so annoying

[LCPete]

just makes me sad that stupid people exist.

yes agree with you there but its even more sad that people like that go out of the way to hassle some poor guy out minding his own business and harming nowone
there is a local park thats quite good for dragonflies but I dont bother going anymore got peed off with people asking what I was doing , most were OK but one or two werent

 

[Skiver]

I'm going to have to play devils advocate here because I think a lot of people are making their mind up with very little facts, I appreciate that a lot of you have stories about this and can understand why you would jump to this conclusion.

BUT, from an outside point of view, if you had kids playing in a park and a man with a camera was taking pictures and for a split second you thought that he may be taking pictures of YOUR kid would you not be concerned?

Even if not, you choose to discuss the situation with someone politely and instead of them explaining exactly what you're doing and maybe even showing them some of your work, you present the person with a piece of paper that basically is telling you to shut up and mind your own business, you may then react badly and assume said person is doing this because they have been here before and have previous and that might set alarm bells going off.

Instead of assuming that this person has zero intelligence due to a small paragraph on what they have experienced in that day and all people are the same you should maybe show a bit of respect to a women who MAY have, and within her own right, feared that her children may be exposed to a very serious and disgusting crime?

As people have pointed out, she is herself exposing her kids by having an open profile but some people may not fully understand this side of Facebook - something I know I have struggled with getting to grips with in the past.

You know, In all of this i'm pretty sure most of your guys are right in that it truly was an over-reaction to nothing situation. All I ask is that you really ask yourself, is a 3 page thread with 80 posts (81 including mine) really required to slate a women not a single one of you know nor are involved in this personally?

IMO - this entire thread is no better then what she potentially did - judged based on very little information and then posted it for the whole world to see!

let the flaming begin?

 

[LCPete]

I'm going to have to play devils advocate here because I think a lot of people are making their mind up with very little facts, I appreciate that a lot of you have stories about this and can understand why you would jump to this conclusion.

BUT, from an outside point of view, if you had kids playing in a park and a man with a camera was taking pictures and for a split second you thought that he may be taking pictures of YOUR kid would you not be concerned?

Even if not, you choose to discuss the situation with someone politely and instead of them explaining exactly what you're doing and maybe even showing them some of your work, you present the person with a piece of paper that basically is telling you to shut up and mind your own business, you may then react badly and assume said person is doing this because they have been here before and have previous and that might set alarm bells going off.

Instead of assuming that this person has zero intelligence due to a small paragraph on what they have experienced in that day and all people are the same you should maybe show a bit of respect to a women who MAY have, and within her own right, feared that her children may be exposed to a very serious and disgusting crime?

As people have pointed out, she is herself exposing her kids by having an open profile but some people may not fully understand this side of Facebook - something I know I have struggled with getting to grips with in the past.

You know, In all of this i'm pretty sure most of your guys are right in that it truly was an over-reaction to nothing situation. All I ask is that you really ask yourself, is a 3 page thread with 80 posts (81 including mine) really required to slate a women not a single one of you know nor are involved in this personally?

IMO - this entire thread is no better then what she potentially did - judged based on very little information and then posted it for the whole world to see!

let the flaming begin?

In my case I,ve had a couple of run ins with someone like that assuming I,m up to no good when I was just minding my own business just photographing stuff and feel my reaction is justified and I,m probably not the only one

 

[Skiver]

In my case I,ve had a couple of run ins with someone like that assuming I,m up to no good when I was just minding my own business just photographing stuff and feel my reaction is justified and I,m probably not the only one

Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying you don't have a reason to be annoyed, all you're doing is trying to carry out something you love. I just think that maybe some of you could maybe take into account and appreciate a parents concern for their children. I think I am making a massive assumption that everyone has a logical head and can have a conversation with someone without getting aggressive.

I would like to think if I was in either the parents position or the photographers - a simple, question and answer would allow both parties to move on without concern. If I have ever had my camera out in a public place it is something I try to take into consideration whatever I am doing.

 

[markmullen]

The issue is this ridiculous paranoia, coupled with the irritating approach to their children that some parents have, you can tell the ones, they start any argument, about any subject, with "well, as a parent" as if it somehow makes their PoV more important. Wow, well done, you've reproduced.

 

[Lyonspride]

BUT, from an outside point of view, if you had kids playing in a park and a man with a camera was taking pictures and for a split second you thought that he may be taking pictures of YOUR kid would you not be concerned?

