The way I read it, he was comparing getting shoved with assault, not being raped.

I disagree.

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?’

That’s a vile line of reasoning and while my situation is different, it is the exact same logic.

My other parallels are contentious I grant you, but since I was technically assaulted it’s not quite the stretch in comparison you suggest. Ultimately their reaction was based prejudice and power.

Taking about power. The 4 women didn’t really have the physical power to harm him.

I did wonder when the thread would head in the direction of “men’s rights”.

Would you personally be happy to go to the beech and take photos of kids (not your own – you are there alone) splashing around in the water?

There are 2 different things here, taking photos of a scene that might have kids in it and purposely taking photos of kids for nefarious purposes.

Unless you have any evidence to believe it’s the latter you need to assume it’s the former. Otherwise we’re into paranoia, assumptions of guilt and ridiculous scenes like the one the OP found himself in.

There are 2 different things here, taking photos of a scene that might have kids in it and purposely taking photos of kids for nefarious purposes.

Unless you have any evidence to believe it’s the latter you need to assume it’s the former. Otherwise we’re into paranoia, assumptions of guilt and ridiculous scenes like the one the OP found himself in.

You too have not actually answered the question – from the context of the person taking the photos rather than a bystander or parent of said child. Would you personally be happy to go to the beach and take photos of kids (not your own – you are there alone) splashing around in the water?

I also don’t agree there are only your two options. You could take a photo of the whole beach with the kids as comparative specks effectively incidental. You could also take a photo of a kid or small number of kids splashing around where the kids are the primary element of the composition and the beach/sea is the backdrop without it being nefarious. It might just not be socially acceptable to some to take it without the the permission of the parent (or you being the parent).

edit – two photos from google for context

You too have not actually answered the question –

And you’ve missed my point.

I’d quite happily take photos of a beach scene with other people’s kids in them. Photos of individuals is a different matter.

Sorry to hear about that OP I’d have rang plod.

I was asked once to take photos of a flyball training session (dogs) in Heaton Park (Greater Manchester).

I was in the park out side the training area with a longish lens. Started shooting a woman came across and asked what I was doing I told her I was asked to take photos of the dogs by a member of her club she told me I can’t do that as it’s like taking photos of kids!!! 😯

I told her I could, next min her and her mate came across and stood in the training area directly in front of me. I moved they moved.

I went home next day their club member rang me asked how I’d got on had I got many of her dog etc..
I explained the situation and they could not believe it themselves.I told them I would not be back. Ever.

And just for the keyboard warriors here you can take a photo of ANYONE in a public place so long as you do not use the photo for commercial gain (as you would need a model release).

An no one except the courts (with a court order) can have you photos deleted not even the police.

convert

You too have not actually answered the question – from the context of the person taking the photos rather than a bystander or parent of said child. Would you personally be happy to go to the beech and take photos of kids (not your own – you are there alone) splashing around in the water?

I certainly wouldn’t. And it’s an interesting question. We’ve deviated from the incident in the op now though.

Had my daughter’s birthday party recently at a recently opened venue, they asked if they could take photos and use them on their website and facebook page to promote the venue, which we agreed to. It was still necessary to get the parents of all the children present to sign a consent form, one parent refused so photographer didn’t use her on any of publicity shots. I later found out it was because the child’s father was a wrong un, and they were in a witness protection type scheme so didn’t want kid’s photo on public websites.

Not saying this was what happened on OPs situation, but could be they had a more valid reason they didn’t want kids being photographed.

the general populous have decreed that people walking around in public talking photos that might contain images of children without the consent of their parents is not socially acceptable.

Not quite, if your kids are in the frame too then it’s seen as fine. I’ve taken photos in loads of places where random kids are in the frame, never been challenged. We live in an increasingly negative world where bad news sells and ignorance breeds hate. Doomed.

Have we considered that maybe the OP simply looks like a paedophile, hence the incident in the first place? 😕

Anyone who moderates their photographing behaviour due to the modern climate of fear and paranoia is complicit in maintaining that stupidity.
Go out and take photos if you want to help, I’m off to snap wobbliscott’s kids in an effort to make the world a better place.

So is the opinion of people that these pics shouldn’t have been taken?

I did wonder when the thread would head in the direction of “men’s rights”.

I thought about page 3 (did you see what I did there) when I noticed who the OP was … 😆

Yes, but only because they’re awful 😉

mws – are we playing spot the paedophile or spot the sexy toddler ?

