(Man with camera at fusion fest today)

[Loz]

So Steph is saying that, if someone took a photo of her child without her permission, it would be in the child's best interest to have it's father banged up for a few months and left with a criminal record. This is now considered 'good parenting'.

Words fail me.

[Domitianus]

Loz Wrote:

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

> So Steph is saying that, if someone took a photo

> of her child without her permission, it would be

> in the child's best interest to have it's father

> banged up for a few months and left with a

> criminal record. This is now considered 'good

> parenting'.

>

> Words fail me.

Well said, Loz. Still, I suppose some people find it reassuring to have a husband they can use as an "attack dog" any time someone does something they don't like. Reminds me of the types of girls who get tanked up on the weekend and then for a bit of entertainment persuade their boyfriends to beat some poor b***er up on the grounds that "He was looking at me funny! Go on, hit im!" Anyone who would even want to be married to someone like that is a bit wanting in the first place.

Could I just add that in such a situation I would like to see Steph arrested as well for incitement to violence.

[Cassius]

From what I know of Paedophiles (and sadly I have had to come across one or two) they are not taking photos of children fully dressed in parks, they are not sitting in parks watching children play. The photos they want to take are very different. Although I don't have children I understand that parents get concerned, however there are far more direct threats to children than a lone man who seems to be behaving strangely. I am not sure of the percentage of child abuse that occurs within the family unit but I believe it is very high - and far more children are killed on the roads than abused by strangers

[lenk]

Cassius Wrote:

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

> From what I know of Paedophiles (and sadly I have

> had to come across one or two) they are not taking

> photos of children fully dressed in parks, they

> are not sitting in parks watching children play.

> The photos they want to take are very different.

> Although I don't have children I understand that

> parents get concerned, however there are far more

> direct threats to children than a lone man who

> seems to be behaving strangely. I am not sure of

> the percentage of child abuse that occurs within

> the family unit but I believe it is very high -

> and far more children are killed on the roads than

> abused by strangers

Exactly.

I think if I were into 'specialist' photos of anything I would probably go on the internet as a first port of call.

This whole thread is basically 'I saw something I was uncomfortable with. Anything I am uncomfortable with should be outlawed. Did I mention I have a child? Please remember I have a child. Think of my children. My poor children. Think of them. Please. '

[????]

And Lenk's posts are basically, "look at me i hate everyone...online anyway. In the real world I'm as mild as anything with just a touch of passive aggressive signs now and then"

[missus]

I think Domitianus is skating on thin ice comparing 'tanked up' girls starting fights for some sort of lowly amusement with a (although possibly overly) concerned mother. Weak parallels by anyones measure.

I don't think Steph was saying she'd have resorted to unfounded violence but rather, had the man not have responded in an utmost considerate manner (particularly given the covert and surreptitious nature of his activities), taken further action i.e. called the police. I'm not sure how others read it but I presume the bit about her other half was tongue-in cheek, that said, if the man refused to delete the pictures of my child on (polite) request, I would probably exact said violent feelings on his camera.

Also, Domitianus, I think your wanton judgment on Steph and her husband (who I presume you've never met) is to my mind a tad hysterical. And no, I do not agree with violence before I get pounced on with more silly analogies.

[mockney piers]

Ironically then, despite the proliferation of digital cameras, it would seem then that this era wont be much documented photographically.

The likes of Martin Parr would simply be hounded out of doing what he does best, documentary photography of the way we are/were.

For instance look at this, actual skin on show, quick arrest him. (click through to the 'genius of photography' article; note the use of the word photography rather than paedophilia)

As a hobbyist photographer myself I understand that other people's sensibilities need to be taken into account, I'll hand out a moo card with my details once I've taken a shot, I'd wouldn't take a photo of a child surreptitously but I think there is a place for photos street photography that may contain children, and if someone takes umbrage (by the way noone ever actually has) I'll delete the photo.

I do find the tenor of the less reasonable posts on this thread is utterly depressing, sorry, unnacceptable ;)

[mockney piers]

I should point out that's Martin Parr's photo, not mine.

[panda boy]

"I would probably exact said violent feelings on his camera."

"And no, I do not agree with violence"

Contradiction anyone...?

[missus]

Good spotting Panda Boy, although I'm sure you're aware that I meant that I don't agree with violence towards the human being. But do continue....

[panda boy]

Hi missus,

I'm sure you don't (at least i hope you don't) agree with violence towards human beings.

But you seem to suggest that unprovoked vandalism is ok is it?

I'm not sure why you're splitting the hairs in Stephs message?

It wasn't only me who took what she wrote in the way that i took it.

The messages previous to this seem to prove that?