Nope......

I have enough common sense and I don't listen to gossip or media sensationalism.

What's the worst that can happen? I mean seriously????
If somoene takes a photo of a nice car, does the owner have cause for concern?
Short of following you home to figure out where you live, nothing could ever come of a simple photograph.

- Statistically the biggest threat to children comes from close family.
- A CCTV operator has access to more child images than everyone on this forum put together and how are they vetted?
- Someone trying to get images of children for less than genuine purposes isn't going to walk about with a huge DLSR.

It's utterly moronic.... No other word fits.

Her stupidity I judge by the fact she's got a publicly open FB profile, with images of her own children. She also spreads/shares/likes hoax and spam posts on Facebook.

The evidence is all there, plain to see.

 

[PMN]

I just think that maybe some of you could maybe take into account and appreciate a parents concern for their children.

When they're calling you a p*** simply for having a camera? Sorry mate but no, I totally 1000% disagree.

I think I am making a massive assumption that everyone has a logical head and can have a conversation with someone without getting aggressive.

I don't think you're making an assumption, I just think you're missing the point. Having someone say your intentions around kids are shall we say, a little sinister, is just about the worse thing I can think of to say to someone. It's a horrible, horrible assumption, and anyone making such an assumption towards someone just out taking a few photos deserves no further consideration whatsoever.

 

[Phil V]

I'm going to have to play devils advocate here

I had similar thoughts when I first read the post, so I looked at her previous postings, and on balance decided that she's paranoid and moronic.

Of course I could be wrong, she could be paranoid moronic but justified on this occasion.

If someone was taking photos of my kids in public btw, I'd have a friendly chat. Not march up to them shouting the odds. Which is how she describes her own behaviour.

 

[Stuart M]

The only person you have to explain yourself to is a copper. Anyone asking nicely gets told what I'm doing but anyone that comes shouting the odds gets told that if they want to go fetch a copper then that's entirely up to them, otherwise they get told to sod off and mind their own business.

 

[Skiver]

When they're calling you a p*** simply for having a camera? Sorry mate, but no. They don't deserve any consideration or appreciation whatsoever.

Car wizzes through a red line and almost causes an accident with you - you beep your horn, swear whatever takes the anger a way. they were in the wrong - right?

Little do you know that in the back seat of that car lies someones dad, child critically ill for whatever reason and unless they get to hospital fast they will die.

You didn't know ANYTHING about the situation yet you judged, change the car for an ambulance with nice flashing lights and a siren - would you pass the same judgement?

No - you have more information about the event, you have different expectations on what is and isnt allowed.

Lets apply the same logic to this situation and that for all you know - she or someone she knows has been abused in the past, abused in a forum where pictures were taken. She now has a pre-conditioned image of camera's and past abuse and she reacted badly. She isnt going to tell you her life story when objecting to your actions she is going to react to a personal event in her life.

I'm sure you guys are completely right about this, but my own personal belief is that you should NEVER judge without knowing the entire picture. you guys are on the other side of the fence where you have been discriminated against and why should you have any reason to think that you are the only victim here. Maybe the media does hype up this type of thing but that doesn't mean this doesn't happen and that there aren't victims out there.

I'm not asking you to change your opinion, but if you show consideration to others then you might just get it back?

 

[Lyonspride]

Having someone say your intentions around kids are shall we say, a little sinister, is just about the worse thing I can think of to say to someone. It's a horrible, horrible assumption, and anyone making such an assumption towards someone just out taking a few photos deserves no further consideration whatsoever.

This is the point ^^

These days you'd experience social isolation and threats of violence (modern public execution). Go back 200 years though and you'd be tied to a stake atop a huge bonfire (actual public execution).

In fact, back then it became a crime to accuse someone of witchcraft, without suficient evidence. Yet in 2013, some daft bint can accuse a photographer of being a P**** and he gets publicly executed without trial.

Something is very wrong with this modern society.

 

[PMN]

Car wizzes through a red line and almost causes an accident with you - you beep your horn, swear whatever takes the anger a way. they were in the wrong - right?

Little do you know that in the back seat of that car lies someones dad, child critically ill for whatever reason and unless they get to hospital fast they will die.

You didn't know ANYTHING about the situation yet you judged, change the car for an ambulance with nice flashing lights and a siren - would you pass the same judgement?

