Strange man near the Peckham Rye Cafe / One o'clock club

[KateW]

Loz, re: your point about 'does the paranoia far exceed the risk?' I think we need to be clear about whether a concern for a child's safety is paranoia or genuine concern. What I mean is that the Huntley case (and also that of the Victoria Climbie case) highlights the failure of social services (SS), the police etc to share their concerns about a person - if I have concerns about the man in the park filming kids, I might report it to the police. If several other people also shared their concerns and the police felt it necessary to explore further, they would hopefully share their information with SS etc who might also have gathered information which by itself might not cause great concern, but coupled with other bits of information form a different picture.

For me, a chap filming kids in a playground is cause for concern. What it isn't is cause for a man to be hung, drawn and quartered right there and then. I just think it needs checking out and following up.

[casper]

I do find the attitude of some on this post very strange. It almost seems that some people wish to defend the indefensible for the sake of it. I admit that I am a father of an 8 month old daughter, but how could you possibly think that a man on his own trying to secretly film children at waist level is ok? All I will say is that he was lucky that it was children with their mothers who were there, I am not so sure if at a weekend with my own child I would have been as charitable.

[Ratpack]

People's instincts are normally right. If you feel something is wrong - there probably is.

[Keef]

We're going off topic here but I have to say it really really bugs me when everyone brings up poor Victoria Climbie, and lays the blame at the door of the social worker, and the police.

What about the medical staff that she saw who sent her home with a diognosis of scabis, and wrote to social services stating that there was no child protection issue? Then later sent her home with burns, having even noted that she was showing signs of neglect? Or, what about the church pastors who suspected abuse, but just preyed for the devil to leave the girl's body?

I am not trying to lay the blame at anyone's feet in particular, but it just bugs me that social services got all the stick in the tabloid press.

Most ironic thing is that they made huge reforms to the way social services work as a result of this case, and the main result is actually that the workers have far less time to actually get away from the office and see people.

For the record, yes I do work for social services.

[KateW]

Keef, get a grip. No-one, certainly not me, was solely blaming SS for the Climibie case; notice the 'etc' at the end.

[Keef]

No need to tell me to Get a Grip, and I apologise, that case just winds me up. Have to say though that It's even less applicable here than the Huntley case, and that one was pretty far removed. I'm sorry if anyone on here counts me amongst those who are trying to defend this park man. I really am not, I just don't understand why noone has asked him his business. It is important that he is approached, because even if his motives are innocent, he needs to know how it looks.

[Loz]

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'.

[Sue]

casper Wrote:

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

> I do find the attitude of some on this post very

> strange. It almost seems that some people wish to

> defend the indefensible for the sake of it. I

> admit that I am a father of an 8 month old

> daughter, but how could you possibly think that a

> man on his own trying to secretly film children at

> waist level is ok? All I will say is that he was

> lucky that it was children with their mothers who

> were there, I am not so sure if at a weekend with

> my own child I would have been as charitable.

xxxxxxx

Totally agree. Gobsmacked at some of the posts on this thread.

:-S

[Loz]

Totally agree. Gobsmacked at some of the posts on this thread.

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?

[mamafeelgood]

it is as simple as this loz and co...

if you are professional you cannot film people without their consent. read ALL broadcast guidelines which are in place to protect everyone and they are very very clear, kids can only be filmed if they have consent from parents. you MUST clearly state when you are filming in a public space so as to allow people to chose not to be filmed. this is for multiple reasons including: children in care from abusive parents, they are caught on film, seen and found by said abusive guardians. this is THE PROFESSIONAL CODE OF CONTACT.

and to be honest, all this guff about what will happen with it. the fact that the person my just 'get it off' looking at shots of my kids disgusts me. it would disgust me if some guys took photos of me on beech intentionally to jerk off at, let alone kids.

finally, say something. if just 2 people had approached him it would have put him off. ask him what he's filming for, take a name, let him know you can see him. i'm all for kids playing out in the street etc... but it also involves parents helping each other out.

[mamafeelgood]

add to this broadcast example for those sans enfants: a divorced women trying to get out of a cycle of abuse with ex tries to get away. but she's caught on a local news piece about a simple high street story. bam, she's spotted, cycle begins again.

these rules are to protect everyone.

i cannot believe some of the things i have read on this thread.

[Keef]

finally, say something. if just 2 people had approached him it would have put him off. ask him what he's filming for, take a name, let him know you can see him. i'm all for kids playing out in the street etc... but it also involves parents helping each other out.

Exactly!!!

[pk]

Loz Wrote:

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

> > Totally agree. Gobsmacked at some of the posts

> on this thread.

>

> 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?

how was it your idea to 'call someone sensible?' - at the top of this thread you said that the person who did call someone you couldn't understand it

and then when someone says that they're gobsmacked you draw ridiculous conclusions about lynch mobs and the daily mail - how do you manage to reach these conclusions? just so that you can act like you're right and everyone else is overreacting?

