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

[Loz]

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.

[candj]

Loz, with all your griping about people not answering your question I've noticed you haven't answered MY question - Do you have children, and would you like someone furtively filming them in a park? Well?

[Loz]

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.

[candj]

Loz, I'm not posing a "bear-trap" style of question to you by asking if you have children or not, and it has nothing to do with being in a "club" as you point out. Btw, being a parent, you do develop insight and instinct which enables you to ferociously guard your child. I merely ask because if you don't have children, perhaps you can then empathise with those who do rather than be quick to judge and call us paranoid because someone was seen FILMING children. (This latter point of whether it's okay to film children without consent is rather beaten to death and I think we all know the answer, playing devil's advocate or not). I haven't posted since the first page of this thread and I asked you a question which you simply ignored so I asked again. I'm trying to enlighten myself on your posts, I just don't understand where you're coming from that's all. I have since answered my own questions. Thank you.

[Mark]

I have nephews and nieces that I take to the park, if I saw someone covertly filming them with a video camera at I would ask them what they're doing. If I wasn't satisfied with their answer I would probably report them to the Safer Neighbourhood Team or the police and I would also take a picture of them with my phone just for the record. I would also make other parents in the park aware of what I was doing and what he was doing.

Paranoia is an irrational distrust of others however in this instance someone is actually doing something which is deemed as borderline socially wrong and/or questionable, i.e. covertly filming others' kids in a park. We rational people know that if we (especially men) were to go to a random park and film random children then we would probably be approached and questioned because, whether we like it or not, there is a concern about people doing such things.

Loz, your initial question was "why would someone filming an area where children were playing be up to no good...?", it's because they would take the video home, play with themselves and get their kicks from the fact that they were close to the children and can do it again. There's no comparison to a TV ad. KidKruger I hope that answers your question too ("Can somebody please explicitly tell me what the 'fear' / suspicion is?"), in case it doesn't, the fear is that someone will film your child, take the film home and get off on it. The thought is repulsive and instinctively brings out a protective instinct in any parent or guardian and making people feel uneasy about that instinct is wrong. OK some people are over protective, some under protective but we know that getting sexual pleasure from children is wrong and a minuscule minority of people do.

In the past I've seen a man standing outside a boys playground openly playing with his cock, getting his kicks from looking at little boys, needless to say he was restrained and arrested. I've seen an old man in a shop, bend over and blatantly look up school girls skirts and I've seen girls upset after someone flashed at them. Sad pervs can get off on on all sorts.

I think the main point here is to keep it in perspective. Phrases like "I'm fed up with every adult encounter with children being subject to fear and suspicion" are just silly and over the top. As Loz said, sharing concerns is good and we're talking about one man and one initial incident here, not every adult encounter, unnecessary exaggeration just fuels the Daily Mail attitude on both side of the "I'm concerned - you're paranoid" argument. People now know that there is a man covertly filming kids and if they see him they can approach him, tell others, report him or do what ever they feel comfortable doing. It's not being paranoid and I think labelling it as such is wrong, as candj and others have said, he is filming children, yes Macroban, legally he doing nothing wrong but you have to admit it's a bit weird.

Now will someone please go and ask him what he's doing and then act accordingly.

[Scruffy Mummy]

Well said Mark. I've been following this thread and haven't responded as yet as I've made a resolution not to get too involved in debates on the forum as I had in the past!! But you have made such a sensible post.

Yes, it is true that most child abuse happens within the home and that 'Daily Mail' type coverage of 'stranger danger' get's everyone paranoid and focussed away from where actual abuse happens. But actually covererty filming children isn't right - and in addition to the reasons you said about the dangers of this is that sometimes this can lead to the person getting obsessed with a particular child or children that they have filmed of photographed. It's rare - and it's likely this guy is just a boarderline case as you said. But it is worthwhile contacting the Safer Neighbourhood Team or Police - it's best they deal with it and they will know if he has form, they can question him, etc. No one on this forum is suggesting assaulting this guy - simply that this behaviour shouldn't just be ignored.

[JohnL]

This debate was going on about a year ago - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545149/Angry-response-follows-bid-to-ban-photos-in-the-park.html

Seems to have gone quiet now except that the law depends on local councils - what does Southwark say ?

