Thank you to those who took my OP for What it was - a warning.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I just think it's very sad that we live in a

> society, where our first thought is that someone

> must be a pervert. I am not a naive person, and

> whatever their reason for filming, they certainly

> should've asked for consent first. However, it

> seems that people are all too quick to jump from

> filming a kid playing in the park, to filming a

> kid playing in a park, because you're a weird

> perv.

I agree Otta. If the kid was doing something funny or cute, they may have recorded it quite innocently. We're talking about a picture of a child playing. Certainly thoughless / insensitive to take pictures without the carer's permission though.

I think the whole thing about not being able to record your kid at a school play is absolutlely ridiculous.

[mockney piers]

I'm pretty sure Martin Parr neither asked permission nor got everyone to sign a disclaimer, plust there are youngsters in bikinis! So thank god he's not in jail as he's one of the most famous living artistic photographers.

That said, if I'm doing 'street' ie naturalistic rather than posed photography, I generally give the subject in question a moo card with a link to my photos after I've done it. This being a typical example. Politeness costs nothing.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

....Actually, I'm not sure that putting out descriptions of alleged perverts on this forum is all that wise.

[mockney piers]

I like to think that people in East Dulwich can spell paediatrician, but you never know.

[Saffron]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ....Actually, I'm not sure that putting out

> descriptions of alleged perverts on this forum is

> all that wise.

Why's that? Just curious.

[StraferJack]

You are aware of vigilantes, right saffron?

[StraferJack]

you know...

this sort of thing

[Otta]

Heh, imagine the ED Vigilante.

Brandishing a rolled up Gaurdian, holding people down, and pouring over-hot coffee from Neros on their crotch. Then happy slapping them, and capturing the moment on their iphones.

All because they photographed a child playing, using a... Motorola!!!! ::o

[mockney piers]

From a chain, are you mad?! Blue Mountain please (ignoring their other branches).

[Earl Aelfheah]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Heh, imagine the ED Vigilante.

>

> Brandishing a rolled up Gaurdian,

..Hah! Guardian Angels

[StraferJack]

anyway - back on topic people. I might be indisagreement with the "over caution" but it's a serious topic

And it's in the Family room not the lounge

[Earl Aelfheah]

I wasn't there so it's difficult to judge, but clearly you felt uncomfortable and I can certainly understand that. You did the right thing by bringing it to the attention of a PCSO, who seem to have investigated the matter and felt that no further action was needed. My feeling is that putting up descriptions of people on a website and implying that they may be perverts, with no real proof of such, is a little dangerous.

[Loz]

They had a right to film the child (it's a public place, it's legal).

You had a right to be uncomfortable with their actions.

The police don't have a right to make you delete anything.

Next.

[Marmora Man]

the ability to take photographs in a public place is not subject to any set of rules or to statute. There are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place except where the picture is taken with the intent of committing a crime or terrorist act.

The above quote derives from a Westminster Hall debate in 2009, mostly about the impact of Anti Terrorism legislation on photography and photographers but it remains relevant. For the full debate see below.

Full Debate

This subject of this thread has been aired before, often - and it never arrives at a sensible conclusion.

One question Roman law used to pose was Cui Bono - who benefits? The reverse is a similarly sensible question - who is harmed by the taking of photos / film of a child or children playing in the park?

[BB100]

I agree it is very unnerving and upsetting for a stranger to photograph your child without your consent but I mentioned the legal aspect of it since the person hasn't actually done anything wrong in the eyes of the law, unless you could claim it was pornographic or the person had harrassed your child by doing it on more than one occasion. And a school play is not a public place so yes the Head has a right to ban photography there. However:

'If you're on a public right of way - such as a public pavement, footpath or public highway - you're free to take photographs for personal and commercial use so long as you're not causing an obstruction to other users or falling foul of anti-Terrorism laws or even the Official Secrets Act (frankly, this one is unlikely). DPP -v- Jones (1999): The Court recognised that the public may enjoy a public highway for any reasonable purpose, provided it does not amount to public or private nuisance or obstruct the highway "by unreasonably impeding the primary right of the public to pass and re-pass: within these qualifications there is a public right of peaceful assembly on the highway." 'There's nothing stopping you taking pictures of people in public places within reason, but if you start shoving your zoom lens up their nostrils or taking action shots of their every step, there's a chance you might get a clip around the ear from your aggrieved subject or possibly face a legal charge of harassment or breach of the peace. Harassment is defined as a 'course of conduct' (so it has to happen at least twice) that causes another person 'alarm or distress', but we have to say that the bullying and aggressive antics of the paparazzi would suggest that prosecutions are few and far between.'

http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-street-shooting.html

'In general under the law of the United Kingdom one cannot prevent photography of private property from a public place, and in general the right to take photographs on private land upon which permission has been obtained is similarly unrestricted. Permision is needed to photograph or film for commercial purposes in the Royal Parks.[3]Persistent or aggressive photography of a single individual may come under the legal definition of harassment.[4]It is a criminal offence (contempt) to take a photograph in any court of any person, being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal, or to publish such a photograph. Photography of certain subject matter is restricted in the United Kingdom. In particular, the Protection of Children Act 1978 restricts making or possessing pornography of under-18s, or what looks like pornography of under-18s.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law

[Otta]

I feel I have successfully spread a warning to those willing to receive it was intended.