[Ganapati]

Loz, Pierre and others who believe the filming is harmless--how would you feel if you caught a stranger surreptitiously filming *you*? It's bizarre behaviour period.

[Loz]

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.

[Lizziedjango]

Haven't time to read the entire thread, but isn't it illegal now to film someone without their consent?

[bawdy-nan]

I was in a similar situation recently - at the playpark at goose green with 2 small kids. I noticed a man, who appeared to be on his own, filming children in, what seemed to be a quite surreptitious way. I was a bit troubled by this but thought the best thing to do was to stride over and ask him what he was doing - politely. I did and he was with some friends and their kids filmingthem. Perfectly satisfactory answer and I felt a bit embarassed but it felt like the right thing to do.

At the same time as being a concerned parent, I am also worried by the growing challenge to our rights to take photographs in public places. It seems to me that in most situations talking to people helps - challenging the wierdos and meeting the people doing interesting video / photography projects...

[macroban]

> I am also worried by the growing challenge to our rights to take photographs in public places.

What does the legislation say? I've heard rumours of restrictions too.

[Loz]

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:

That this House is concerned to encourage the spread and enjoyment of photography as the most genuine and accessible people?s art; deplores the apparent increase in the number of reported incidents in which the police, police community support officers (PCSOs) or wardens attempt to stop street photography and order the deletion of photographs or the confiscation of cards, cameras or film on various specious ground such as claims that some public buildings are strategic or sensitive, that children and adults can only be photographed with their written permission, that photographs of police and PCSOs are illegal, or that photographs may be used by terrorists; points out that photography in public places and streets is not only enjoyable but perfectly legal; regrets all such efforts to stop, discourage or inhibit amateur photographers taking pictures in public places, many of which are in any case festooned with closed circuit television cameras; and urges the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers to agree on a photography code for the information of officers on the ground, setting out the public?s right to photograph public places thus allowing photographers to enjoy their hobby without officious interference or unjustified suspicion.

[macroban]

Thank you, Loz,

Then, on the face of it, this man has done nothing illegal.

MacRoban

[Ganapati]

Loz, you haven't answered the question--how would you feel if you caught a bloke surreptitously filming you?

[Pierre]

Ganapati, I wasn't seeking to defend the man filming. If people suspected him, they should have aproached him and asked him what he was doing. It concerns me that no-one did.

What bothered me was the knee-jerk reaction that then assumed he was one of the countless swarming hordes of predatory paedophiles just waiting to eat our children if we let them out of our sight. The "one can't be too careful" clich? summarised why Social Services, the Police force and anyone else who works with children or vulnerable people are drowning in paperwork instead of actually being able to do their jobs.

Incidentally it's quite common for people to film others without their permission. Ask any moderately famous person who's ever encountered someone with a mobile phone. AFAIK it's still technically legal to film someone in public without their consent if it's for your own purposes. That said, I don't mean it's not creepy.

: P

[tiddles]

gosh, as a parent of two it is difficult not to be totally freaked out by the dreadful things that do happen to children, however I also feel that there is a sort of hysteria nowadays with regard to people with cameras and film in public spaces. Ok my children are old enough to know about stranger danger, saying no etc etc. I did see a man being questioned by police in dulwich park the other day - he was a little dishevelled and had a camera and was totally mortified by being stopped by the police. I think they had a look at his camera and saw shots of a load of ducks in the pond. He was talking to other adulst about how awful he felt and what was obviously being thought about him - They left him alone but I did feel for him. Yes, I understand that there have been some dodgy chaps lurking around those bushes where the kids climb, but most of the time we just have to let our kids run around and have fun - they are fully dressed for gods sake and supervised (from a distance) As someone else had said, with some crimes, any suggestion at all and one is tainted for life.

[Loz]

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.

[Ganapati]

Loz, seriously, give it up. You're bending over backward so far to make a point you're going to get whiplash. The fact is if you saw someone surreptitiously filming you, you could do something about it as Pierre suggested--namely ask the person what he was up to. Just because people object to having their children filmed or having their photo taken by someone unknown to them does not make them part of some Daily Mail brigade. Frankly I think most people would not be happy to discover some stranger had been secretly taking their photo, or their partner's photo, never mind their children's.

Pierre, people probably don't confront because not everyone is comfortable doing that, or perhaps they think, hey maybe I'm imagining things. As for moderately famous people--there's at least a reason why people would film them/take their photo. And yes, I know this is a tiresome argument, but honestly, wait until you have a kid, and you will see why parents have reacted the way they have to this thread.

I for one am grateful jimbo posted this information. Given that at least three other people have had similar experiences at different settings I don't think its alarmist to be concerned.