I think an all or nothing might be appropriate (banning ALL photos in public parks that are not licenced), otherwise nobody knows where they stand (because I have know idea what the law is at the moment).

[Pierre]

Another "well said Mark." - good to have a bit of perspective.

I'm still generally with Loz on this, tired of disproportionate fear and suspicion, but I'm also completely behind your last point - why the hell did no-one go and talk to him about what he was doing?

"Pierre, people probably don't confront because not everyone is comfortable doing that," - the implication there is that they are relatively more comfortable doing nothing about it, and that concerns me.

: P

[jollybaby]

There is nothing wrong with reporting someone if you feel uncomfortable with their behaviour. It's easy for us all to comment but none of us were actually there at the time. Jimbo's family clearly felt uneasy with this man's filming and so reported him. Whether you approach them I think depends very much on the situation ie I would probably be less likely to approach a dodgy looking bloke in a park than a 6ft man would. What is wrong is to do nothing at the time and then come back and post a detailed description of the person on a forum such as this.

[Sue]

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?

xxxxxx

Just seen this, sorry if interrupting, don't have time to read the rest of the thread at the moment.

How can you label me "one of the Daily Mail brigade" (what are they exactly?) for thinking there's something wrong about a man filming children secretly (camera at waist height fgs), not making himself known to the mothers, need I go on?

Do you label people according to some idea you have that "because they've said this, therefore they should think that?"

Because I say this man should have been approached and questioned, and that I would have done so (I have an 18-month-old granddaughter and could well have been in the playground with her) you think therefore I think he is guilty and should be strung up? What does that say about you?

You think it would have been preferable to call the police? By the time they'd arrived he would probably have gone. Anyway, bit heavy if he had a perfectly innocent motive, no?

:-S

[Pierre]

...and off we go again. ;)

: P

[Sue]

Pierre Wrote:

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

> ...and off we go again. ;)

>

>

> : P

xxxxxx

OK next time I should just ignore comments like that about me?

GGGGRRRRRRRR

:))

:-S

Edited to say: This is a forum - geddit? People respond to each other's posts :)

[pk]

Loz Wrote:

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

>

> 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.

and going not so far back you said you'd call the police - make up your mind

[JohnL]

Article in the Telegraph about this today

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/08/17/sv_photographers.xml&page=1

Seems nobody (including the police) know the law. Relevent part seems to be

"The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) is unequivocal on the matter: 'Police officers may not prevent someone from taking a photograph in public unless they suspect criminal or terrorist intent,"

I'd think that most of these people are not terrorists or paedophiles.

[Loz]

and going not so far back you said you'd call the police - make up your mind

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.)

[pk]

Loz Wrote:

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

> and going not so far back you said you'd call the

> police - make up your mind

>

...

> 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.)

whatever

[tomk]

Loz Wrote:

> 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.

No, I found the original post necessary. The rest was an irrelevance.

[Ganapati]

Pierre--I should have said WOMEN probably don't feel comfortable confronting a man. I certainly don't. Maybe as a bloke, you don't feel vulnerable, but if you're a woman and certainly if you have your very young children with you, you're going to think twice about confronting someone about what they are doing. Look at that poor woman who was shoved onto the railway lines for asking two men not to smoke! I was on the train the other day when a short guy accused a tall man of deliberately pushing by him, because and I paraphrase here, "you think you can get away with it because you're tall." Who knows who you're going to set off?

[Shaggy]

What an interesting thread. It started off as a neighbourly warning about someone behaving oddly around kids, and was immediately attacked by the ED "Look At Me I'm Such A Perfect Liberal" brigade.

Indispersed with fkwitted comments and expressions of outrage at those fkwitted comments has been info that someone is behaving in a suspicious manner in just about all the playgrounds in the area. It is a simple fact that covert filming of members of the public is simply not something that professionals do without exceptionally good reason.

So, now that we know that we know somebody is behaving in this was around ED, has anyone told the police about this thread? They may well be able to say "nothing to worry about," or "thanks, we will watch out..."

This forum is getting ruined by people who deliberately try to misconstrue simple bits of noticeboard info. Even the thread about card cloning turned into a slanging match.

