[Closed] Something happened to me today that was truly vile and deeply upsetting.

I agree, which rather begs the question, why all the brouhaha?

1) the women over-reacted
2) ask for permission before taking individual photos of people you don't know

2) ask for permission before taking individual photos of people you don't know

Do you think Nick Ut asked for permission before photographing Phan Thi Kim Phuc, or Kevin Carter before he photographed the starving boy in Sudan?

I know that my work is not in the same league of importance or merit, but what you're advocating amounts to censorship.

At the end of the day, this is the first time this has ever happened to me in over ten years of taking photo's like this. I almost never shoot children specifically (and wasn't really in this case either) and when I have been confronted I have always managed to not only talk people down, but get them to pose directly for me.

This incidence was an outlier albeit a very worrying and deeply upsetting one.

Do you think Nick Ut asked for permission before photographing Phan Thi Kim Phuc, or Kevin Carter before he photographed the starving boy in Sudan?

That feels different to me - a photo journalist capturing 'news'. Most people photographed for news are previously known but the fate of these people was the news story.

How much of your photography is candid? Most of the best shots seem to be posed.

It's been interesting thinking about this. How would I react if someone stood in front of me and took a photo of me (very me of me in the landscape, not the landscape with me in it) as I walked down the street? Probably a bit weirded out. However I've had countless stranger take photos of me when I've being doing something notable and never thought anything of it. Would it make a difference if it was taken 6ft away or 106ft? Again yes it would but you could argue that 6ft away is more honest and less clandestine. I also wonder if the propensity of 'vigilante' photography by people wanting to record people doing something something they disapprove of has made 'normal' less predisposed to having photos 'of them' taken without permission.

Finally how the photographer fits into the environment seems to play a role in my attitude. If the person looks like an Art student doing Art student kind of stuff it is obviously explainable. If it was a fair goers clearly enjoying the fair and also taking photos it also kind of works. Somewhere in the middle makes you stand out.

Do you think Nick Ut asked for permission before photographing Phan Thi Kim Phuc, or Kevin Carter before he photographed the starving boy in Sudan?

How does that compare to a funfair in Sussex?

They were major World events. There was a duty to report them.

After apologising for your earlier extravagant comparisons, you're at it again. 🙄

How very depressing. A guy going about his day, harmlessly indulging his hobby for photographing people, and the vigilantes line up to condemn him. Reminds me a lot of the red socks brigade complaining about MTBs on "their" footpaths - no doubt they would consider them as "rude and inconsiderate".

For another data point, here is a video that a friend of mine uploaded yesterday. I guess I have to tell him he's a rude paedophile. Probably he won't be that bothered as he started in photography getting his skull cracked by police at demonstrations in Chile.

They were major World events. There was a duty to report them.

How big of an event does something have to be before we have your permission to photograph it? Do you have a hotline so we can call to check?

^^^ Kids with oversized balls, at fairgrounds, need documenting too. 😆

How big of an event does something have to be before we have your permission to photograph it?

I am not questioning the right of the OP to photograph people in public spaces. It has been clearly indicated he has every right to do so.

My criticism is of his ludicrous comparison of those photographs and what he was doing, especially as he earlier stated that it was similar to a rape when he was shoved by a woman who is know shown to weigh about 9 stone.

I'd be pissed off if you took pictures of me let alone my son (if you didn't show me the pics and explain why you were taking them)

IMO OP should have shown them the photos and moved on

My criticism is of his ludicrous comparison

To show that the comparison is ludicrous, you would have to give some logical criteria for deciding what is legitimate to document and what is not.

I'd be pissed off if you took pictures of me let alone my son

How you react to people harmlessly acting within the law is, of course, up to you.

Do you think Nick Ut asked for permission before photographing Phan Thi Kim Phuc, or Kevin Carter before he photographed the starving boy in Sudan?

I know that my work is not in the same league importance or merit, but what you're advocating amounts to censorship.

I don't think it does. You are not so much recording wars as starting them!

