On May 18, 6:09*pm, 1506 wrote:

Let me be clear that obtrusively photographing someone else’s child is
entirely unacceptable. *It is a sad day when the courts have to deal
with a matter this trivial. *The photographer should have known
better.

In the wider context, photography in the streets has been acceptable
for decades. *Indeed it is a normal activity for tourists. I dislike
the notion that somehow that has ceased to be the case.

Does anyone know the facts of this case? It seems highly unlikely
that a straightforward photo of the child would result in a court
appearance even if the parents did get upset.

I have no knowledge of this case but, for example, if a photographer
lowered his camera to obtain a shot up the childs skirt, would that
affect the situation. I think so, others may differ.

George

"furnessvale" wrote in message
...
On May 18, 6:09 pm, 1506 wrote:

Let me be clear that obtrusively photographing someone else’s child is
entirely unacceptable. It is a sad day when the courts have to deal
with a matter this trivial. The photographer should have known
better.

In the wider context, photography in the streets has been acceptable
for decades. Indeed it is a normal activity for tourists. I dislike
the notion that somehow that has ceased to be the case.

Does anyone know the facts of this case? It seems highly unlikely
that a straightforward photo of the child would result in a court
appearance even if the parents did get upset.

I have no knowledge of this case but, for example, if a photographer
lowered his camera to obtain a shot up the childs skirt, would that
affect the situation. I think so, others may differ.

George


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



http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...ws_282766.html

MB

"MB" wrote in message
. net...

"furnessvale" wrote in message
...
On May 18, 6:09 pm, 1506 wrote:

Let me be clear that obtrusively photographing someone else’s child is
entirely unacceptable. It is a sad day when the courts have to deal
with a matter this trivial. The photographer should have known
better.

In the wider context, photography in the streets has been acceptable
for decades. Indeed it is a normal activity for tourists. I dislike
the notion that somehow that has ceased to be the case.

Does anyone know the facts of this case? It seems highly unlikely
that a straightforward photo of the child would result in a court
appearance even if the parents did get upset.

I have no knowledge of this case but, for example, if a photographer
lowered his camera to obtain a shot up the childs skirt, would that
affect the situation. I think so, others may differ.

George


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



http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...ws_282766.html

MB




This is a very strange reply to the question


"Asked whether police confiscated the photographer's camera, the BTP
spokesman told us: 'As is standard police procedure, items would have been
removed from him prior to him being placed into a cell. They would have
been securely stored and then returned to him.' "


You would think a simple "Yes" or "No" would be sufficient.


MB

In message t
"MB" wrote:


"MB" wrote in message
. net...

"furnessvale" wrote in message
...
On May 18, 6:09 pm, 1506 wrote:

Let me be clear that obtrusively photographing someone else’s child is
entirely unacceptable. It is a sad day when the courts have to deal
with a matter this trivial. The photographer should have known
better.

In the wider context, photography in the streets has been acceptable
for decades. Indeed it is a normal activity for tourists. I dislike
the notion that somehow that has ceased to be the case.

Does anyone know the facts of this case? It seems highly unlikely
that a straightforward photo of the child would result in a court
appearance even if the parents did get upset.

I have no knowledge of this case but, for example, if a photographer
lowered his camera to obtain a shot up the childs skirt, would that
affect the situation. I think so, others may differ.

George


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



http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...ws_282766.html

MB




This is a very strange reply to the question


"Asked whether police confiscated the photographer's camera, the BTP
spokesman told us: 'As is standard police procedure, items would have been
removed from him prior to him being placed into a cell. They would have
been securely stored and then returned to him.' "


You would think a simple "Yes" or "No" would be sufficient.


Neither would be aacurate, his camera wasn't confiscated but to say No would
be misleading as it was taken away from him, along with his other possesions.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

MB wrote on Tue, 19 May 2009 12:19:36 +0100:


http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/
Photographers_Tube_photo_case_thrown_out_update_ne ws_282766.html

At least he wasn't "attacked by bandits with machetes"!

--
Alex
(imagining people keeping their .sigs to four lines)

"MB" wrote:

Let me be clear that obtrusively photographing someone else’s child is
entirely unacceptable. It is a sad day when the courts have to deal
with a matter this trivial. The photographer should have known
better.


Photographing other people's children has only relatively recently been
considered "entirely unacceptable". When I was a kid in the 1950s and
60s, no-one thought anything of it. Children were just as acceptable a
subject for photography as landscapes, street scenes, wildlife, sports,
architecture etc..

Candid pictures of children were a cornerstone of the portfolios of many
of the great Victorian photographers, for example Frank Meadow Sutcliffe
of Whitby. Presumably, no-one gave a moment's thought to the possibility
that there might have been any suspicious intent, although his pictures
of young boys were criticised by churchmen of the time, not for any
corrupting influence on the subjects but for their potential effect on
young women*.

All this changed significantly, probably from the 1970s onwards with the
emergence of paedophilia as a subject widely discussed by people in
general as well as in the media. Public awareness of paedophilia has
probably reached an all-time high and that shows no signs of going away.

My point is that it wasn't always like that.

