Taking pictures of children is wrong!

I'm just reading the BBC link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/5413110.stm and I'm a little concerned by the wording of the judge.

I will agree that there is something odd about a grown man just photographing children, and the fact that this guy was using concealed cameras to do it makes it worse.

However, I was under the impression that I was allowed to photography anything I like, but what I did with the results was what could land me in trouble.

I'm concerned that this kind of ruling will make it harder to take any photographs in parks or at national monuments and will further support Mayor Livingstone's ideas.

Any thoughts on this ?

Builder said:

I'm just reading the BBC link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/5413110.stm and I'm a
little concerned by the wording of the judge.

I will agree that there is something odd about a grown man just
photographing children, and the fact that this guy was using
concealed cameras to do it makes it worse.

However, I was under the impression that I was allowed to
photography anything I like, but what I did with the results was
what could land me in trouble.

I'm concerned that this kind of ruling will make it harder to take
any photographs in parks or at national monuments and will further
support Mayor Livingstone's ideas.

Any thoughts on this ?

Click to expand...

This one seems more than 'odd'. It's obvious from the methodolgy, the content and the man's behaviour when confronted (running away) that this wasn't just 'taking some pictures in a park'.

What I don't understand is why they just didn't throw him jail until he's too old to hold a camera!

I'm surprised you think it's okay to photograph anything you like. If I found anyone taking pictures of my young daughter with a hidden camera in a park I would go absolutely berserk.

I fully agree about his behaviour but am somewhat curious when it comes to the text of the article.

He was found guilty of taking indecent photographs of an 11 and a 13 year old on a public beach. I would not for a moment suspect that a whole string of people in authority would be wrong on such a point but not having seen the pictures I wonder what could these young girls possibly have been doing that was indecent?

I can only assume that he was intruding so far as to photograph them changing, which is no doubt the reason he was spotted and caught. However, he took 48 so how long were they naked? Should that matter?
This surely is a crazy, mixed up world we live in.

We expect parents to be vigilant to the point of obsession in case a pervert be near. Yet we so want to preserve the joy and innocence of children.

I confess to not knowing the answer myself. I would hate to think that when my granddaughter is on the beach she spends most of her time afraid of anyone and everyone, instead of enjoying building sandcastles. At the same time, I would probably be moved to more than words should such trespass be made against her.

its good you are not judge. you would've send to jail too many people

Why is it that pedophiles and rapists always seem to end up getting weak sentences? I don't know the exact situation, and not as much about British law, but many judges would have come up with a similar sentence for this in the US. There are people rotting in prison for 20 years over growing marijuana while their cellmate who raped an 8 year old gets 4 years and released after 2 for good behavior.

What IS good behavior for a child molester in prison, anyway? Not molesting any children?

I just don't get it sometimes.

olezhyk said:

its good you are not judge. you would've send to jail too many people

Click to expand...

Do you run away every time somebody sees you taking lewd pictures of 11 year olds with a hidden camera too, or do you just like to stick up for the underdog?

It would be interesting to know what the charge was - it seems that we have not been told the whole story. It is not illegal to take photos of children unless they are naked & if this was the case then he should have known better - however British jails are literally full & it would have served no purpose to jail him - the Judge was right. The fact that covert methods were used is neither here nor there - if it is then a lot of wildlife photographers are in trouble.

Keith-C

Builder wrote:

1) It seems reasonable to believe that the activities of children are at least as visually interesting as dogs or ducks. You will find a reasonable number of family pictures and pictures with children in the world's art museums. There is no reason to believe that unnatural sexual interest is necessarily involved because people take pictures of children whether or not they are their own.

2) Even without the issues relating to sex or youth, there are conflicting attitudes towards photographs. People often don't like other people taking candid photographs of their activities. Often people seem to feel threatened in some way by other people who are taking pcitures even when the pictures are of flowers or buildings. So there is going to be some level of conflict about photography. The tendency to associate photography with terrorism or unacceptable sexual behavior does not help.

3) Unacceptable sexual attitudes toward children do seem to be a serious problem with a small but still sizeable part of the human population. In this case, we don't know what indecent is or what the law specified. You clearly can get in trouble for taking pictures of naked children even if they are your own. In this case, the man probably was taking pictures of children in their bathing gear. This much interest in scantily clad children does seem to be a good reason to be concerned about this man's interest in children and for the legal system to help keep him out of trouble.

4) Generally you do have the right to take pictures in public of anything that you have the right to look at. But from a pragmatic point of view, it is probably a good idea to weigh your right against both the importance of the picture to you and the potential for conflict arising from taking the picture. If you want to provoke conflict to make a statement about your right, it is probably a good idea to pick a situation where your case is strongest and that will not be pictures of young children.
--
David Jacobson
http://www.pbase.com/dnjake

I agree as to the need for more information.

