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

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].

The college course led to university where I studied photography in the art school and graduated with my BA Hons degree

I applaud you! Great story.

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.

Isn't it more to do with the fact most sexually motivated crime is committed by men?

I don't agree with the reaction of the women btw but I think my point is more likely to be the reason they reacted as they did rather than any stereotypes of men not being caring or a primary carer.

Isn't it more to do with the fact most sexually motivated crime is committed by men?

That's been suggested before. Here's my response.

Most sexual crime is committed by men BUT most men do not commit sexual crimes.

Being male is not the causal factor in those men who do commit these crimes, it's something else entirely. Being male may be correlated, but is fundamentally not causal.

There are a disproportionate number of crimes committed by black men, but most black men do not commit crimes and those that do, do not commit them because they are black.

All Islamic fundamentalist acts of terror are committed by people purporting to be Muslims, but most Muslims do not commit acts of terror and those that do, do not commit them because they are Muslim.

When you falsely attribute one single characteristic as a causal rather than a correlated factor, you’re basically displaying ignorance and prejudice. It is precisely whey racial profiling is so wrong in the policing of a community.

"I care enough about truth, beauty and love to want to record and present this to the world."

Why didn't you just tell them that at the start? They'd have probably given you a cuddle.....

It reads to me that you've got your head so far up your own 'artistic' arse, you'd have been safe from a face punch, anyway.

f you're in a uniform, you're invisible.

I was taking some shots of the Hills one starry night, from a local common. Perfectly legal. Hi viz, tripod, the lot. Wasn't long before the local rozzers drove by. And then back. And then again. I heard their nylon trews and plates of meat swishing through the long grass, and before long was presented with a torch in my face. They wanted to look at my pictures. had been reported as a potential burglar who was standing in the middle of a (public access) grassy field. Problem was that there were some residential houses some way off to the North. I showed them the (frankly so far rubbish) pics of my parked bike with some smudgey stars behind it. I think they were disappointed. I showed them to my website. They wished me well and the torch was removed from my [s]arse[/s] face.

So much for hi-viz, it just made me more obvious. Which is why I use it for urban street-shots at night.

The best one was taking a pic of my own property. I got set up about 11:30pm in the street outside the gates, looking up at the full moon, framing the house in silhouette with the lit windows.

An unseen man lurched out of the darkness up some steps at the side of our boundary wall and made towards me in a threatening way. He called me a 'fackin perv, woz you takin picz ov me avin a piss?'

I explained to him that no, even though he was micturating on my boundary, I had not seen him, I was merely taking a picture of my home. And had not even taken a picture yet as was ridely interrupted. He lurched semi-drunkenly around to look at the house.

'I don't believe yoo. Why would you take a picture of a fackin 'ouse?' You wanted to take a picture of me nob, you perv!'

'Go away you silly man.'

He called me a C word a few times then made to point at me to make it stick, but he forgot he was carrying a carrier bag, which then swung and threw him off balance , then did an about face and walked of mumbling to himself.

Pissed up my wall. C...

Anyhow, pleased to join the gang. I'm your local cat-burgling cockwatcher, should anyone wish to hire me for functions or art installations.

Its a sad reflection on society where people see someone in public taking photographs with a "proper" camera and instantly think they're a child molester / abuser.
Replace the DSLR with a phone and nobody would likely bat an eyelid.
Do the idiots doing the accusing really think that a genuine paedophile is going to be wandering around a fair with the most conspicuous piece of equipment possible to take pictures? No, they'd want to blend in, not stand out. Camera phones are great for this sort of thing, they certainly work a treat down at the local nudist beaches. 😉

I've recently been on a photography course and pretty much the same problems were discussed there. Very much a case of use your discretion and be open and honest if questioned. Let them see what you've been photographing.

Sadly these days the press like to big up things like this and the hard of thinking take it to heart and believe that in every bush, around every corner a child catcher is waiting to abduct their children. By all means be aware, but try and see beyond the trash that the press want you to believe and think for yourself.

no one is arguing its a great and rational response just that is not a response due to mens role as carers* as you suggest just suggesting the real reason - even if that is a logical leap/fallacy

* whihc is part of your oppressed men view of the world

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

When you falsely attribute one single characteristic as a causal rather than a correlated factor, you’re basically displaying ignorance and prejudice.