I'd be pissed off if you took pictures of me let alone my son (if you didn't show me the pics and explain why you were taking them)

Genuinely, why? Obviously there's a scale between a one off shot and someone hovering around you for 15 minutes. But at the one off end, would it really concern you if someone took your picture without asking first?

Dr J you are normal so rational but on this one issue you seem to have gone completely off the rails.

you would have to give some logical criteria for deciding what is legitimate to document and what is not.

I value my privacy. Unfortunately in this day and age you could end up splayed all over the Internet.

My son and I have been in the Sun news paper, but the photographer asked if he could take our pics, gave us copies and a list of where the image had been used.

The fact OP refused to show the images concerns me.

No he does not

True, he does not. He can continue to invent arbitrary boundaries which he imagines people should respect if he wishes. When he's done with that he can put on a cowboy hat and imagine he's riding the range. No problem.

He can continue to invent arbitrary boundaries which he imagines people should respect if he wishes.

I never stated any boundary. The OP is perfectly entitled to take those pictures if he wishes.

However the comparison with taking of a candid picture of a child at a fairground to post on his Flickr account, with some of the iconic images of World events taken by professional photo-journalists is just ludicrous.

However the comparison with taking of a candid picture of a child at a fairground to post on his Flickr account, with some of the iconic images of World events taken by professional photo-journalists is just ludicrous.

So you keep saying. Forgive me, but "an internet bloke says so" is not a very convincing line of reasoning.

People document stuff. It's not so unusual. What makes it OK for someone to document one thing and not another?

So you keep saying.

I drove to the supermarket yesterday. Does that compare with what Lewis Hamilton is doing this afternoon? It's basically the same activity.

People document stuff. It's not so unusual. What makes it OK for someone to document one thing and not another?

Where I have said it isn't?

How would I react if someone stood in front of me and took a photo of me (very me of me in the landscape, not the landscape with me in it) as I walked down the street? Probably a bit weirded out.

I'd be amused, possibly slightly flattered. It would never occur to me in a million years to be up in arms about my "privacy" being invaded.

I drove to the supermarket yesterday. Does that compare with what Lewis Hamilton is doing this afternoon? It's basically the same activity.

Well indeed - were you surrounded by a lynch mob accusing you of running over their children?

Where I have said it isn't?

You didn't. It is others who have said that. You simply did not understand Greg's [i]reductio ad absurdum[/i] argument.

Well indeed - were you surrounded by a lynch mob accusing you of running over their children?

What's that got to do with it?

You didn't. It is others who have said that. You simply did not understand Greg's reductio ad absurdum argument.

Which one? The first one which he retracted and apologised for?

Or the 2nd one, while not quite as offensive, is equally ridiculous?

I value my privacy. Unfortunately in this day and age you could end up splayed all over the Internet.

My son and I have been in the Sun news paper, but the photographer asked if he could take our pics, gave us copies and a list of where the image had been used.

You value your privacy, but you were fine with having your picture in the Sun? That doesn't really add up in my head.

The fact he refused to show the images was fine. Maybe if he'd have been asked politely he would have complied. If somebody demanded something from me in an aggressive manner I'd have been far less polite than the OP. It seems quite clear that this group were not interested in reason or debate.

You should have overy punched them then nonsed their kids. That would teach them.

😆 at ovary punch

I almost never shoot children

That's good the hear, I've cut down a lot recently too.

Not able to read through the posts atm but why can't you just show the photos you've taken on the screen on the camera?

No photos of their kids the that's fine.

Personally if someone was pointing an dslr at my child I'll be asking to see the photos and then either getting the police or smashing your camera to bits in your face.

Imo you've got a few very upset people their so why not diffuse the situation?

People do lots of stuff I don't like, but I don't go round threatening to punch them.

Glad to hear it whoever said this was a suitable response will feel foolish now - who said this?

Personally if someone was pointing an dslr at my child I'll be asking to see the photos and then either getting the police or smashing your camera to bits in your face.

