Re: A 21st-century witch burning : Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:18 am  

Mintball wrote:

Why would it be different?

He had decided not to be confrontational, but was making sure he had evidence.

Read the examples. One was of 15 year old's damaging his stuff. The other was him hiding behind his curtains filming 8 year old kids and using the excuse that they were "apparently" damaging his stuff.

One is a valid reason, the other isn't.

And if it's "different" to be photographing younger children – because then everyone assumes he's a perve – why do they assume photographing older children is somehow "different"? Why not assume he perves over 15-year-olds?

If 15 year old idiots are damaging your stuff and you accuse them of it then they'll lie and said they never did it. An 8 year old is going to run away as soon as you open the door.

It is utterly ludicrous the way in which photographing a child has suddenly become evidence of perversion. It's paranoia and downright stupidity. And the mainstream news media has played a role in this, whipping up fear and with it, that hysteria.

On your bus ride tomorrow morning you see a guy on the bus with a camera taking pics of women who are on the street. Is this guy a ****ing weirdo who worries you? Now, if instead of taking pictures of kids instead of women, isn't this weirdo someone who you are going to report to the police so they can talk with him?

Indeed, why do you feel the need to question what nobody else (anywhere) seems to be questioning: that his garden was being vandalised, and turn it into a 'maybe it wasn't and he was just using it as an excuse'?

Telegraph wrote:

When Mr Ebrahimi saw local youths apparently vandalising his flowers, he took pictures of them

As I said earlier, the flowers were either vandalised or they weren't. You decided that the "apparent" vandalism was actual vandalism.

The police didn't say what photos he took, merely that they weren't indecent. The pictures that he took were important. If his pictures showed kids damaging his flowers then both the vandalised flowers and his pictures exonerate him. If he has a couple of pictures of young kids and the flowers are untouched that's completely different.

Are you actually trying to illustrate how the current hysteria works?

No. I think that one shouldn't react to one hysteria by creating another.

Re: A 21st-century witch burning : Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:19 am  

ryano wrote:

:CLAP:
There's a good photo in the Sir Titus Salt in Bradford of a load of raggedy urchins getting ready for a charabanc trip probably in the '40s or '50s. Most people would look at it with a nostalgic smile. I'd find it sad that someone would view it thinking "Which nonce took that?"

Excellently put.

Re: A 21st-century witch burning : Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:39 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Read the examples. One was of 15 year old's damaging his stuff. The other was him hiding behind his curtains filming 8 year old kids and using the excuse that they were "apparently" damaging his stuff.

One is a valid reason, the other isn't....

Can't agree with that.
Either could seem valid to a really timid or shy bloke, it's not unknown for grown men to be irrationally afraid of kids (such as 8 yr olds) in a group, or even afraid of them running off and telling their parents, there could be all sorts of reasons for being secretive about taking the pictures.

It's all beside the point anyway, which is that vigilantism is extremely dangerous and unjust mob rule.

Re: A 21st-century witch burning : Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:49 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

Thats pretty much it - the feeling among parents that there is a pervert on every street who "wants" their children is widespread

As a quick guess, I'd say there are probably 50 people in Huddersfield who have convictions for sex offences against kids. (I have no idea of the numbers -it's purely a guess.)

I'd guess there are about 200 parents who have your lunatic fears of kiddie fiddlers down every street.

It does the country no good to whip up the fear of child abusers. But equally it does no good to perform similar exaggerations over the state of paranoia that the country is facing.

and manifests itself in the many anecdotes and press reports of amateur photographers being questioned in town and city centres when taking what used to be called "candid" photos of passer-by's or even just of buildings when people happen to be in the way - some of whom then find themselves explaining to police officers why they are taking those photos and then being asked to delete the photos under some sort of vague terrorist act (which doesn't exist) - the irony being of course that apparently deleting a photo on a digital camera does nothing of the sort but simply hides it from view.

I don't do it as often as I'd like to do it, but I do take pictures of buildings. This year I've taken pictures of buildings in New York, Manchester, Leeds, Bradford and London.

I have only ever been questioned once when taking a picture. And that had nothing whatsoever to do with people in my pictures, it was simply a case of a nondescript supermarket building that I was taking pictures of to possibly model for Google Earth. The supermarket manager asked me what I was doing, didn't particularly understand why I was taking pics when I gave my explanation so asked me not to do it. I shrugged my shoulders and just figured I wouldn't model the 5hitty building then. The supermarket has since gone bust. I hope the div is still out of work.

Have you ever met someone who has been given genuine hassle over taking pics? I doubt you have. Maybe basic questions from a security guard, that is all. But I bet you have read articles about this terrible new wave of photographer hassling in a magazine or online article, and now here you are spreading it.