Perhaps for some items people could start with the word "notice" or "debate"?

Notice: Break-in on X road

Debate: Are breakins on the rise? There has just been one on X rooad again?

[SeanMacGabhann]

Did the card cloning debate turn into a slanging match?? OK - at the start of that thread someone (who is decidedly not of the "perfect liberal" persuasion) gave you (shaggy) a bit of a facile argument saying how easy it should be to spot a tampered slot - but it's been pretty much a simple litany of unlucky people detailing how they think they have been done - it certainly hasn't been hijacked

Even this thread hasn't been "hijacked" in my opinion - the OP, as you said, made a good point and if the thread did get a bit silly for a while, it wasn't hijacked. It isn't an "oh look at me I'm a perfect liberal" thing to suggest that before we OVER-react (and I don't think the OP was an over-reaction) we look at the facts. Keef's initial suggestion about approaching the guy still sounds like the best initial step - that should at least stop anyone suspicious from filming further. I am on the OP's side but it is surely important to remember, at an early stage, how quickly things can escalate

I'm not accusing anyone on here of being this dumb:

Escalation gone wrong

but without balance, these things can happen.. Or police close down art exhibitions because of a nude photo. etc etc

Mark's post had, I thought brought the thing to a close but here we still are. Throwing accusations of being immediately "attacked" aren't helpful either. jimbo was countered and responded very well - it was just one or two other people on both sides who got involved in a fairly pedantic debate thereafter

As for involving the police with this one - well, they can't be everywhere and it's hard to think what they can do in something like this. I understand people's reluctance to get involved with strangers but we aren't talking about some juvenile attackers - some sad old geezer who would probably run at first provocation is more likely the scenario. And the more parents who directly question people doing this, the less likely they will feel comfortable trying it on

[citizenED]

As a father of two little boys who frequent the parks and playgrounds around here, I've been very interested in the debate on here and despite the polarised views and of some and the unnecessarily dismissive tone of others I think it has been a generally fair and balanced discussion of what is a tricky issue. Life is always about relationships. It's a shame that people are fearful of talking to other people. It's not a case of confronting somebody - it's a case of talking to them. You know the simple pass-the-time-of-day chit-chat that may lead you to find out that he is taking photos of a friend's kids as they play....or elsewise. If they had no business there then it's time for action. As a dad, I can stand in a playground and snap away at my kids and others kids without fear of false accusation. The fear of the loner is a sad phenomenon. It completely skews normal relationships between people. It would be polite for a photographer to ask permission to take photos at the playground - but its also impractical, he couldn't physically get round to all the parents and more than likely he would be refused by someone so...no point.

The balance is between the harm done to society by perpetrating distrust and the risk that a photograph might be used for some horrible purpose.

[Loz]

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.

[LibraCarr]

Hi,

Just to add my views on this matter. I have been involved in child protection, and too this day we still do a show for children. All of us have to have clearance from the police, insurance and a four sided arena so that children may be watched from all areas. We do have a problem with photographers that enter the arena and take photo's of the kids enjoying themselves. If they are bona fide then they will show ID.

Quite clearly, if a person is videoing from the hip then he/she is suss, as they need to view to make sure they have the subject into camera. If they are above board they will also carry a media union card and will have gained permission from the authority governing the filming location.

In this day and age, you cannot be to careful. I think prevention of potential abuse is better. Ring the police advise them of your concerns. If the cameraman is innocent then then the police will let him carry on.

Regards,

Libra Carr.

[bon3yard]

Christ, am I glad I dont have kids. News aint the norm. :-S

[shoshntosh]

crazy question, and i'm almost afraid to post for fear of being attacked on here!! (forget about all the pervs out there!) BUT .... what would have been wrong with going up to the guy and innocently asking "so, which one is yours"?? this would have provided him with the (fair) chance to explain. As it is, because he wasn't approached (and given the benefit of the doubt, as hope it would always be our inclination to do), we are now, some of us, worried (esp when someone mentioned they also saw him at the herne) perhaps necessarily but perhaps unneccessarily. this entire thread could have been avoided?

in a populated place i guess i really don't see the harm in just asking someone. not like "hey you pervert" kind of way...

am i being naive? come on, bring on the vitriol...