Full marks for saving the photographer the trouble of calling the police. For extra credit, you could also handcuff yourself and try yourself for assault.

I value my privacy. Unfortunately in this day and age you could end up splayed all over the Internet.

My son and I have been in the Sun news paper, but the photographer asked if he could take our pics, gave us copies and a list of where the image had been used.

So is it more a control or politeness thing? Like there's a respect a photographer should have if you're a subject?

Personally if someone was pointing an dslr at my child I'll be asking to see the photos and then either getting the police or smashing your camera to bits in your face.

Imo you've got a few very upset people their so why not diffuse the situation?

As you say yourself, there's a risk that having seen the photos, very upset people tend towards violence anyway. I wouldn't be keen to let a belligerent stranger near my camera. Perhaps it would be helpful if you read the thread - I think he did try and placate them and also, it's entirely legal. Smashing things in peoples faces isn't though.

Not able to read through the posts atm but why can't you just show the photos you've taken on the screen on the camera?

9.5 times out of ten I do (and it's rare that I get challenged) but in this instance, the reason was because of the way they were responding to my otherwise very sincere, apologetic and humble reaction to their challenge.

If they'd said 'look, it feels a bit weird, do you think you could show me the pictures', I would have said of course.

But that's not what happened. Instead what they said was:

'You fin pedo that's not good enough [my appology, etc etc] show me all your fin pictures and delete any with my kid in them or I'll call the police you pervert'.

At which point I lost all desire to engage with them and excused myself and walked away.

They then proceeded to hound me etc etc.

The reductionist argument is precisely that.

If you're going to censure/censor? some peopke's work but not others on the basis that some work is more deserving or important, then you need to explain exactly how you do that or accept that it's an untenable solution to the problem.

To be honest, people tend to be quite over protective of their children, myself included.

I'd be amused, possibly slightly flattered. It would never occur to me in a million years to be up in arms about my "privacy" being invaded.

We know folk have different reactions to things the issue is what to do when they react in away you dont like/want when they feel you have invaded their personal space/privacy

So what would you do then [ apart form suggest they move to an island obvs]

However the comparison with taking of a candid picture of a child at a fairground to post on his Flickr account, with some of the iconic images of World events taken by professional photo-journalists is just ludicrous.
So you keep saying. Forgive me, but "an internet bloke says so" is not a very convincing line of reasoning.

Its not like he said something outlandish....he has left that to you

If you're going to censure/censor? some peopke's work but not others on the basis that some work is more deserving or important, then you need to explain exactly how you do that or accept that it's an untenable solution to the problem.

Why does STW have to go for the most outlandish extremes and say its either this or that rather than accept the self evident truth that your "candid picture of a child at a fairground are not comparable with some of the iconic images of World events taken by professional photo-journalists

As he said I drove today lewis hamilton drove today therefore our output is the same and of equal "merit"

I never knew how precious photographers were nor how irrational.

Pick random strangers follow them everywhere taking their photo and report back to us on the reactions - I am going for varied but largely pissed off/bemused/annoyed by it eventually

Not sure where you got the "follow them everywhere" bit from, but my experience of photographing strangers is much like Greg's (too bad the results aren't of the same standard), it generally being an affirming experience.

Why does STW have to go for the most outlandish extremes and say its either this or that

It's called "reductio ad absurdum" - to demonstrate that the logical consequence of your argument leads to an absurdity. Now you have to show where that logic fails; so far you've been a bit reluctant to do so

Is it not so self evidently true that you need the difference explaining to you?

The thing with "self evident" truths is that they tend not be be true after all. So you tell us - how big of a war does it have to be before it's OK to photograph a child?

DO you think everyone will react like this?
Pick random strangers follow them everywhere taking their photo and report back to us on the reactions - I am going for varied but largely pissed off/bemused/annoyed by it eventually

Yep, I'm pretty relaxed but if someone followed me into the shitter with a camera I'd be pissed off/bemused/annoyed. And definitely not relaxed enough to have a shit 🙁

I think you were treated extremely badly. Unfortunately the actions of a few escalated and mobs can behave very negatively and unpredictably. Like the 'echo chamber' on social media - mobs reinforce each other's behaviours very rapidly and with frightening speed and venom.