No - you have more information about the event, you have different expectations on what is and isnt allowed.

Lets apply the same logic to this situation

Or as the situation you mention is monumentally different to the one we're actually talking about let's not.

 

[PMN]

if you show consideration to others then you might just get it back?

As I've already explained, someone calling me a p*** because I have a camera deserves no consideration from me whatsoever. I'd have every sympathy had her child been abused in the past, but without wanting to sound cold and heartless about this bad things happen in life and we have to find ways of dealing with them. If she's assuming everyone with a camera is a pedophile then she needs counseling and help so she can get on with her life and I'd fully support her getting that help but she has to be the one to get it.

These unfortunate but entirely hypothetical circumstances still don't in any way justify what we're discussing, not to me at least.

 

[Steve Smith]

if you had kids playing in a park and a man with a camera was taking pictures and for a split second you thought that he may be taking pictures of YOUR kid would you not be concerned?

Not at all. What possible harm can come to my children by their appearance in someone's photographs?


Steve.

 

[Skiver]

As I've already explained, someone calling me a p*** because I have a camera deserves no consideration from me whatsoever. I'd have every sympathy had her child been abused in the past, but without wanting to sound cold and heartless about this bad things happen in life and we have to find ways of dealing with them. If she's assuming everyone with a camera is a pedophile then she needs counseling and help so she can get on with her life and I'd fully support her getting that help but she has to be the one to get it.

These unfortunate but entirely hypothetical circumstances still don't in any way justify what we're discussing, not to me at least.

Agreed - but let me take this back a step, can you prove she actually accused this person?

For all you know she asked the person politely what they were doing and raised her concerns and the photographer acted aggressively and gave her a reason to jump to this conclusion and react how she did.

In your experience when this has happened then fine - slate the person, but is it right to make a character judgement on someone because of one piece of information?

I know some of you have read other 'paranoid' rants from this women so your judgement is more than likely correct, but I also think people shouldn't be so quick to judge a situation they were not involved with.

 

[PMN]

Agreed - but let me take this back a step, can you prove she actually accused this person?

You have seen the opening post in this thread, haven't you?

It doesn't matter where the accusation was made, directly in person or on facebook, it amounts to the same thing. I understand you're trying to play the Devil's advocate here but with respect I think you're being a bit silly in how you're approaching it.

 

[Lyonspride]

For all you know she asked the person politely what they were doing and raised her concerns and the photographer acted aggressively and gave her a reason to jump to this conclusion and react how she did.

Sounds to me like he was prepared for confrontation, he handed her the guidelines (which I assume to be the one's available online). This to me would suggest he used it as a peaceful resolution. She on the other hand (and judging personality from various things including her job), probably stood there barking at him, insisting she was the law.
I view her as having an attitude quite like the Audi driving, knitwear selling Sarah Duncan from bath.

Like my former manager who got pulled over by the Police, for a simple speed violation, but ended up having his car searched for 3 hours because he refused to accept what the officer was saying.

These people forget that they are nobodies when they leave work.

 

[Ivan S]

I think maybe he should have taken his daffodil hobby away from the park where there are parents and children playing.

I know in this day and age it's not a wise choice to go to a children's play area where there are children and start snapping away at flowers with a great big camera, different if the tog was with his family with his own children, I wouldn't see that as a problem as I am sure the parents of other toddlers/children wouldn't, but if he was there lurking around bushes with a camera, well he should have a little more sense tbh.

 

[Bassit]

- Someone trying to get images of children for less than genuine purposes isn't going to walk about with a huge DLSR.

Shouldn't she be more worried by someone with a camera phone?? surely someone who doesn't want to be noticed taking photos of children wouldn't be bringing attention to themselves by carrying a large camera with a large lens attached, or is this a clever double bluff.

Car wizzes through a red line and almost causes an accident with you - you beep your horn, swear whatever takes the anger a way. they were in the wrong - right?

Little do you know that in the back seat of that car lies someones dad, child critically ill for whatever reason and unless they get to hospital fast they will die.

You didn't know ANYTHING about the situation yet you judged, change the car for an ambulance with nice flashing lights and a siren - would you pass the same judgement?

No - you have more information about the event, you have different expectations on what is and isnt allowed.