I suspect this is another of those instances when a limited news report is enough to incite deep feelings at extremes of the spectrum, without any of the participants actually being aware of the whole truth.

Indeed, I have witnessed people reading such limited reports and then relating opinions to me based on a complete misapprehension of the incomplete article read just minutes before!

Such is life and I think it incumbent on us to keep a sense of perspective. If we do, it becomes clearer when dispensing justice and those who deserve to be punished can feel the full force of the law.

I agree with your point (completely), but given the context of the thought, think it could have been said better. How about, "the law is too lenient with..." ; )

neuron09 said:

I agree with your point (completely), but given the context of the
thought, think it could have been said better. How about, "the law
is too lenient with..." ; )

Click to expand...

Ick... um... yeah, I didn't think of that. Normally I've got my mind far enough in the gutter that this would have "popped up" immediately, but thanks for pointing it out. ;-P

I'm not arguing the hidden camera aspect. What scares me though is the judges statement to the effect 'You knew what you were doing was wrong and that is why you hid it'.

The judges statement implies that the act of taking pictures of children is wrong, not just the use of the hidden camera.

So am I now not allowed to shoot a sunset if your child is in the frame ?

I agree with what you are saying here, I'm just concerned. I've spent many a saturday in a park shooting flowers, waterfalls or just the ducks, and people's attitudes to photography scare me. Everyone immediately assumes I am a pervert out to get their child or something similar, even when I have a tripod pointed at flowers. I can live with this though - conflict is part of life.

However, what I cannot accept is brain dead suggestions that we can't take pictures of trafalgar square... Or sunsets on the beach just because some sprog is in the frame. And this is the kind of paranoia the public take away from statements like this judge made

I wonder who is being paranoid? I don't think people object to innocent photography as much as you say. The case you brought up was one of a man effectively stalking young children and hiding behind bushes.

olezhyk said:

its good you are not judge. you would've send to jail too many people

Click to expand...

But, we'd have a LOT fewer perverts taking secret pictures of young girls on the streets. LOL

Builder said:

I'm not arguing the hidden camera aspect. What scares me though is
the judges statement to the effect 'You knew what you were doing
was wrong and that is why you hid it'.

The judges statement implies that the act of taking pictures of
children is wrong, not just the use of the hidden camera.

So am I now not allowed to shoot a sunset if your child is in the
frame ?

Click to expand...

The devil (literally) is in the details that seem to have escaped you. The story specifically says that the man "admitted taking INDECENT pictures of girls"

Leaving out the word INDECENT makes a considerable difference.

The story has more than enough information. Read these words again, "admitted taking indecent pictures of girls". How they were INDECENT is inconsequential to the fact that not only the judge; but, the MAN HIMSELF admitted they were INDECENT.

John Motts said:

I wonder who is being paranoid? I don't think people object to
innocent photography as much as you say. The case you brought up
was one of a man effectively stalking young children and hiding
behind bushes.

Click to expand...

Have no kids.

A couple of posters have said they would go ballistic if this guy photographed their children.

Let me ask them, if there was a man on the beach getting his jollies by Looking at your children, not doing anything else, but looking - would you go ballistic?

There's not much information in this article; the words, "indecent" seem to be as specific as it gets. So, I assume he was concentrating on the crouch's of these little girls. What if he didn't have a camera?

So which is worse, the camera, or the human eye?

It would "seem" that this guy had a guilty conscience. One "assumes" he was going to go home and make personal use of these images.

The whole thing doesn't bother me. What bothers me is a man harrasing and/or abusing children. A man causing harm to the child.

Open up a fashion magazine today and you will see children displayed as adult sex objects.

We should have more photography of children in their innoscence and less objectifying them as adults and objects. The problem is really us and our fear, the contradictions that we put up with. The sexualising of children is a cause, this man and his camera are merely the symptom. Is there anyone here who writes to the editors of these magazines that they will not buy their products if they sexualise children? No? Then we are living in what we want to live in. And we are busy creating the pedophiles that we will go ballistic over.

Pedophilia is not a sexual choice, it is a symptom of illness, that goes far deeper. By both exposing children as sex objects, and then calling sex in general a "dirty" matter we give legitimacy to already disturbed people. To the people whose lives are frustrating and confused, this lends their perverion legitimacy - which we affirm every day in magazines and advertising.

This is a much larger question than just this guy, and this beach.

Dave

Your perception of society and the ills that we suffer does you credit.

I humbly suggest that you keep telling everyone your opinion on this whenever the opportunity arises.

Eventually, the majority may come to realise the sense of it and we can return to a world of wonder with true perspective.