Very glad you managed to get out of the situation safely.

Why does STW have to go for the most outlandish extremes and say its either this or that rather than accept the self evident truth that your "candid picture of a child at a fairground are not comparable with some of the iconic images of World events taken by professional photo-journalists

Junky I agree entirely with you that my image is evidently not comparable, however, the image is not what is being discussed here, rather it is the process by which it was made.

The process by which I made my image is the same process as Carter, Ut, Arbus', Weegee, Bresson etc. My imges might not be even remotely as important as theirs, but the process is. It is the process that defines the art and that affirms our humanity. It is the process that says 'I care enough about truth, beauty and love to want to record and present this to the world.

If you make it wrong for anyone you don't agree with to engage in the process, well that way facism lies. It is precisely what happened in 1920s Germany and precisely why Dadaism was born - out of frustration with a higher authority decreeing what was and wasn't art (where the art is the process as well as the message).

Yep, I'm pretty relaxed but if someone followed me into the shitter with a camera I'd be pissed off/bemused/annoyed. And definitely not relaxed enough to have a shit

Conversely, I've been waiting all my life for something like that to happen. 🙁

Conversely, I've been waiting all my life for something like that to happen.

*Click

🙂

The process by which I made my image is the same process as Carter, Ut, Arbus', Weegee, Bresson etc. My imges might not be even remotely as important as theirs, but the process is. It is the process that defines the art and that affirms our humanity. It is the process that says 'I care enough about truth, beauty and love to want to record and present this to the world.

If you make it wrong for anyone you don't agree with to engage in the process, well that way facism lies. It is precisely what happened in 1920s Germany and precisely why Dadaism was born - out of frustration with a higher authority decreeing what was and wasn't art (where the art is the process as well as the message).

You appear to have swallowed the whole Art Foundation bullshit bingo card! Ut was a war photojournalist attempting to capture an image to change the world's perception of a human catastrophe. You are a bloke on the south coast of England given an hour pass by your [s]keeper [/s] wife to sniff around a fair ground who got owned by a bunch of mouthy ladies.

Same process...whatever. There is clearly sympathy for you here but these over inflated comparisons (even when you qualify them) do nothing for your 'cause' apart from making you look a little bit of a self important tit.

Luckily Convert I don't agree with you.

It's an obvious question, but I don't know whether anyone's asked it yet:

Does the OP look like a paedophile?

I mean, what would your reaction be if you saw a pervy looking man shooting off in your child's face?

"yeh, yeh, that's fine mate. Feel free to print that picture off and give it to some of your noncey friends aswell, so they can hang it on their kitchen wall"

I don't think so.

I somehow doubt the OP would've had any trouble if he'd been a twenty-something blonde piece with a cracking figure.

So you were in the fairground, taking pictures? You didn't think that the most likely reaction of parents would be to wonder exactly what you were up to?

Regardless of whether that would be legal, or even "right" or "wrong", do you not think it was extraordinarily naive not to think what the reaction of parents might be?

Rachel

The process by which I made my image is the same process as Carter, Ut, Arbus', Weegee, Bresson etc

It's called "reductio ad absurdum" - to demonstrate that the logical consequence of your argument leads to an absurdity. Now you have to show where that logic fails; so far you've been a bit reluctant to do so

shall i do the logic of the "Bloke on the internet" "reductio ad absurdum" next ?

The thing with "self evident" truths is that they tend not be be true after all.

TBH i enjoy it so much when internet philosophy classes start. I wasted all that time at uni studying when I had STW to teach me
Honeslty what we have on this site is many things
Logical debate is rarely ever amongst it, on any thread, including this one

The question isn't whether any random adults should or would be offended by a stranger taking their photographs, it's whether a complete stranger photographing your child is objectionable or not.

You didn't think that the most likely reaction of parents would be to wonder exactly what you were up to?