Lets apply the same logic to this situation

As soon as anyone in an argument starts to use theoretical possibilities is the moment that person has lost the argument..

 

[Skiver]

You have seen the opening post in this thread, haven't you?

It doesn't matter where the accusation was made, directly in person or on facebook, it amounts to the same thing. I understand you're trying to play the Devil's advocate here but with respect I think you're being a bit silly in how you're approaching it.

I did see it - I have to say I don't fully agree with your comment though.

if the accusation was made in person there and then, then it is wrong - as people have said its not nice to be branded for no reason.

What I am trying to get at is that this post is AFTER the situation, what she may have thought when she approached the person changed after the conversation took place and therefore her accusation is based on the conversation - its no longer a pre-judged opinion.

I'm sorry you feel my approach has been silly, i certainly did not want to come accross that way but merely have an open discussion about this and adding my 2 cents about judgements - after all this topic is about the fact photographers get judged incorrectly all the time, I'm just trying to offer an other side of the fence view.

......
As soon as anyone in an argument starts to use theoretical possibilities is the moment that person has lost the argument..

Surely everything that is being said against this women is theoretical, none of you were there. This is your theory/opinion on how this situation happened. I'm just trying to use examples of where a not knowing the full story can lead to an incorrect judgement.

Secondly - this isn't an "argument" to lose, it's my opinion that maybe some of the opinions are a little quick here, but lets face it, mine, yours and everyone else post here about this topic is opinion and nothing but. There isn't a prize to win here... we are just sharing opinions.

All I am trying to do is maybe open some people up to understanding what was no doubt an irrational reaction but maybe not to judge so quickly and have an adult conversation about that, i'm not trying to win anything here.

 

[Bassit]

I think maybe he should have taken his daffodil hobby away from the park where there are parents and children playing.

I know in this day and age it's not a wise choice to go to a children's play area where there are children and start snapping away at flowers with a great big camera, different if the tog was with his family with his own children, I wouldn't see that as a problem as I am sure the parents of other toddlers/children wouldn't, but if he was there lurking around bushes with a camera, well he should have a little more sense tbh.

I wanted to go to my local town centre during the Easter holidays to do some photography of some of the buildings and landmarks but when i realised that the children were off school i decided against it, for two reasons, the first being i didn't fancy being in the vicinity of children with my camera with the chance of being accused of taking photos of any children and second i didn't like the idea of being mithered by the children asking me questions about why i was taking photos of buildings.

No bushes involved, no lurking but i decided it not worth the risk or potential mither, i don't see why anyone should be made to feel bad about an innocent hobby just because of peoples paranoid perceptions,.

EDIT: yes i do see the irony in my post!!

 

[big soft moose]

Not at all. What possible harm can come to my children by their appearance in someone's photographs?


Steve.

well there is the disgusting subspecies of human life who likes to harvest photos of kids faces and use photoshop to 'refresh' child porn - okay so that doesnt actually harm the child, but its not a use that would appeal to most parents

but to be honest these people are far more likely to rip a photo off a parents facebook than they are to go out and take their own.

(random fact of the day, according the FBI , most of the people who do this work are not in fact paedophiles themselves - they are motivated mostly by financial gain. Which makes you wonder who anyone who's not a P**** can condone child pornography , but i digress)

 

[M.A.Gibson]

"SEND THIS MESSAGE TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS" aka spam

 

[PMN]

I did see it - I have to say I don't fully agree with your comment though.

if the accusation was made in person there and then, then it is wrong - as people have said its not nice to be branded for no reason.

What I am trying to get at is that this post is AFTER the situation, what she may have thought when she approached the person changed after the conversation took place and therefore her accusation is based on the conversation - its no longer a pre-judged opinion.

Sorry, but that still makes absolutely no sense to me. What could possibly happen during a conversation between them to influence what she said in that post? In my mind the only thing that would justify it would be the man actually admitting he was taking pictures of kids and had dodgy intentions, but as I very much doubt that happened it seems ridiculous to even consider it as part of the discussion.

You're not actually playing the Devil's advocate here, you're simply making stuff up. :bang:

All I am trying to do is maybe open some people up to understanding what was no doubt an irrational reaction but maybe not to judge so quickly and have an adult conversation about that

I thought we were having an adult conversation?

