOTE=Joel Roberts;2514191]Well being into photography I would walk over and ask him what equipment hes using.... Then ask him to delete the photos if any of my children.... If he was actually taking photos... he could just be photographing the scenery....
Click to expand...

:thinking::wacky:[/QUOTE]

can,t do that, you need a court order to get a tog to delete photo,s .(its classed as destroying evidence). how could you call the police and say this bloke/woman was taking pics of your kids, if he/she has deleted the photo,s.:shrug:
 
what stuns me is the asumtion that because you are taking a photograph,legaly and in a public place , which just possibly ,might have a child in it somewhere that you may be doing something wrong.
surely a P**** would want photographs of a more revealing nature.?
not kids playing in a park.
bloody media.
 
shaggy said:
google took pictures from a height of around 6ft or so and looked into private property and took pictures of private property so am i right in believing that as long as you are on public land that you can take pictures of private land & property? there is a reason behind this by the way
Click to expand...

It is legal to take pictures if you are on public property - but, people are are legally allowed to an "expected level of privacy".

That means, you can not climb a tree and stare into someones bedroom, with or without a camera.

Also, Google has taken pictures everywhere, but you'll also note they've employed software to blur out faces to protect people's privacy.

On a related subject, and please let's forget children just for a second...if someone starts taking pictures of YOU in a public place, that's legal - but wouldn't you prefer it if they asked your permission first? I think it's just polite, and I hate taking "candid" pictures for that reason.

Yet, if you ask permission first, you also lose the natural pose. Of course if someone continues to take pictures of you against your wishes, that's harassment.

Normally I would hope that the pictures being taken are beautiful photographs - in which case why not suggest to the subject that you show them and if they like, you can send them a copy?
 
LizardMan said:
It is legal to take pictures if you are on public property - but, people are are legally allowed to an "expected level of privacy".
Click to expand...

So were is my "expected level of privacy". from all the CCTV camera around ??????

Definition of Public

A public place is one where people can go about freely and where you can easily be seen and heard.


So if you done want to be seen or heard then don't go out the choice is yours, but do try to stop my choice of photographing you.
 
whiteflyer said:
So were is my "expected level of privacy". from all the CCTV camera around ??????

Definition of Public

A public place is one where people can go about freely and where you can easily be seen and heard.


So if you done want to be seen or heard then don't go out the choice is yours, but do try to stop my choice of photographing you.
Click to expand...

One could expect a level of privacy in a public restroom, therefore it would be illegal to take someone's photograph while they were in a restroom stall for example. It is still a public place, but there is a level of privacy to be expected while in there.
 
Yes.
Providing they're not 'prohibited structures' as defined by the Official Secrets Act.
Airfields, military barracks, some Government buildings, rail and bus stations, post offices (and telephone exchanges, apparently).
Click to expand...

Though I believe (If certain more respectable newspapers are correct) that Credenhill Barracks entrance was on there until recently. :shrug:
 
I may open a nasty can of worms here... More children are abused at home by their relatives, not strangers (80/20). Perhaps the public reaction is based on inflated phobia and not so much on hard facts or the law. I would be much more concerned what the dodgy looking aggressive dad is doing to that kid at home? Maybe there should be CCTV cameras hooked up to the government in every home?
 
It isn't always 'the dodgy dads' that abuse their kids, either... ;)
 
Lynton said:
Though I believe (If certain more respectable newspapers are correct) that Credenhill Barracks entrance was on there until recently. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Probably - when I worked there we occasionally had people turn up trying to photograph the main gate - usually they were Mail or Sun snappers trying to provoke a response - the MoD-Plod just went and had a chat with them, had a few laughs at the expense of the idiots that had sent them down there and off they went.
MoD-Plod are very 'up-to'speed' on the why's and wherefore's of what can and cannot be photographed from a Public road, so seldom get heavy-handed.
Usually a brief explanation as to who works there and the implications for family members if images of them get out (and occasionally, the offer of a cup of tea in the guardroom) is all that's required.
 
As a parent of a 3 year old myself, I have no problems. As a photographer it would be bloody hypocritical. I hate how society has become, has all the stories of religions (particularly Catholicism it seems) and their paedos NOT taught us that the internet didn't invent paedophiles? We're in danger of being swept away in this mentality, such as believing that football hooliganism started in the 70's. What's the reason we all got in to photography? For me it was the ability to creatively explore the art, how can people do this when the assumptions are that a) only MEN are paedophiles and b) if you have a camera, are acting perfectly normal, and don't have children of your own present, you're assumed to be a paedophile. This is the kind of sleepwalking attitude that has moved us so close to a police state!
 
I'm useless at making points in discussions so this will probably come out all wrong but:

Don't people realise there are plenty of images of young children for this veritable army of paedos in the Next catalogue!!
 
RobC said:
I'm useless at making points in discussions so this will probably come out all wrong but:

Don't people realise there are plenty of images of young children for this veritable army of paedos in the Next catalogue!!
Click to expand...


Sounds like a reasonable point to me.
 
Arkady said:
Probably - when I worked there we occasionally had people turn up trying to photograph the main gate - usually they were Mail or Sun snappers trying to provoke a response - the MoD-Plod just went and had a chat with them, had a few laughs at the expense of the idiots that had sent them down there and off they went.
MoD-Plod are very 'up-to'speed' on the why's and wherefore's of what can and cannot be photographed from a Public road, so seldom get heavy-handed.
Usually a brief explanation as to who works there and the implications for family members if images of them get out (and occasionally, the offer of a cup of tea in the guardroom) is all that's required.
Click to expand...

I can wholeheartedly concur...roughly 1 month ago, after the inquest into the "snatch" landrover incident involving badged SAS soldiers, yours truly was despatched to Credenhill by an over zealous editor... goodness knows what he expected me to see.

I turned up, parked a little way down the road...wandered up, took a couple of shots of the entrance gates/signs etc.

I could've just counted to ten between starting to photograph and guard coming over...friendly chat, laugh about the editor/newspaper, quick joke about journalists and on my way.

Thoroughly nice blokes...it's the same wherever. I had to go to Corsham a couple of years back to photograph some bit of RAF Corshamthat was being sold as a wine cellar/data centre. Same thing happened there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top