Rachel have you read the whole first post? Yes, of course, which is why, when asked/challenged, I was courteous, sincere, honest and respectful.

On every other day that I've done that, it's been more than enough to diffuse the situation but on this day, it resulted in a torrent of abuse.

[url= https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=street+photography+children&client=firefox-b&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQqsCB5O_TAhXMCsAKHU2mDz8QsAQILQ&biw=2560&bih=1311#imgrc=_ ]Street Photography Children[/url]

Having read this I'm afraid I'm 100% behind Geetee1972. If your children are too precious to be accidentally caught in a hobby photographer's image in public perhaps you should keep them at home.

We're not talking about someone stalking your kids, just someone taking public photos. Those women should be ashamed of their behaviour.

shall i do the logic of the "Bloke on the internet" "reductio ad absurdum" next ?

Naah - I reckon you should have a bit of a lie down, mate - you're starting to sound deranged.

Street Photography Children

Greg - I'm assuming you checked with Lewis Hamilton that it's OK to post that link?

I confess I did not, but, aznd I mean this very sincerely, I do welcome every perspective that's been shared on here.

The debate is important and it's been mostly well intentioned and well informed. I think some point made, especially by me, have been misunderstood but that's OK (for the record I never said what happened to me was like being raped - I said that the logic the women applied in judging me a predatory pedophile because I was male, on my own, middle aged and with a camera was entirely based on ignorance and prejudice. That is the same ignorance that leads other people to stupidly deduce the sexual willingness of a woman because of her state of dress or a black man as a criminal simply because he's black.)

Anyway, I think we cleared that comparisson up. The debate about whether it’s right or wrong to expect privacy in public for anyone including (and especially) children goes on. And, once again, for the record, I personally wouldn’t dream of specifically photographing a child where that was not mine and the main focus of the image without their parent’s consent. And I am perfectly understanding of being asked what and why I was doing in all other instances where one might think your child was in the frame but I adamantly defend my right not to have my worked censored by someone else just because they don’t like the idea of it (for as long as I haven’t broken any laws of course).

Naah - I reckon you should have a bit of a lie down, mate - you're starting to sound deranged.

Anyway I shall aspire to reach your calm, measured, reasonable and well crafted moderate logical tones whilst alone on my island 😕

AdamW
Having read this I'm afraid I'm 100% behind Geetee1972. If your children are too precious to be accidentally caught in a hobby photographer's image in public perhaps you should keep them at home.

This assumes you know he is a hobby photographer and you understand the extent to which the images will be shared. If we take the op, how many followers does he have on Flickr? How many unsubscribed Flickr members will view the work? How many members are there on STW who have clicked through his portfolio? Presumably some of his pictures will end up in local galleries as part of art exhibitions where his fellow intellectuals can discuss "the process by which he created his images".

Of course there's nothing nefarious about any of that but is it okay to do that to a child who didn't or can't give you consent? Once something is online there's no taking it back. Does a parent have no say in the distribution of images of their children?

ow many followers does he have on Flickr? How many unsubscribed Flickr members will view the work?

Do you have any idea how many people see a child on a daily basis? How does it being a photograph make it any different or any worse? For the record I have only 199 followers on Flickr and traffic to my website is around 300 unique visitors per month. Ithats probably about the same number of views as one hour on Oxford st in London would register.

Does a parent have no say in the distribution of images of their children?

If taken in a public place then no they don't. If taken somewhere other than a public place then yes they do. I'm a father of two by the way and I'm happy with that.

geetee1972
If taken in a public place then no they don't. If taken somewhere other than a public place then yes they do. I'm a father of two by the way and I'm happy with that.

and yet..

geetee1972
And, once again, for the record, I personally wouldn’t dream of specifically photographing a child where that was not mine and the main focus of the image without their parent’s consent.

So how come you are being so soft and compromising (although to be fair the photo that caused all this I would argue the child was very much the focus of the image)? It's almost as if the law is not the only judgement used to determine what is the right thing to do.

geetee1972
Do you have any idea how many people see a child on a daily basis? How does it being a photograph make it any different or any worse?