Whatever you want, it’s impossible to avoid being in a photo if you are in a public place, chances are there were probably a few hundred selfies taken near the OP that captured random faces and people. If I look back through some pics on facebook from events and stuff like that heaps have randoms in the background.
You can’t stop people taking pictures, you can’t keep yourself out of them if you’re just walking around as part of the background.
Do I need permission to take a crowd scene?
[url=https://flic.kr/p/HroSHp]IMG_6025.jpg[/url] by Mike Smith, on Flickr
The people here are what actually makes it for me, non are identifiable
[url=https://flic.kr/p/J7ZmiF]IMG_5749[/url] by Mike Smith, on Flickr
Should I not be talking pics here?

To the OP. I experienced something simialr on holiday in Norfolk a few years back. However, I was the parent of the children at the focus of attention of someone else’s camera.

Broad daylight in this case, but similar in that it was fair ground / carnival type environment. When watching my kids on the bouncy castle the young guy running the thing suddenly went ape at a middle aged guy near me. Turns out he had no kids / grand kids on the castle and had been back three times to take pictures.

All hell broke loose and the guy ran. I tracked him down at the end of the promenade and invited him to hand over the camera. It was rammed full of images of kids on the castle, the beach and on fair ground rides, no other “scenery” shots at all. It was disturbing to see photos of my kids on this guy’s camera.

I took it back to the bouncy castle and showed other parents (the guy was following demanding his camera back). To be honest, I thought the guy was going to be lynched as the owner of the castle had showed up by this time (his kids were also on the camera). Sense prevailed and the police were called (the camera owner was being ‘detained’ at this time). As the OP stated, and which came as a surprise to me, this guy had not broken any laws (very different to your scenario in that ALL the photos were of young kids). The police officer explained that he really had to just return the camera as was and shouldn’t delete anything. I guess to reassure us, he deleted everything anyway which helped defuse things a little.

The police officer suggested that an excuse for a home visit would be made to see what was going on back at the home of this guy but we never found out whether or not it was followed up. However, later that week and coincidentally, we bumped into friends of this guy’s family. They were conducting maintenance on the property we were staying in and knocked to let us know that they weren’t ‘perverts’ if they happen to appear at the window! We returned an off the cuff remark about ‘it wouldn’t be the first time this week’ and their faces dropped!

They instantly knew it would be this guy!! They apologised profusely and promised to take his camera away from him. Turns out he had mental health issues and had ‘form’ for inappropriate behaviour with children. They were genuinely fearful that this guy would end up dead as he seemed incapable of changing this behaviour.

I feel for you with your experience but I agree with others that offering to show the images on your screen might have helped. However, I can also imagine the types that you describe and maybe it was impossible to reason with them. Not sure what the point of this post is, merely sharing an episode from a parents’ viewpoint. The only thing that is certain is that peadophiles and bottom feeding Mail readers are all too common, although I suspect that the ratio is heavily weighted toward the latter…

Should I not be talking pics here?

I think most (all) would agree that those shots are fine. They are so far over the line as to be honest to be a bit irrelevant. Find an image that in your opinion just crosses the line and you would be uncomfortable taking without permission. Or are there none? Would you be happy taking the photo of the two kids I posted further up the page?

I think most (all) would agree that those shots are fine. They are so far over the line as to be honest to be a bit irrelevant.

No it is the point. The op was in a public place taking pics, people may have been is the side of shot. Do I need to present every image that is taken for inspection by any person out there?

No it is the point. The op was in a public place taking pics, people may have been is the side of shot.

This is what the OP wrote:-

Fairs are great places for street and candid photography

You can’t take a candid photo of a crowd or a building or a thing. I like your last two photos but of all the words I’d use to describe them candid would not be one of them.

definition of candid:-
Candid – (of a photograph of a person) taken informally, especially without the subject’s knowledge.

‘Candid’ implies far more than “people may have been in the side of shot”

I work for a local newspaper group and find that a cheap Hi-Viz with PRESS on it avoids a lot of problems (and creates others).
The only time I was questioned was taking photos at a kids play area at a hotel in the Canaries. I was politely approached by security, asked what I was doing and I explained I was taking photos of the whole hotel area as I was writing a feature on the resort for the magazine I worked for. I apologised for not checking with them, went back to their office, I gave them the film, they had it processsed and saw I was telling the truth. They made sure the parents knew I was OK (ish) and I apologised to the two concerned parents for my not talking to them before taking the photos. Not a mistake I have made since and I now always ask before shooting kids.
Parents are protective of their children, they don’t need me stressing them out and its easy enough to ask.

I’m off to Wallingford Food Festival this afternoon. I’ll bet no-one raises an eyebrow at my photo antics.

Jesus this has derailed quickly. It’s not like the OP was caught at the bottom of someone’s garden or hiding in ther privet at the edge of the playground. The women overreacted to a completely harmless situation. Misguided, paranoid or just a bit thick. Cancel and continue OP.

