Loz

I like the Palmerston, too but, the way they've done the seating, if you're in the front part I just feel like you're in everybody's way somehow.

I don't know about the best in all of SE London, but I'm surprised no one has bigged up Franklin's yet. Am I the only fan? I like Springers, but Franklin's is a different league.

One of the main security holes for cards is that the PIN for the chip is the same as the PIN for the mag stripe. This was raised in security circles before chip'n'pin was introduced, but they went ahead anyway on the (admittedly pragmatic) basis that people would never remember two PINs for one card and the vague hope that the mag stripe could be phased out at some stage. Magnetic stripes are trivial to reproduce; chips are much harder, but not impossible. Given the explosion in the amount of fraud, I expect that the banks will solve this 'unsolvable' problem sometime soon as it the loss level becomes greater than the fix-it cost.

I think bus driving has recently become marginally better, but that's probably because it sunk to such a low that I'm not sure it could have got any worse. Mind you, I wouldn't do the job for any money.

As, I assume, one of the forum's resident 'perfect liberals' (Very funny. And so very wrong...) can I say that I think citizenED has just summed the whole thing up perfectly.

Oh PK, I know you really, really, really don't agree with me, but is the selective quoting and editing of my posts really making any point? To put it all in one place for you: I don't see the damage, but if you do you you should call the police. Compare your posts to, say, Mark. Mark made some really brilliant points and it added a lot. In some places he's recognised some of my points, in others he rebutted some. You preferred to pick through my posts looking for some perceived contradiction. Apart from the fact you stridently disagree with me, I really don't have a clue as to what your opinions are over what is a very wide range of issues this thread has covered. You seem to think that I'm here to win some sort of argument, but I actually don't think there is an 'argument' to win. What has happened is that a lot of people have read other opinions, thrown in their thinking on the subject and everybody (I hope) is wiser. Join us - we might learn something from you, and you from us. For instance, even with the first paragraph of this post, because of bawdy-nan's post I am starting to see that a friendly approach and enquiry may work for some people. I'm not fully convinced of this yet; given the strength of feeling on here I'm not sure some people could do it without creating a situation. And I still think calling in the park wardens - almost certainly untrained to handle such matters - is a mistake. I've learnt a lot from KateW - but I still think CRB check scope creep criminalises innocent people. And I still don't believe posting descriptions of 'suspect' people on the internet is healthy, but I can see why some people think it's a good idea. But then, the link in JohnL's last post both confirmed a lot of my fears and equally made me think the police don't have a complete idea either. So, although tomk thinks that this thread is somehow offensive by it's very existence, I think it's been enlightening for a lot of people, me included. (PS Sue: see my post at 2.11am today.)

Actually candj I don't think I've posed a question for a good while - except perhaps the odd rhetorical that generally I've answered myself or general ones that I've honestly set seeking a general answer (e.g. are there really websites that swap photos of fully clothed kids?). So I don't recall 'griping'. I believe you'll find it was Ganapati furtively (?!) trying to set the questions. I think this sort of debate works better when it comprises a number of people making points, rather than trying to set bear trap type questions. It was working well earlier: it was getting to be a very, very good debate when KateW and co. bought some very useful insights and then recovered again with the legality points. I must admit I rather blotted my copybook a bit with the Daily Mail rant, but I was sort of surprised given Sue's previous posts that she moved away from a liberal view. It was unfair of me. Sue, if you are out there, my apologies. The first of your questions I won't answer on a 'can't win' basis. If I say no, then I'm not a member of this club which has some sort of special insight. If I say yes, you'll probably assume I'm some sort of negligent parent. Therefore, I'll take the fifth on that one. Would I like someone filming them in the park? Going waaaay back to much earlier, I really don't understand the damage. If they were at the pool or the beach and semi-clothed, then I would definitely have some reservations, but gallivanting around fully clothed? I just don't get it.

Ganapati - I'm sorry for not responding as you'd hoped. Set a better mousetrap next time. Actually, I think the Austin Mitchell quote said it better than me, anyway.

Ganapati, there are, apparently, approximately 4 million CCTV cameras in the UK, some operated by law enforcement agencies, but most by private companies. I am videoed surreptitiously every single day - as are you, as are your children. There are cameras in places you can't see. You and I have no idea what happens to these videos or who views them. Do I like it? No. Do I think it's for my safety? No. And, whether I like it or not, what can I do about it? Nothing. That is the law. So what would I think if I saw someone surreptitiously filming me? Well, given that knowledge, I probably wouldn't care. Someone, somewhere is probably filming him, filming me, anyway.

Much as I hate to quote Wikapedia - and assuming that photography and videoing are both covered - then, harrassment aside, no. Mamafeelgood quoted broadcasting code, which does not apply to the private person. Photography and the Law Having said that, the police have been known to confiscate under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Austin Mitchell MP made the following speech in the House of Commons on both the public and police confusion on the subject:

PK - see my comments way back at 3:38pm. And I didn't say call someone 'sensible': I was very specific - call the police. Everyone is assuming he is guilty based on one posting of second hand information. And when that happens and people feel that no one is doing something about it this happens Ganapati - No one has said *is* harmless, just that it *may* be harmless. To everyone else: the point is this guy is innocent until proven guilty.

Sorry, you're right. Shall we organise the a suitably sized mob to meet tomorrow by the playground and sort this pervert out? What do you think: hang him from the nearest tree or just cut his whatsits off? Maybe we can ask Sky Sports to cover the event? Honestly Sue - given your previous posts, you were the last person I would have picked as one of the Daily Mail brigade. What convinced you of this man's guilt? What put you off my idea calling in someone suitable, like the police, to have him properly investigated versus the much more expedient he's-obviously-guilty lynch mob approach?