Seeing someones is rather different from capturing their image, manipulating should you wish to do so, distributing it in a manner of your choosing and effectively making it available to everyone, anywhere, forever.

geetee1972

Does a parent have no say in the distribution of images of their children?
If taken in a public place then no they don't.

Is a playground a public place? Local sports fields? The beech? You might be legally in the right but I think it goes against the spirit of the law capture and distribute images of children to a potential audience of billions. And that's the crux of it imo.

Google street view is a good example of people photographed in public, but the company in question took measures to obscure their identity.

So how come you are being so soft (although to be fair the photo that caused all this I would argue the child was very much the focus of the image)? It's almost as if the law is not the only judgement used to determine what is the right thing to do.

Well the child was what I would call a dynamic part of the frame, they were not the specific subject but that is very much a semantic argument and is pointless.

The law is the law and is there to protect both our civil liberties, our society and the photographer.

Of course I use judgement and I consider myself very good at it. In over ten years of photography, this is the first and only time I've had such an encounter. Plus the debate is very important. It helps the shape mine and others' thinking and approach and makes us better people as a result.

Is a playground a public place?

No it is most definitely a private space. The law here is quite nuanced and rightly so. It says that if the individual is in a private space, or a space where one might reasonably expect to have privacy, then you cannot photograph them. This includes for instance, if you as the photographer is in a public space taking a photograph into that private space.

Local sports fields? The beech?

They are both public spaces. If you can see a child on a beach for real then what difference does it make if you can see it in a photograph?

it goes against the spirit of the law capture and distribute images of children to a potential audience of billions.

It goes against the will of the parent perhaps, but not even remotely does it go against the spirit of the law. The law is very clear about this; if you are in a public space, you have no right to expect privacy.

So on the basis of it going against the will of the parent, I really and truly respect that but thankfully the law is still on my side when that parent decides to manage the situation by screaking profanities, vile accusations and unreasonable demands at the photographer.

Ultimately what this comes down to is not the safety of the child, but the desire of one person to tell another person what they can and can't do. There's no logical reason why taking a photograph of a child puts that child at risk unless you also publish otherwise private data of that child, for example, this is Nancy, she goes to St Mary's School in Horsham and lives at 43 Hardacre Road.

geetee1972

There's no logical reason why taking a photograph of a child puts that child at risk unless you also publish otherwise private data of that child, for example, this is Nancy, she goes to St Mary's School in Horsham and lives at 43 Hardacre Road.

I'll give you reasons right now. Anyone proficient with photoshop could take the child's image and create pornographic images with them. In fact, snapchat does this so well now that it's safe to assume anyone with a phone will be able to do this in a year or two.

Secondly there's facial recognition software within social media. Someone who wants to protect their privacy as an adult may not want pictures of them as children to surface. We have absolutely no idea how these technologies might influence our lives in the future.

It's entirely plausible (however unlikely) that a fake pornographic image of someone might well be detected and distributed by some form of social media in the future.

The law is very clear about this; if you are in a public space, you have no right to expect privacy.

Do you think a child understands this?

Seeing someones is rather different from capturing their image, manipulating should you wish to do so, distributing it in a manner of your choosing and effectively making it available to everyone, anywhere, forever.

Why is it different and why does it worry you so much?

The law is the law and is there to protect both our civil liberties, our society and the photographer.

But you personally 'wouldn’t dream' of taking advantage of it. Odd. It's almost like you don't agree with it's sentiment.

Do you think a child understands this?

Our laws are not based on what children understand.

ll give you reasons right now. Anyone proficient with photoshop could take the child's image and create pornographic images with them

Well that would be horrendous for anyone child or adult and it would be illegal (probably you'd have to check. It would probably be determined more by what you did with the image after you'd doctored it).

I still don't see how that puts that's child at risk. It's exceptionally unpleasant but how is their risk increased?