The OP then lost sympathy for comparing the situation to something that he shouldn’t have. I’m off out now to take random photos in public places to see how many arguments I can get in to / Carny folk I can get in to fisticuffs with.

Candid implies that people were far more than people may have been is the side of shot

Isn’t the OP quite an accomplished photographer who specialises in Portrait type photography?

Despite it being incredibly rare, there are real cases where pedo types take photos of children for their own satisfaction.

I’m sure he’s not a pedo but he seems a bit naive walking around a fairground on his own taking pictures of people and being surprised when someone shouts “pedo!”

Isn’t the OP quite an accomplished photographer who specialises in Portrait type photography?

And having gone through his flickr account they are awesome. I’m very envious of his talent/eye.

OP, you did nothing wrong but were the victim of ignorance and aggression. I hope this doesn’t put you off taking photos at public events in the future.

You might have felt “weak” by walking away, but I would have done exactly the same. Because what was the alternative? Stand your ground and have a fight? You did the civilized thing.

Taking about power. The 4 women didn’t really have the physical power to harm him.

Complete bollocks, one punch from a woman can kill – just as men can. Women can and do serious amounts of damage in a fight – and fighting four of them at once – especially if they are four overweight hippo chavs…like I suspect they were…is going to take a bit of effort.

Complete bollocks, one punch from a woman can kill – just as men can. Women can and do serious amounts of damage in a fight – and fighting four of them at once – especially if they are four overweight hippo chavs…like I suspect they were…is going to take a bit of effort.

I’m not talking about Nicola Adams and the like.

GENERALLY, men are significantly stronger than women and for all sorts of reasons, also have had a lot more practice over the years.

A female fight at school was a rare occurrence, I can only ever remember 2. Fights between the lads was a common and regular occurrence.

Also, as the OP stated, he wasn’t frightened by them, it was potential for the blokes to step in.

isn’t the very definition of a PUBLIC place (rather than a private one) a place where people can gather socially and interact as a community. And hence when in ‘public’ you accept the fact that your actions, behavior, and very being are under external scrutiny and could be recorded by other people.

The phrase “being in public” carries that association, which is why when in public you should ‘act accordingly’ ie act in a manner that is fit for everyone.

Hence, it is not immoral or illegal to sit naked at home, in the privacy of your own home, and carry out essential bike maintenance.. ( 😆 ) but do the same in the middle of the high street and you are going to cause offense and likely be arrested for indecency.

So, as i said before, no children are actually harmed or even influenced by having their photo taken in a general PUBLIC scene (assuming that the camera person is of course also taking part in that scene in an appropriate manner, ie they are also a member of that scene).

It’s ridiculous to make the photograph the issue. It’s what someone does with that photo that matters!

(assuming that the camera person is of course also taking part in that scene in an appropriate manner, ie they are also a member of that scene)

What do you mean by that exactly?

BTW, on a practical level the best defense against such situations is to be completely brazen and obvious. I’d suggest looking like a photographer, carry a big bag full of lenses, some “access all area” passes/badges (totally fake /made up, just write things like “Glastonbury 2011 offical Photographer” or what ever on them), and best still, wear clothing that is branded with your photography company/web address etc.

Do this and no one will think you are a paedo, even if you are……..

maxtorque – Member
BTW, on a practical level the best defense against such situations is to be completely brazen and obvious. I’d suggest looking like a photographer, carry a big bag full of lenses, some “access all area” passes/badges (totally fake /made up, just write things like “Glastonbury 2011 offical Photographer” or what ever on them), and best still, wear clothing that is branded with your photography company/web address etc.

Do this and no one will think you are a paedo, even if you are……..

You’re probably right but it’d be a massive pain in the arse on a practical level, and whilst it might defuse or allay the potential reactions of overly protective mothers it might cause some other adverse reactions from people which the op may wish to avoid.

I also can’t help but wonder if the op would have suffered any blow back if he’d been taking pictures with his phone.

I think I would have just showed them the photos. But good for you for sticking to your guns. Did you have your full Leica kit? Could have been a costly situation!

As an example, take a typical beach scene, lots of family’s, in their swimmers, with their kids playing on the sand / water etc.

If i am also in that scene, one my own, with a camera, wearing normal clothes, pointing my camera into peoples faces, encroaching into their “space” and clearly not ‘taking part’ in what is going on then i am an outsider, and this looks wrong to other people in that scene.

If however, i’m there, taking part, enjoying that activity, even without any kids of my own, and i happen to be taking some pics, simply capturing the act of living, then it’s ‘Normal’ and ‘Natural’ and much less likely to cause any real or perceived offense.