We look back now at photographic collections of street scenes and "candid" photos of crowds of children playing (for instance) and call these photos important historical documents and social commentary, you can only imagine that in thirty years time anyone who wants to look at public photography from the 2000's will have to have police background checks before being allowed into the locked archives.

No, we're all going to be in jail because we're all convicted of child sex offences because we've looked at a child.

Re: A 21st-century witch burning : Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:31 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote: As a quick guess, I'd say there are probably 50 people in Huddersfield who have convictions for sex offences against kids. (I have no idea of the numbers -it's purely a guess.) I'd guess there are about 200 parents who have your lunatic fears of kiddie fiddlers down every street. It does the country no good to whip up the fear of child abusers. But equally it does no good to perform similar exaggerations over the state of paranoia that the country is facing. I'd make a better guess that there are far more than 200 parents in Huddersfield and I'll further guess that a large number of them have "abduction" at or near the top of their lists of things that they fear may happen to their children, there is a large scale paranoia of "stranger danger" whereas the truth is that "in-family danger" is a far more appropriate fear to have. Have you ever met someone who has been given genuine hassle over taking pics? I doubt you have. Maybe basic questions from a security guard, that is all. But I bet you have read articles about this terrible new wave of photographer hassling in a magazine or online article, and now here you are spreading it. This is quite a good article if you aren't fully aware of the sort of problems that photographers have been facing, indeed there is a thread on here from a couple of months ago about taking photos at rugby club childrens games if you know how to search properly (I don't) http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/photoblog/2009/12/in_the_eyes_of_the_law.html My street photography is fortunately limited to reference snaps for paintings and so I don't really need to take ages setting up a photo like a dedicated photographer might, indeed in recent years I've found my phone camera to be just as good at reaching into my pocket, raising it to eye level and snapping, 5 seconds max - they usually turn out ok for my needs and if they don't then there is always Google Earth A few years ago though when one of my daughters was working in a shop in Leeds city centre she mentioned to her manager that I was in town taking photos and her manager told her to tell me that you needed a licence from the council to do that. This is plainly incorrect, you don't need a licence to photograph property from a public place, in fact your supermarket manager only had the right to ask to you move from their boundary, you could have photographed his crappy shop from across the street on a public pavement for instance - but despite this it is often a public perception that no-one has the right to photograph in city centres, even the police were misguided into thinking this (although they say they are not now), and some will get very uptight about anyone photographing their children in a public place even if they are accidentally included in general shots.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote: As a quick guess, I'd say there are probably 50 people in Huddersfield who have convictions for sex offences against kids. (I have no idea of the numbers -it's purely a guess.) I'd guess there are about 200 parents who have your lunatic fears of kiddie fiddlers down every street. It does the country no good to whip up the fear of child abusers. But equally it does no good to perform similar exaggerations over the state of paranoia that the country is facing. I'd make a better guess that there are far more than 200 parents in Huddersfield and I'll further guess that a large number of them have "abduction" at or near the top of their lists of things that they fear may happen to their children, there is a large scale paranoia of "stranger danger" whereas the truth is that "in-family danger" is a far more appropriate fear to have. Have you ever met someone who has been given genuine hassle over taking pics? I doubt you have. Maybe basic questions from a security guard, that is all. But I bet you have read articles about this terrible new wave of photographer hassling in a magazine or online article, and now here you are spreading it. This is quite a good article if you aren't fully aware of the sort of problems that photographers have been facing, indeed there is a thread on here from a couple of months ago about taking photos at rugby club childrens games if you know how to search properly (I don't) http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/photoblog/2009/12/in_the_eyes_of_the_law.html My street photography is fortunately limited to reference snaps for paintings and so I don't really need to take ages setting up a photo like a dedicated photographer might, indeed in recent years I've found my phone camera to be just as good at reaching into my pocket, raising it to eye level and snapping, 5 seconds max - they usually turn out ok for my needs and if they don't then there is always Google Earth A few years ago though when one of my daughters was working in a shop in Leeds city centre she mentioned to her manager that I was in town taking photos and her manager told her to tell me that you needed a licence from the council to do that. This is plainly incorrect, you don't need a licence to photograph property from a public place, in fact your supermarket manager only had the right to ask to you move from their boundary, you could have photographed his crappy shop from across the street on a public pavement for instance - but despite this it is often a public perception that no-one has the right to photograph in city centres, even the police were misguided into thinking this (although they say they are not now), and some will get very uptight about anyone photographing their children in a public place even if they are accidentally included in general shots.

Re: A 21st-century witch burning : Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:33 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Read the examples. One was of 15 year old's damaging his stuff. The other was him hiding behind his curtains filming 8 year old kids and using the excuse that they were "apparently" damaging his stuff.

One is a valid reason, the other isn't ...