 

[big soft moose]

"SEND THIS MESSAGE TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS" aka spam

I've always thought those should say " send this message to both your freinds "

 

[-Ad-]

I
What I am trying to get at is that this post is AFTER the situation, what she may have thought when she approached the person changed after the conversation took place and therefore her accusation is based on the conversation - its no longer a pre-judged opinion.

Sense not does make this

In answer to the OP, fair play to the Tog, not everyone wants to explain they are in the right to a babbling baboon of a woman. Handing out the card and getting on with his photography is a perfectly acceptable and calm way to handle the situation.

 

[big soft moose]

its not absolutely impossible that a paedophile might choose to photograph strangers childen - in a 20 year career as a ranger I did once help the police aprehend one who was doing just that

however its reasonably easy to spot the difference as the average tog is unlikely to be masturbating while taking pictures of dafodils

(I'd also mention that in the same 20 years ive dealt with hundreds if not thousands of 'complaints' from concerned/paranoid parents / members of the public - in that time I can think of 3 that have been legitimate .. the one mentioned above (who turned out to be a previously convicted P****), one who turned out to be a PI working for an estranged partner, and one who was actually photographing the mothers - the latter addmitted that he 'liked' such photos for reasons of gratification, and agreed to cease and desist rather than risk a harrasment complaint from one of the mother concerned. )

 

[Lyonspride]

the average tog is unlikely to be masturbating while taking pictures of dafodils

Shame, I was about to register dafodilfap.com
Could have been an excellent little money spinner!!!

 

[Skiver]

Sorry, but that still makes absolutely no sense to me. What could possibly happen during a conversation between them to influence what she said in that post? In my mind the only thing that would justify it would be the man actually admitting he was taking pictures of kids and had dodgy intentions, but as I very much doubt that happened it seems ridiculous to even consider it as part of the discussion.

You're not actually playing the Devil's advocate here, you're simply making stuff up. :bang:

I think that's my point - neither you or I know what could happen or be said etc. The difference is, i'm not judging this girl because i don't know what she said nor do I know what the photographer said.

I don't see how I am making anything up - if anything the basis of everything I have said is that no-body knows anymore than a small paragraph on facebook.

If I was to judge this girl on anything it would be how a vast majority of photo's seem to be her consuming alcoholic drinks or a picture of her kids.

However there in itself is what I would normally argue against - for all i know its juice, but I have made my own mind up that it isn't and that for a parent she seems to have a big focus on going out drinking.

I thought we were having an adult conversation?

This was more aimed at Bassit who I perceived to be saying I wasn't...

 

[andya700]

Car wizzes through a red line and almost causes an accident with you - you beep your horn, swear whatever takes the anger a way. they were in the wrong - right?

Little do you know that in the back seat of that car lies someones dad, child critically ill for whatever reason and unless they get to hospital fast they will die.

:shrug:
You have invented a totally unrelated, random situation, and even then you do not realise who is in the wrong.
If someone in an ordinary car, runs a red light - for whatever reason, and causes an accident, then there cannot be any mitigating circumstances. Ifthey killed someone, then they would be charged with causing a death by dangerous driving.

To get back to the OP, the photographer was not taking pictures of children, and the stupid woman had already made up her mind that he was a "pervert". Rather than deal with facts, it would seem that her FB entries are largely figments of her imagination - she is an attention seeker, as are many people on FB.

 

[Rob L]

BUT, from an outside point of view, if you had kids playing in a park and a man with a camera was taking pictures and for a split second you thought that he may be taking pictures of YOUR kid would you not be concerned?

Honestly, no. Even if they were taking pictures of my kids.

 

[LCPete]

I think that's my point - neither you or I know what could happen or be said etc. The difference is, i'm not judging this girl because i don't know what she said nor do I know what the photographer said.

I don't see how I am making anything up - if anything the basis of everything I have said is that no-body knows anymore than a small paragraph on facebook.

If I was to judge this girl on anything it would be how a vast majority of photo's seem to be her consuming alcoholic drinks or a picture of her kids.

However there in itself is what I would normally argue against - for all i know its juice, but I have made my own mind up that it isn't and that for a parent she seems to have a big focus on going out drinking.

yes but she has posted that paranoid rubbish on facebook that is fact

 

[big soft moose]

for a parent she seems to have a big focus on going out drinking.

Its probably not a great idea to say things like that about a named individual on the interweb

.