Trouble is Geetee - your wish for "mens rights" is down to a complete lack of understanding of the issues and a worrying lack of basic knowledge - hence your ill-informed rant about parental leave recently and others.

If you want to go on about stuff like this you need to do some reading and learning

There are a disproportionate number of crimes committed by black men, but most black men do not commit crimes and those that do, do not commit them because they are black.

All Islamic fundamentalist acts of terror are committed by people purporting to be Muslims, but most Muslims do not commit acts of terror and those that do, do not commit them because they are Muslim.

And yet there's huge areas of the country where black men or Muslims will be treated with suspicion and fear simply for being black, Muslim or both. Just as a middle age bloke taking pictures surrounded by children will be.

I am absolutely not saying this is right but it does happen and is the reason you were treated as you were. Ignorance and fear.

Try being a white male of english / protestant descent living in Scotland - I think you will find everything is my fault. any time someone is or has been oppressed its me or my ilk doing it

sorry chaps

Try being a white male of english / protestant descent

Try being a white male of english / protestant descent living in Scotland - I think you will find everything [s]is my fault[/s] is set up around me, us WASPs have exploited and oppressed others for generations.

FTFY

On second thoughts, it's off topic and I really can't be bothered.

I really can't be bothered.

What you really mean is that you have been double teamed by Junkyard and TJ on left wing shit and you know you have no chance. 🙂

gobuchal - see what I mean - apparently its all my fault. Even you agree

*sobs quietly*

I'd love to meet TJ and Junky - I think they should recruit us into one of those Heineken adverts.

Whatever their reputation may or may not be, I believe that they're almost certainly good people motivated by passionate beliefs, which coincidentally is precisely what I think about Jeremy Corbyn (and I'm giving very serious thought to voting for him).

Ta Geetee.

I would happily meet you as for TJ Never say never again

I was taking some photos in Bath yesterday, just checking through them and to my horror I noticed there was a child in a pushchair in this one!
Should I hand myself in to the police for reeducation?

[IMG] [/IMG]

What I find most interesting in this thread is people complaining about the geetee's comparisons then come up with their own comparisons like this:

[quote=Junkyard ]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

because that is nothing like taking general shots of something which just happen to have people in. Taking that to the logical conclusion it would be against the law (not particularly picking on you here JY, not originally your comparison, this was just where I found it being expanded in a potentially illegal direction).

Meanwhile your trip to the shops is only comparable to LH in the same way geetee's candid photography is comparable to professional journos if it is timed and on a racetrack. Because the absence of official accreditation / hi-viz / flak jacket is the only difference between what geetee is doing and the professionals he cites - fundamentally they are doing exactly the same thing. So if you think one is OK and the other isn't then it really would be useful to define what the difference is which leads to that.

There does seem to be a bit of an element of "soul stealing" in some of the comments. The idea of photoshopping porn seems a particularly ludicrous argument - sure maybe you can, but it seems an incredibly pointless thing to do to photoshop one stranger's face in place of another and even more pointless to use proper camera kit to do so when a phone would do a perfectly adequate job (I note the suggestion is even made of using a phone). Yet nobody even notices all the pics being taken on phones any more - I'm betting those women all had lots of pics of strangers' kids on their phones! All sorts of hypocrisy going on.

FWIW I don't even own any "proper" camera kit, and it's years since I've taken a photo on anything other than my phone, so I don't have any particular personal investment here - nobody seems bothered by using a phone to take pics.

I just realised! Every weekend for the past 6 or so years, I've been taking photos of 8-14 year old boys... I got moaned at once in all that time (in Leigh Park, my home turf from my yoof) and nothing else but thanks. I must look trustworthy, me.

it would be against the law

fundamentally they are doing exactly the same thing.

So if you think one is OK and the other isn't then it really would be useful to define what the difference is which leads to that

In essence i dont think they should have reacted as they did, some form of reaction at some point is inevitable if you do what the OP does[ and he does it very well from the photos I have seen] and his comparison ranging from rape to comparison to photos of historical significance is unhelpful and OTT.

as you note with me and LH, there are many differences if you look and make a proper comparison.

You've got longer hair..... beyond that I'm struggling a bit. 😆