I think everyone took it as a warning, and will keep their eyes peeled, so thanks.

This is a discussion board though, and there were/are genuine things to discuss, such as whether any laws were being broken, whether it is right to describe people who may not have done anyhting sinister, whether we as a society are too quick to suspect fou play...

Please don't take that to mean that yourOP was being dismissed out of hand.

[NannyAdelle]

.

[mockney piers]

I'm not sure anyone's playing devil's advocate at all, though the 'same names' may seem light-hearted, dismissive or irreverent, they, ok we, are making a real point.

Bad things do happen, but thankfully very rarely. Your example is horrific but was 19 years ago. Why does that mean you have to spend the ensuing 7000 days assuming the worst when to me that says that on the whole nothing happens rather than bad things happen?

God knows the more negative papers love to scaremonger but it depresses me when this forum, which has a very real influence on the way people perceive their area, is a constant source of negativity. Every other thread seems to be about a mugging or a break-in, and helps to cast a sense of fear and gloom.

This erodes the sense of community that a resource like this should be helping to build up. Without that community then everyone else becomes a target of suspicion as you are demonstrating.

I'd rather believe that most people are good rather than the other way, and as Marmora Man states, ultimately who was harmed other than the fabric of our community, our sense of safety and, concomitantly our personal well-being? Not indeed by a couple of people who were probably a father and son sharing an interest (how nice these days), but from someone sowing fear.

I understand why you felt disturbed, but you did the right thing, you went to the authorities who investigated and deemed nothing to be wrong. Yet still you come on here warning people that something is wrong from your apparently baseless suspicions, then attempt to dictate the terms of the debate to boot when people go 'maybe si maybe no'.

Forgive me if I prefer to firstly think of these people as at worst a bit rude or insensitive rather than arrive at the conclusion that i must fear my local park for paedos/kidnappers/murderers casing my child; weirdly enough I think I'd prefer to live in the former world than the latter.

[BB100]

Yes we are taking it seriously and appreciate the warning - I expect we all have children here. Referring to the legalities of the matter does not trivialise how you feel but puts the issue into some kind of perspective, especially in relation to the lack of action by the PCOs. In your original post, which you have now edited, you suggested that this person had done something criminal which is clearly not the case in the eyes of the law. Yes, there are many bad people in the world who abuse children and yes there are some who take photos of children for their own pleasure and yes there are pedophiles living in east Dulwich and we have a right to protect our children from that but whether we like it or not people also have a right to take photos in a park and not be immediately labelled as a pedophile and we cannot expect the police to take much action. Discussing our legal rights on this thread can be helpful if faced with a similar situation to know where we stand and what action we can take and what we can expect the police to take. It doesn't negate your feelings or your warning.

[cuppa tea]

Personally I am glad of the warning. I would not like someone pointing a video camera at my child and walking off into bushes. It would freak me out...and I am not at all paranoid about paedos. Would you like someone pointing a camera at you and filming you going about your business? Would you ask them to stop? Probably. Children cannot do that for themselves, so we have to do it for them. Or if we feel intimidated by them, we can ask the police. Going into the legalities is irrelevant if the person who's child it is did not want them to be filming her son. And really I doubt many people would. So why all the contrariness?

[Earl Aelfheah]

I don?t think that anyone is questioning the fact that you had a right to be upset by someone taking photos of your child without permission, or that you have the best of motives in wanting to warn other of what you percieve to be a real threat. I really do sympathise with how you felt and you did the right thing reporting it to a PCSO.

One does have to be cautious about posting descriptions of people on the internet however, insinuating that they may be perverts. This isn?t meant as a personal attack, or contrariness. This is an open forum and does invite comment and debate.

[zeban]

I'm with Mockney on this one

[DaveR]

"Children cannot do that for themselves, so we have to do it for them. Or if we feel intimidated by them, we can ask the police. Going into the legalities is irrelevant if the person who's child it is did not want them to be filming her son."

You can't ask the police to act and then say the legalities are irrelevant - they can only enforce the law. Getting huffy about it doesn't change that. I agree that taking photos of children without asking their parents/carers is quite likely to arouse suspicion and/or anger, and it's pretty stupid to do it. But it doesn't benefit anyone either to persist with misleading info about whether something is legal, or criticise PCSOs on a similar basis.