Regarding facial recognition software that is interesting and I wonder whether as the technology becomes more sophisticated that might well change the law. But if it does it would pertain to the publishing of the image and not taking of it.

Spin - Member
Our laws are not based on what children understand.

Except laws which protect children.

geetee1972
But if it does it would pertain to the publishing of the image and not taking of it.

But that's a decision which is removed from the parent or the child.

ou reasons right now. Anyone proficient with photoshop could take the child's image and create pornographic images with them. In fact, snapchat does this so well now that it's safe to assume anyone with a phone will be able to do this in a year or two.

Seems like a reasonable argument to not let children out in public if everyone with a phone can / will be able to do it. What you describe is not really a peado thing,

I'll give you reasons right now. Anyone proficient with photoshop could take the child's image and create pornographic images with them.

If that happens it's the person making the pornographic image that is to blame not the crowd scene photographer.

Except laws which protect children.

Not even them. They're made by adults to protect children. Why should they be understandable by children?

Except laws which protect children.

Troll post or just a bit stupid?

I've been staying away from this for a while since it seems to have gone well away from the original direction. But here I am again.
One thing I think may be part of the problem is the public perception of the 'tog.
I carry at least one bag of SLRs and a tripod and bunch of crap.
I look like total camera wally and have a high profile. I don't merge into the background until I choose to.
So many street photographers talk about their Leicas and being less obtrusive. Sometimes that can be mistaken for furtive.

^

It's funny, I was asking my wife about this thread earlier. I asked her if she'd be concerned if a bloke was taking pictures of our kids at the fair, she said she would. She's not interested in photography at all, and just considers it an odd thing to want to capture and would be suspicious.

I asked her if she'd still be concerned if either

1. He had his own kids with him
2. He was alone, but using a tripod wearing a hi-viz jacket

She laughed, saying that in either case it would probably mean she wouldn't bat at eyelid. We live in a paranoid world now, and some people dont need much excuse to shout and scream their disapproval.

OP - I think you have an agenda with this whole thing.

I think some point made, especially by me, have been misunderstood but that's OK (for the record I never said what happened to me was like being raped

If you mean that, I can see a comparison with the "slut shaming", "it's a man with a camera, he must be a pedo". Fair enough.

It's the same thing a 'slut shaming' or saying 'what did you expect was going to happen, you were drunk, dressed like a slut and in a bad neighbourhood on your own late at night?'

This next bit is where you lost the plot a bit.

but since I was technically assaulted it's not quite the stretch in comparison you suggest. Ultimately their reaction was based prejudice and power.

Personally I think you were glad there was an adverse reaction and that you could they cry out "Poor me, white middle aged man with no rights to practise my art, I was scared and deeply upset". Despite the fact you only indicated any feelings of fear "when the blokes were interested".

That bit I find strange, why did the "blokes" not come over immediately? If I was in a public space and my wife was in an aggressive confrontation I would immediately approach to see what on earth was going on. So I guess you are exaggerating the level of their aggression.

You put yourself in a position that, rightly or wrongly, that obviously could cause some issues and provoke a reaction.

Also, some of the photos that you publish, seem to want provoke a reaction from the pedo hunters so you can again claim prejudice and aggression.

You poor suppressed man.

FWIW I think you are a very talented photographer who creates some interesting art but seem to have some back story about "male oppression".

Dipped in & out of this thread.

It's an interesting one because I can remember years ago having just bought a new camera & lens going along to Ferry Meadows in Peterborough (Nene Trust lakes that you can walk around) to hopefully get some wildlife snaps & try to get a nice sunset shot across the water.

I had just swapped over from my kit 18-135 lens to my long 70-300 lens to try & get some shots of birds on the water when a bloke walking towards me with his daughter - perhaps 6 years old, called her back to him, took her hand and made her walk on the 'shielded side' of his body away from me as he walked past. While walking past me he stared at me in quite an aggressive manner - he didn't take his eyes off me.
I can only assume it was because I had this large camera with me & he assumed I might be taking 'kiddie pics'.