How ironic that this is coming from the guy who thought it was ok to post ‘I heard a rumor that you were a paedophile’ about me on a public forum to make some sort of lame point in defence of the catholic church…

‘I heard a rumor that you were a paedophile’

Wow, I do remember that. That was a long time ago but I guess you don’t forget something like that. OK that might explain a few things Grum.

I think, from recollection of that exchange, that this is a case in point. Casting wild aspertions based on irrelevant and baseless connections is just so wrong. But, I can understand now that that exchange would have been very upsetting.

So, Grum, sincerely and honestly, I apologise.

Whilst we’re on apologies….

This has been a good debate but I feel I must apologise for making the comparisons I did. In my view they are related but I agree they are not the same so I apologise for making that comparison.

I am aware that people here are getting the sense that I am a ‘manist’ or men’s rights supporter and to some degree I am but I don’t think men are oppressed any more than women are in this country (I’ve always said it’s very different in other parts of the world). For the record I believe fervently and wholeheartedly in equality and have done everything I can to support that cause, including making my own career subservient to my wife’s so that she can fulfil her own career dreams and ambitions.

In this instance, I am 95% sure that had I been female, this would not have happened, which is indicative of societeal bias we have towards men as carers of children (how many male nannies do you know, or how many men work in the child care industry in general?)

As for being intimidated by the women, I was, incredibly so. The intimidation was partly about the fear of physical assault, but mostly about the fact that in such a situation, the moment I respond with force, the chances of me being the victim would likely evaporate unless someone came to my defence. I was genuinely pretty scared; women have a lot of power over men in this situation as the recent example of the woman confronting the EDL in Birmingham recently showed.

But, back on topic, this is not about gender, this is about whether it’s OK or not to take photographs of children in public and what is the right way to address any concerns you may have should you (as a parent) have them. Common sense needs to prevail on all sides. It’s simply not acceptable to say it’s not acceptable under any circumstances; it’s also not reasonable to be so blatant about photographing a specific child without consent but that is also quite different to there just being children in the frame. How you handle your concerns is what I was originally posting about (and also very upset by). Screaming a person into fearful submission by publically calling him out as a paedophile is so wong I don’t even know where to begin (you should have seen how one of them reacted when I threw the same accusation right back at them).

If someone were photographing my child I would be keeping an eye on my kids, on them, asking them politely what why and how etc but given what I do, I know that demanding anything of them is just wrong.

No one gets to edit my work but me for as long as it doesn’t break the law.

I am 95% sure that had I been female, this would not have happened, which is indicative of societeal bias we have towards men as carers of children

You sure its not the fact that most paedos are men*?When i see someone with a camera the first thought through my mind is not how good a carer they would be- its not they must be a paedo either.
the reality is that statistically men are more dangerous. Yes its a crudely drawn sexist inference but it is however also demonstrably true. A similar one may be to say women tend to be less physically strong. Not true of all but again demonstrably true.
* its about 99% of those convicted last figures I saw

Junky I understand your reasoning but it is exactly the same kind of reasoning as ‘racial profiling’ in police.

Do you think racial profiling in policing is acceptable?

By the way if anyone wants to see the picture in question it’s this:

[url=https://flic.kr/p/TwzmkD]Every photographer's worst nightmare[/url] by Greg Turner, on Flickr

I wasn’t ever going to share it but since the debate has been so thorough and the response to my experience elsewhere has shown that this is a debate that is important to have, I decided to post it.

To be fair ‘art’ and your portfolio would have been none the poorer had that photo got deleted. 😉

Also, if the ladies in the photo are the ones who gave you grief later, the earlier poster who made the assumption they would probably be fat chavs is wrong on at least one count.

To be fair ‘art’ and your portfolio would have been none the poorer had that photo got deleted.

I couldn’t agree with you more! It’s not even remotely a ‘keeper’. It’s become a thing now separate to that cause.

As in many things, there is probably a gap now between what is legally permissible and what is socially acceptable (to many). So while what you did was legally fine, rightly or wrongly it has strayed into the second category. Obviously you won’t meet this response in every situation. This has been subtly reinforced by photography bans at school events etc.

Personally I think you’re a brave man to be taking a photograph with a stranger’s child as a main subject at an event like this without introducing yourself and asking permission from the parent first.

I understand that this defeats the object of candid photography, but part of this art must be reading the situation and choosing whether the reaction you are likely to generate is something that’s worth it for the image.

And please tell me you weren’t peeking Pennywise style through a load of balloons? 😀

Yeah you probably shouldn’t go around photographing like that without asking parents permission.