 

[LCPete]

:shrug:

To get back to the OP, the photographer was not taking pictures of children, and the stupid woman had already made up her mind that he was a "pervert". Rather than deal with facts, it would seem that her FB entries are largely figments of her imagination - she is an attention seeker, as are many people on FB.

exactly what I was thinking you put it better than I did

 

[Lyonspride]

she is an attention seeker, as are many people on FB.

Explains the lack of privacy settings across her FB profile.

 

[PMN]

If I was to judge this girl on anything it would be how a vast majority of photo's seem to be her consuming alcoholic drinks or a picture of her kids.

You say that after sitting there trying to 'educate' us on not judging people? Your entire view on this has just lost every ounce of credibility in my eyes.

 

[Sonriendo]

Honestly, no. Even if they were taking pictures of my kids.

I mean how can they physically hurt your kids :shrug:

 

[Skiver]

:shrug:
You have invented a totally unrelated, random situation, and even then you do not realise who is in the wrong.
If someone in an ordinary car, runs a red light - for whatever reason, and causes an accident, then there cannot be any mitigating circumstances. Ifthey killed someone, then they would be charged with causing a death by dangerous driving.

To get back to the OP, the photographer was not taking pictures of children, and the stupid woman had already made up her mind that he was a "pervert". Rather than deal with facts, it would seem that her FB entries are largely figments of her imagination - she is an attention seeker, as are many people on FB.

true, i have but that was my intention to use an unrelated topic - im not saying this person speeding through a red light is in anyway right in what they have done - but given the circumstances you may be able to forgive them for their actions should you know the full story - for me its just highlighting that someones actions may seem wrong or be wrong, but given certain circumstances - they can be forgiven.

Honestly, no. Even if they were taking pictures of my kids.

Then that is fair enough - but would you also say that someone who does should just sit there and deal with it? There is no right or wrong here in my opinion. Regardless it should be dealt with WITHOUT accusations.

yes but she has posted that paranoid rubbish on facebook that is fact

Yes, but does that really give any of us enough information to judge? If I go through a list of your posts and make a character judgement on you that turns out to be wrong and maybe I end up offending you because of that judgement. Can I be forgiven for basing my opinion on what could only be a dozen posts?

I would imagine most of you have made up your minds on me that I am some deluded idiot and well, most of your would probably be correct :bonk:

I guess because i have never been in a situation like this I can never truly relate to how it feels whereas it seem most of you have. I think I am guilty of trying to look for the good in some people when it may not be there.

 

[PMN]

Yes, but does that really give any of us enough information to judge? If I go through a list of your posts and make a character judgement on you that turns out to be wrong and maybe I end up offending you because of that judgement. Can I be forgiven for basing my opinion on what could only be a dozen posts?

I'd say if you went through his Facebook posts and found something as ridiculously stupid as this woman's posted then you'd have every right to judge him.

What the hell happened to people accepting responsibility for the things they do in life? Whenever I post anything anywhere on the Internet I'm representing myself and occasionally other people or organisations I'm associated with, if I say something stupid that reflects badly on myself or others then I expect to have to deal with the consequences. It's that simple.

I'm utterly sick and tired of people being able to do whatever the hell they want and some people will just say, ahh well, you know, it's alright because we don't know the full circumstances. We don't need to know the full circumstances, she made a stupid, narrow minded and potentially very damaging post. We don't need to know any more to form a judgement.

What about the poor photographer who potentially had to deal with being questioned by the police? What about the consequences for him had this stupid bint somehow managed to do some real damage to him, his reputation, his work, his relationships with others, etc? Why have you conveniently chosen to ignore his perspective in this whole thing?

 

[Skiver]

You say that after sitting there trying to 'educate' us on not judging people? Your entire view on this has just lost every ounce of credibility in my eyes.

When you miss-quote me like that it would...

If you look at my post my very next point is...

However there in itself is what I would normally argue against - for all i know its juice, but I have made my own mind up that it isn't and that for a parent she seems to have a big focus on going out drinking.

I am pointing out that If I was to judge this women this is what I would be judging her for after spending a few minutes looking at her profile. We all pickup different things. By all means I did not intend to make it sound like that I have made my mind up on her parenting/drinking habits, i'm just pointing out how easy it is to make a snap judgement on someone based on a few pieces of information.

Maybe that was poorly written, maybe that's my biggest problem here in that I struggle to articulate my point.