Another time on holiday we were on loungers round the pool & I was trying to get a shot of the whole pool area using the panoramic setting on my camera, where you have to pan the camera as it takes the shot.
While taking one particular shot - a kid wandered in front of my lounger & the tracking of my camera across the scene must have coincided with the pace this kid was walking. My viewpoint was way over the kids head, so he wasn't even in the frame, but my Wife got my attention & said that she thought the woman a couple of loungers down was concerned I was taking pics of her kid. I laughed it off, but when I looked away from the camera, she was looking over & muttering something to her partner. Nothing came of it, but had they questioned me, I would have had no issue with showing them the images on my camera.

I can see their concern, but on the other hand I found it quite funny because the furthest thing from my mind was taking random pics of some other person's little brats.
I suppose now I have a daughter of my own, I'll be in 'their crowd' now & holiday snaps by the pool will be a bit less 'paedo'.....

I did got to a local fair once to get some images years ago - my main aim was slow shutter speed images of the rides whirling around. But, I felt very conspicuous being a bloke on my own pointing a camera around in a child-heavy area so called it a day before very long.

FWIW I think you are a very talented photographer who creates some interesting art but seem to have some back story about "male oppression".

Thanks for the vote of confidence in my work - I genuinely appreciate that.

Regarding the secondary issue - I won't deny that I have strong feelings about men's rights but sincerely and honestly, they aren't motivated by anything other than a strong belief in genuine equality for all. To sum up what I mean, my issue is that we still seem entrenched by outmoded gendered role stereotypes that hold everyone back, for instance, there is still a bias in favour of men in the workplace and women in the care giving role. If you try to achieve social status outside of those areas, it is very hard for either party to do so. So if I want to champion men's rights, it's categorically not because I want to put down women's rights. I think some elements of the men's rights movement do want to do that, but I am not one of them.

All of which is an entirely secondary issue to this thread and the only link is that I am still 100% sure that the reaction would have been entirely different and completely benign had I been a woman. That is evidence of the bias we have against men and children; society finds it very difficult to default to equate men with being caring and/or primary care gives especially when it comes to children. Consequently, a lone middle aged man with a camera at a fun fair will be viewed with suspicion and treated with hostility.

And I have some evidence for this from several of my female photography friends all of whom state that they see this happening to other male photographers and they experience something very different themselves.

This situation I encountered was genuinely very upsetting; if you aren't buying that, I suggest you experience it for yourself and see how it feels. I was seriously shaken up by it; it made me feel physically sick as well as pretty scared. Any other post I may have made at the time that contradicts that is probably the result of a loss of pride I also experienced; do you have any idea how it feels to be shoved and shouted down by anyone lauding their power over you; calling you the most vile things a human can be guilty of and knowing that there is nothing you can do, not even if they do chose to try and assault you. If you choose to defend yourself and in the process hurt them, how do you think the situation resolves itself; how readily would you think you would be seen as entirely the injured party?

If you're questioning that as being disingenuous and suggesting that my motives for making this claim and posting this story as I have are mendacious and in support of an alternative agenda, well that's an interesting suggestion but it's entirely wrong. I can't say any more than that and your challenge of it doesn't change how I feel.

[i]Personally I think you were glad there was an adverse reaction and that you could they cry out "Poor me, white middle aged man with no rights to practise my art, I was scared and deeply upset".[/i]

Got it round the wrong way - it was the women who were glad for the bit of added drama to their lives. "Yeah, we caught one a them ****in paedos down the fair, dint we"

GeeTee earlier 😉
[img] ?w=212&h=320[/img]

and Forgedabout It. You escaped, some people will never understand.

Just wanted to drop my tuppence-worth in as I was asked to take candid stuff at a funfair a few years ago and considered the ramifications before starting the job. I stuck on a hi-viz vest and nobody blinked an eye! If you're in a uniform, you're invisible. Blog post [url= http://jamiethetog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/fairground-photography.html ]here if you care[/url].