I don't think other countries entirely share our very British obsession
with the risk of paedophilia being closely associated with photography.
Perhaps the Greek photographer was slightly bemused by the reaction of
the (presumably British) parents?


*Frank Meadow Sutcliffe's gallery "Children" is online he
http://www.sutcliffe-gallery.co.uk/gallery_194448.html

The pictures were mostly posed, and Sutcliife is known to have given
children some small change in return for allowing him to take
photographs of them.

Presumably you would also consider this to be "entirely unacceptable"?
I know I would - I certainly wouldn't find it in any way acceptable for
a child of mine to be involved in anything like this. But it serves to
illustrate my point that things have changed significantly.

In uk.transport.london Alex Potter wrote:
At least he wasn't "attacked by bandits with machetes"!

The Jubilee Line isn't /that/ bad! ;-)

Theo

Tony Polson writes:
Photographing other people's children has only relatively recently been
considered "entirely unacceptable".

I know there are insane and/or stupid people like the "distressed" woman
in the story, and one can never know what bizarre charges they will
bring -- but one shouldn't make generalizations based on the actions of
the extreme fringe. Is it really the case that merely taking a picture
of a child on the street is "socially unacceptable"?

I'm skeptical...

-Miles

--
Patience, n. A minor form of despair, disguised as a virtue.

Miles Bader wrote:
Tony Polson writes:
Photographing other people's children has only relatively recently been
considered "entirely unacceptable".

I know there are insane and/or stupid people like the "distressed" woman
in the story, and one can never know what bizarre charges they will
bring -- but one shouldn't make generalizations based on the actions of
the extreme fringe.


Who says they are "the extreme fringe"? I would guess that the majority
of parents would be outraged at the idea of strangers photographing
their children, either without prior express permission, or at all.


Is it really the case that merely taking a picture
of a child on the street is "socially unacceptable"?


It wasn't in Victorian times, and according to someone I work with who
has been doing wedding and social photography since just after WW2, it
was fine in the 50s and 60s - candid pictures of children at play, or
'street urchins' in poor areas, apparently sold well. Most were taken
without permission.

But when the scandals of child abuse in various institutions and schools
first became more widely known in the 70s, things changed. And now we
have local council staff who have specifically been trained, in addition
to their everyday responsibilities, to detect and report (to the police)
instances of adults taking photos of other people's children in parks
and other public areas.

Greater awareness of paedophilia and the techniques paedophiles use to
befriend children had led to what is, perhaps, an over-reaction. But
where children's safety is concerned, parents do understandably tend to
err on the safe side.

I'm not sure that the reaction of the woman in the story we are
discussing justifies the terms "insane" or "stupid". I think hers was
an entirely predictable reaction in this country.

It may have seemed strange to the photographer, who presumably would
never have expected such a reaction if doing something similar in his
own country. However, this is Tabloid Britain, and what might seem like
paranoia to an outsider is perfectly understandable here.


I'm skeptical...


Do you have any children of your own?

On 21 May, 11:35, Tony Polson wrote:
Miles Bader wrote:
Tony Polson writes:
Photographing other people's children has only relatively recently been
considered "entirely unacceptable".

I know there are insane and/or stupid people like the "distressed" woman
in the story, and one can never know what bizarre charges they will
bring -- but one shouldn't make generalizations based on the actions of
the extreme fringe. *

Who says they are "the extreme fringe"? *I would guess that the majority
of parents would be outraged at the idea of strangers photographing
their children, either without prior express permission, or at all.

Is it really the case that merely taking a picture
of a child on the street is "socially unacceptable"?

It wasn't in Victorian times, and according to someone I work with who
has been doing wedding and social photography since just after WW2, it
was fine in the 50s and 60s - candid pictures of children at play, or
'street urchins' in poor areas, apparently sold well. *Most were taken
without permission.

But when the scandals of child abuse in various institutions and schools
first became more widely known in the 70s, things changed. *And now we
have local council staff who have specifically been trained, in addition
to their everyday responsibilities, to detect and report (to the police)
instances of adults taking photos of other people's children in parks
and other public areas. *

Greater awareness of paedophilia and the techniques paedophiles use to
befriend children had led to what is, perhaps, an over-reaction. *But
where children's safety is concerned, parents do understandably tend to
err on the safe side.

I'm not sure that the reaction of the woman in the story we are
discussing justifies the terms "insane" or "stupid". *I think hers was
an entirely predictable reaction in this country. *

It may have seemed strange to the photographer, who presumably would
never have expected such a reaction if doing something similar in his
own country. *However, this is Tabloid Britain, and what might seem like
paranoia to an outsider is perfectly understandable here.

I'm skeptical... *

Do you have any children of your own?

As was alluded to elsewhere, taking a snap doesn't really get a person
any closer to being able to target a particular child.

CCTV, on the other hand, does. Any low-paid worker in CCTV control
can spot a child waiting with a football kit bag at the same corner
every week and learn enough (to sell to whoever) to be able to say
"your dad's blue Mondeo broke down and he asked me to pick you up from
football; he said you won last week" etc etc.

So why all the fuss about taking snaps and not about the fact that
CCTV is a genuine threat to your children? Bizarre.