(Man with camera at fusion fest today)

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Shouldn't that be ISO 100?

[Mick Mac]

???? Wrote:

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

> 100

I'm going to beat him to that some day. I am determined.

[Administrator]

Please stay on topic (some irrelevant post removed)

[jumpinjourno]

Some pics in the tabloid press are not liked by the subject - but are deemed in the public interest by that publication.

Dozens of people come sprawling up and down Lordship Lane and other streets across the capital and the country and are free to go about their merry way.

Pictures of Amy Winehouse and public interest are up for debate. Once she started flirting with the paps and using it to aide her fame - all censorship goes out of the window...

Max Moseley is very much in the public interest and was caught in a sting... which has since progressed through the court.

Pictures of war-torn countries and the facilities of hospitals etc, that are printed demonstrate the severity of the situation and to make sure that the message reaches across the globe of what is going on. I'm sure the victims are not best pleased, but they serve a purpose to the wider world.

Not sure young children in a public park having pics taken at waist-height are in the same league of celebrities and millionaires playing Nazi games...

Anyway - these pics were not for the press, as the photographer would have immediately explained what he was doing when asked.

He may be taking pics for a website (which is not censored and may not have any responsibility) or he may be taking them for personal use.

[SeanMacGabhann]

come again? how so?

[paulino]

Photos of Max Mosely and Amy Winehouse are about as much public interest as children at the Horniman park.

[Gimme]

Methinks somebody is confusing "in the public interest" with "of interest to the public" which are two completely different things...

Photos of Gordon Brown taking drugs would be in the public interest as he is responsible for the country's wellbeing. Photos of Tony Blair taking drugs would, IMHO, not currently be "in the public interest" and would only be "of interest to the public" as he has no public role, and is now a private individual who should have the right to privacy.

What public good would showing Amy Winehouse drunk do?

Or what public service would showing Max Moseley frolicking with call girls serve?

[Steph]

If someone started taking pictures of my young son at waist level, without my permission, I would take a photo of him with my camera, then call the police explaining what I was seeing, then I would confront him ask him what he was doing. If I did not like the response I would hope my husband would take the camera off him and put it over his head. (Not in front of my child, I would take him for a walk)..

If you're a professional/novice photographer and you are taking pictures of kids without permission you are walking a very fine line - people know not to do it! FFS!!!

[Gimme]

And what offence would you report to the police Steph?

This whole thread seems to agree that people would be annoyed by the guy taking photos of their kids without permission but nobody has explained yet why the police would need to get involved. You don't phone the police every time someone does something totally legal but which annoys you do you?

[panda boy]

"If I did not like the response I would hope my husband would take the camera off him and put it over his head. (Not in front of my child, I would take him for a walk)"

Why take the child for a walk? It would surely be educational for him to see 'justice' dispensed without such trivial things, such as evidence, witnesses, a fair trial, or any of that other boring law stuff...

I would say that if you didn't like his response, and his camera was 'put over his head' then the police would be a lot more interested in you and your husbands behavior Steph.

Seriously dismayed that such a violent reaction could be seen as acceptable, no matter how politely its written.

[right2comment]

The offence would be acting strangly in a crowded area around children( Ie taking photos without the consent of the parents), which I am sure would get a reaction from the police to have a polite conversation with the guy in Question and find out what he was up too, if all is innocent nothing harmed, if something more sinister then I would be very happy that someone had informed the police.

Typical British response is to look the other way and not get involved and maybe that is why we have the highest level of peodophiles in Europe.

[lenk]

Why are photos of children any different from those of adults?

Everyone mentioned being photographed in this thread is fully-clothed as far as I can tell.

Where's my 'won't somebody please think of the children' button?

[SeanMacGabhann]

eh??? do we? Anything to back that up?

[Horsebox]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> >

> eh??? do we? Anything to back that up?

Don't be ridiculous, Sean. Why is proof needed when paedos are literally running the country.

Get some perspective man!

[lenk]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> >

> eh??? do we? Anything to back that up?

it's scientific fact, obviously.

there would be absolutely no way in hell to back that up with evidence, but don't let that stop people posting.

It's similar to the story saying that there may be ?as many as? 50,000 paedophiles online that was in The Independent.

By the time the great unwashed / tabloids got hold of it, it was being stated that 50,000 paedophiles were on myspace.com at any one time.