KateW - This is probably where you and I will start to disagree. Sharing concerns is good - if they are investigated and confirmed or proved wrong. But, with our creaking justice system, this sort of investigation generally isn't done. So now they are just put onto databases. I think the process should be: Concern -> Investigation by Police -> Outcome, if guilty logged on database But, in an effort to cover all bases (or actually, cover all backsides) it's more like: Concern -> Log all concerns on databases -> CRB check now based on this info. (We may get around to investigating further, we may not). The 'joys' of the latter approach is that it is very hard to miss someone dodgy trying to get through the system. The proponents of this would argue that the first method would not have picked up Ian Huntley, as he had never been convicted of anything. The CRB checks now include unfounded allegations, even if there is no evidence that they are true, and even if there is no criminal conviction or charges. Though this means few slip the net, it has the obvious downside that the 'collateral damage' (i.e. flagging of actual innocents) is very high. And, more importantly, it destroys the innocent until proven guilty assumption that underpins our entire legal system. Actually, it just completely subverts it. It's a bit saying, "how do we weed out all the bad teachers?' and then coming up with the answer of 'sack all of the teachers'.

I think the point is: do we round up all balding, greying men with a touch of facial hair, just in case it's Gary Glitter. One can never be too careful when children are involved, you know... I'm not saying that the OP's suspect person is innocent. Without starting a lozzyloz/Loz love-in, I think that alerting your nearest policeman is the right thing to do (not the park warden - they almost certainly have no training to handle this). However, posting a description on the internet is getting too much towards the torches and pitchforks brigade. Next thing you know your friendly neighbourhood paediatrician (sic) cops it.

Oh, KateW, keef, cdonline, etc - thank you for replying, I had started to think any chance of intelligent debate on this subject was doomed to failure. KateW: I don't disagree with what you are saying - paedophiles can apparently be ultra clever, fooling even themselves. All the people on here saying 'gee if only he had some sort of a press pass' probably have never come across the term 'social engineering attack'. But does the paranoia far exceed the risk? (all arguments starting 'one child is too many' notwithstanding). I agree that Ian Huntley slipped through a rather shoddy net and that that needed to be fixed, but CRB checks, in particular, have gone through a lot of scope creep and that's what tripped up the apparently innocent deputy head and a lot more besides. Instead of just dealing in facts, they now record rumour and innuendo. Are we at risk of tarring all men in teaching/childcare - and a lot of women - and ruining their careers? seanmlow: Are there really child porn sites with fully-clothed children? Does that really happen or is it urban myth? How does that differ from the, say, clothing section of the Mothercare site?

KateW: This is getting closer to an answer, but there's still a lot missing. If the local paedo wanted to collect images of children, there's loads in magazines, on TV, etc, etc. No shortage. Why pop down to the local playground?? The problem is still in the paranoia. As you said, your training day was to make sure "the childcare profession take all the necessary steps to try and prevent paedophiles getting jobs that give them access to children." On one hand this sounds like an admirable target - on the other, it sounds rather dark and ominously 1984-like. It's this sort of approach that led to the case of the, apparently very good, deputy headmaster a few weeks ago being sacked because someone, many years ago, once made a complaint about him that was later proved to be false, but still remains on his record. Already we've gone from lists of known paedophiles (a good thing) to lists of everyone who has ever been accused - rightly or wrongly (borderline fascism). What's next? As these lists contain mainly men, the obvious extrapolation is that, in a very short period of time less and less men are able to work in teaching/childcare and those that do will have a very short career. Kids aren't stupid - how better to get Mr Smith back for dropping him from the football team for smoking behind the bike shed? Which means less and less male role models and therefore more and more of the society churning effects this is currently believed to be causing. Finally, since you work in the field, would you agree that the vast majority of abuse occurs within the family? And that stranger abductions are a very small issue in comparison? Or (ridiculously, but to make the point) - should Jimbo be less worried about the fellow his mother-in-law saw and more worried about leaving his child alone with his mother-in-law?

KateW Why is that different? It comes back to my original question, which no one has yet to offer anything like an answer.

That's the bit I don't understand. What/where is this place you fear it will end up?

I've never understood this. Why would someone filming an area where children were playing be up to no good, and if they are, what no goodness is it? If watching children playing gives you your kicks, then the current holiday ad where thousands of children running over a sand dune would be rated XXX. And banned. Sometimes I think the biggest danger to children these days is paranoia.

OK people, here's the explanation. Any thoughts that chip and pin is safe are now well and truly dead. Chip and Pin Hijacked

Can I just say - always, always cover your PIN-entering hand. The attendant/server/waiter/waitress may not be looking, but those security camera's and other hidden cameras sure are. I was cloned once, about two years ago, and I learnt this lesson. Touch wood - I've not been cloned since. I also give the card entry slot a good waggle before using ATMs. Having said that, there are reports coming out of ways to detect the PIN off the pad itself with compromised gear, but it seems that most PIN harvesting is still done visually.

I wouldn't be too pleased with this, Sue. I immediately thought of you when I read the OPs 'are we allowed to say a persons colour in a description on the forum any more?'. As someone who has commented on your postings, it's not been because you have sought to defend against racism/sexism - far from it - it's the rather selective nature of what you defend and what you let pass. In your own words, if your are going to have "a clue about the issues", get all the clues. Or, in feminist terms, it's the difference between Erin Pizzey and Julie Bindel. But, whoever said "why don't you go and join a black forum" probably needs to be named and shamed.

Is there an ED Historical Society or some such? There should be a plaque or something on the Coop marking this event.

kford - the rules changed on the 1st April - driving off won't save you anymore. New Parking Rules

Aw - a happy ending. Sniff. (tu)