[helena handbasket]

When I was a kid we were still allowed to go to the park at the end of the road without parents. Somehow we knew not to mention the assorted men, alone, "reading" to the adults who would probably over-react. My favourite to memory was a fellow who would sit leaning against the tree, "reading", about ten feet from the hopscotch. Why do I remember him? Because he had denim shorts cut as high as possible, with almost his ENTIRE MAN BRAIN hanging through the leghole. He was there about twice a week. We kept that one to ourselves because we knew we would never be sent to the park alone again.

He probably never touched any kids.

Sometimes as I walk by the bakery I stand in the window and admire the baked goods.

[*Bob*]

Ok class,

I'm going to a festival in the morning. By the time I get back on Monday, I expect all crepe paper to be put back in the art cupboard, scissors in the scissor drawer, chairs on top of the desks and fingers on lips.

[????]

womad or Camp B *B*?

[*Bob*]

Womad..?? Ha Ha Ha..

No, I'm off to The Secret Garden Party.

They have pictures of children from last year's festival on their website and everything.

Perhaps it should be called The Secret Paedo Party?

[????]

Don't dance with your kids, jarvis will be on you

[lenk]

???? Wrote:

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

> And Lenk's posts are basically, "look at me i hate

> everyone...online anyway. In the real world I'm as

> mild as anything with just a touch of passive

> aggressive signs now and then"

Nah, I'm consistent, and there's too many easy targets on here to sit in a circle holding hands with everyone

[????]

Yeah tough work just abusing...at least some trolls and flamers are funny whereas you just come over as a bit of a nob to be honest, you obviously think you're very funny, it's not that difficult just doing your shit day in day out. But clap yourself keyboard warrior you're the man.......

*whsipers* Jerk

[Domitianus]

missus Wrote:

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

> I think Domitianus is skating on thin ice

> comparing 'tanked up' girls starting fights for

> some sort of lowly amusement with a (although

> possibly overly) concerned mother. Weak parallels

> by anyones measure.

>

> I don't think Steph was saying she'd have resorted

> to unfounded violence but rather, had the man not

> have responded in an utmost considerate manner

> (particularly given the covert and surreptitious

> nature of his activities), taken further action

> i.e. called the police. I'm not sure how others

> read it but I presume the bit about her other half

> was tongue-in cheek, that said, if the man refused

> to delete the pictures of my child on (polite)

> request, I would probably exact said violent

> feelings on his camera.

>

> Also, Domitianus, I think your wanton judgment on

> Steph and her husband (who I presume you've never

> met) is to my mind a tad hysterical. And no, I do

> not agree with violence before I get pounced on

> with more silly analogies.

Perhaps instead of having a go at me, you should have a word woith Steph about being more careful in expressing herself. From Loz's and Panda Boy's posts it seems that I was certainly not the only person to assume her statement about aggressive behaviour was quite serious. If someone states that they would expect their husband to inflict physical violence upon someone, I think (unless there is VERY clear evidence that the comment is tongue-in-cheek) we are entitled to assume they mean it.

And it seems that your desire to assume that she meant something other than what she said is just that - an assumption, bereft of any actual substance. Dare I suggest the assumption is "wanton"?

And "by anyone's measure"? I assume you mean your own? The only other people to have commented directly on the matter, Loz and Panda Boy, don't seem to have felt moved to take issue with my analogies (doesn't mean that they agree of course, but certainly doesn't seem that my analogies were egregious enough to warrant comment).

And, no,. I don't know Steph or her husband. Do you? Maybe you do. But I have met plenty of people before who like to boast about how they or their other half like to resolve situations by giving someone a good slap and, invariably, they have been t****ers! To my mind, it is one of the saddest and most pathetic default positions people can take when something happens that they don't like. Perhaps Steph and her husband are lovely, gentle people but by posting in the manner she has she has certainly not managed to convey such an impression.

[HAL9000]

I've met Steph - my impression was of a well-spoken, kind-hearted and well-balanced young woman.

[georgia]

She is

[Domitianus]

HAL9000 Wrote:

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

> I've met Steph - my impression was of a

> well-spoken, kind-hearted and well-balanced young

> woman.

Well then, perhaps she should take more care with her posts as her words have clearly led at least three readers to form a different impression.

[HAL9000]

It led to three posters jumping to conclusions without bothering to seek further clarification - hardly inspires confidence in their opinions, IMHO.

[RosieH]

I read it the same way. I don't think there are any conclusions jumped to - if someone says she would get her husband to hit someone over the head with a camera and even goes so far as to say that she would take her child for a walk so it didn't take place in front of him, then I don't think anyone's jumped to any conclusions.

Taking what Steph said at anything other than face value would be jumping to conclusions.

[JohnL]

Surely the devious paedo would have a convincing explanation for his actions, more so than an amateur camramam.