[Horsebox]

'Genetically, paedos share more in common with crabs than they do with you or me'

Fact. As broadcast on Channel 4 some seven or eight years ago.

[lenk]

Richard Blackwood: "The child smells of hammers."

An MP:"The child was stuck in an area of Internet the size of Ireland"

[thebeard]

Modern women the pace of modern life and the web leave affected men these options to avoid frustration

1. Pay for sex.

2. Become a Homosexual

3. Become a pervert / pedo etc

4. Self indulge

5. Go and have a fight at a football ground in the street or in another country.

In our Pernicious British society.

Frustration results in perversion and anger.

Figures not available but it is obvious just ask around.

What has happened to charm beauty elegance and love?

Replaced by nuts mag online porn hookers and perversion.

Mr Administrator

Following your PM this is my last post I?m starting to feel like the Wicker Man on East Dulwich Island.

Tata

Horsebox

Are you trying to make ?Horsebox? another simple term for Bearded Clam?

I guess your real name starts with T and rhymes with HAT.

[Horsebox]

thebeard Wrote:

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

> Mr Administrator

>

> Following you PM this is my last post I?m starting

> to feel like the Wicker Man on East Dulwich

> Island.

Flounce of the week.

Is thebeard nothing more infact than a 'bearded clam'?

>

>

>

> Tata

[DaveR]

"The offence would be acting strangly in a crowded area around children"

Reminds me of the old Not the Nine o'Clock News PC Savage sketch "wearing a loud shirt in a built up area during the hours of darkness"

It seems kind of simple to me - kids are more vulnerable than adults in lots of ways, including the fact that they are less attuned to apparently innocent behaviour from adults that may in fact lead to danger, however rarely (hence "don't talk to strangers offering sweets" etc.) Parents will naturally be concerned about their kids wellbeing and will be sensitive to odd behaviour from adults, particularly where someone appears to be concealing their actions, and it doesn't matter whether what is actually being done amounts to an offence or not. It's the same as people getting worried about someone looking through their front window, or peering into their car when it's parked - it's not just a privacy issue, it's conduct that may be a precursor to something more serious, although often it won't be. You have to balance your instinctive concern with a rational appreciation of the actual risks and potential innocent explanations - not always easy to do. The OP seems to me to have acted reasonably, which is not to say that the photographer in question may have been entirely innocent, and may now feel aggrieved.

[bignumber5]

might sound daft but i think it's reasonable for parents not to want this chap doing this, and i think it's reasonable to say something. I think it's reasonable to use a local bobby to help mediate (no one is advocating calling 999 and demanding a meatwagon full of angry boys in riot gear, but it's a potentially conficting situation - as this thread proves - and to involve an authoritative but neutral 3rd party seems... reasonable). Finally, and this is the backbone of the business, if the photographer is a reasonable person then they would probably understand, even if their actions and intentions are entirely benign. Understanding the other persons point of view, maybe even comprimising what you are doing out of consideration for someone else and putting all that "it's my right" bollocks to one side, and just being a considerate human being.

To those banging on about rights, be they those of the parent or those of the photographer, stop being so sodding American about this. It's not as simple as right/wrong, photographer/paedo, concerned parent/overprotective crazy, rights of child/parent/amateur photographer. Being willing to comprimise out of consideration for others, not being forced to by legislation or mass panic, is how we live together without having lawyers on standby 24/7: By being reasonable.

[thebeard]

errr

[Domitianus]

YES!!!! Let's stop being so American and just be considerate human beings. We all know that the two are very different animals!

[panda boy]

Very eloquently put bignumber5...

I'd vote for you!

[Domitianus]

Steph Wrote:

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

> If someone started taking pictures of my young son

> at waist level, without my permission, I would

> take a photo of him with my camera, then call the

> police explaining what I was seeing, then I would

> confront him ask him what he was doing. If I did

> not like the response I would hope my husband

> would take the camera off him and put it over his

> head. (Not in front of my child, I would take him

> for a walk)..

>

> If you're a professional/novice photographer and

> you are taking pictures of kids without permission

> you are walking a very fine line - people know not

> to do it! FFS!!!

And if your husband did such a thing I would sincerely hope that he was arrested and charged with assault and criminal damage. And I would hope that the photographer then took a civil case for damages against you and your husband. Nice one, Steph! Violence solves everything, eh?