... On your bus ride tomorrow morning you see a guy on the bus with a camera taking pics of women who are on the street. Is this guy a ****ing weirdo who worries you? Now, if instead of taking pictures of kids instead of women, isn't this weirdo someone who you are going to report to the police so they can talk with him? ...

... If his pictures showed kids damaging his flowers then both the vandalised flowers and his pictures exonerate him. If he has a couple of pictures of young kids and the flowers are untouched that's completely different.

See El Barbudo's post.

And see my post that I illustrated with pictures that were taken, if not from 'behind the curtains', but certainly candidly, of an adult and of a child.

You are entirely welcome to explain why one is okay and the other is "different".

Re: A 21st-century witch burning : Wed Oct 30, 2013 11:43 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

Can't agree with that.
Either could seem valid to a really timid or shy bloke, it's not unknown for grown men to be irrationally afraid of kids (such as 8 yr olds) in a group, or even afraid of them running off and telling their parents, there could be all sorts of reasons for being secretive about taking the pictures.

All the more reason not to be taking pictures of kids then and simply getting on the phone and reporting the vandalism to police.

It's all beside the point anyway, which is that vigilantism is extremely dangerous and unjust mob rule.

Which I agree with.

This was my opening point: First of all. Even if this guy had a previous conviction for offences against kids it still doesn't give people any right whatsoever to murder him. But IMO way too many people in Britain would be celebrating his death if the newspapers were reporting of genuine suspicions of him being a paedophile.

[DaveO]

Re: A 21st-century witch burning : Wed Oct 30, 2013 11:45 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

IMO I think one witch hunt to get rid of a paedophile is now going to be replaced by another witch hunt to put blame on the police and council for not protecting him. There MAY be people who let him down, but I fear that there are going to be calls for heads to roll even if the police and council did nothing wrong.

I caught the discussion about this on the Jeremy Vine show yesterday and there is no need for a witch hunt based on what I heard. The police behaviour was appallingly bad and blame is definitely at their door.

Having hauled him in, found there was nothing wrong they just sent him home. When he contacted them about further harassment they told him to simply not go out! Offices have been suspended pending an inquiry and quite right that they have been.

As to taking photos of kids there was also a caller to the show who related a very similar scenario. There was scaffolding up at rented houses next door and kids were repeatedly climbing on it. Fearful of them getting injured the woman of the household first tried telling them not to do it then started taking photos when they ignored her saying she was going to show them to the police and owners of the properties. This was at the suggestion of a neighbour by the way. After doing this numerous times she got fed up and sent her husband out to take the photos. Trouble was it was girls doing the climbing this time and with 20 minutes the police were at the door asking why a man was taking photos of girls. IIRC they had been called by these people already about the kids climbing the scaffolding previously and had not attended.

The couple were immediately fearful of the damage to her husband's reputation.

Also when you say you wouldn't take photos but would just tell the kids off there are several problems with that. First of all you may be intimidating enough and confident enough to do so. Many aren't especially older people. I'd also say these days with the advent of digital cameras and phones with cameras people see it as routine to take photos of just about everything. It's almost second nature to some to take a photo of virtually anything so it doesn't surprise me people would document vandalism to their property or photograph such behaviour as described above.

The solution seems fairly obvious to me. If anyone is reported for taking photos and it turns out to be for a genuine reason then its the duty of those checking them out to make sure that not only are the people involved exonerated but they they publicise this at the merest hint of a backlash. A call to the police from someone facing this issue should be treated as seriously as they clearly treat calls informing them of the photos being taken in the first place. Would this involve a heck of a lot of work going round an entire neighbourhood door to door making sure everyone was on-side? Of course but if we want the luxury of paranoia that is the price you have to pay and is why given they didn't do this, the police clearly failed on the case in point where the chap was murdered.

Re: A 21st-century witch burning : Wed Oct 30, 2013 3:44 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

If 15 year old idiots are damaging your stuff and you accuse them of it then they'll lie and said they never did it. An 8 year old is going to run away as soon as you open the door.

The age difference really is irrelevant. In your first attempt at this point I could see what you possibly meant by if it was the difference between obviously intentional vandalism of or just being in the vicinity of the flowers, but I really don't see what difference it should make if the youths (also, youths is what the piece says. That usually implies teens, FWIW) were 15 or 8. It doesn't make any difference whatsoever to how likely somebody is to be a paedophile in what from available evidence is an isolated incident.

Re: A 21st-century witch burning : Wed Oct 30, 2013 3:56 pm  

DaveO wrote:

... If anyone is reported for taking photos and it turns out to be for a genuine reason ...

I'm tempted to suggest that, until such time as photography is outlawed, anyone reporting somebody for taking photographs should be bloody well laughed at.