Re: Photography thread 11.02 : Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:34 pm  

DHM wrote:

There is another argument, and one that I would hope few people have experience of directly but the use of images of children to generate obscene material in photoshop. This is a very real issue.

While I broadly agree with the rest of your post, this bit is cobblers. I bcan't find one instance of this being reported as a problem apart from a few over protective parents dreaming up poop.

Re: Photography thread 11.02 : Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:50 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

While I broadly agree with the rest of your post, this bit is cobblers. I bcan't find one instance of this being reported as a problem apart from a few over protective parents dreaming up poop.

I was also trying to suss this one out.
Are the parents of DHM's under 10 rugby team concerned that the local paedos will super impose their kids heads on a porno picture so that they can knock one out over them?

Is there a whole new level of preciousness amongst parents these days or am I just not getting it being a non-parent?

Re: Photography thread 11.02 : Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:26 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

While I broadly agree with the rest of your post, this bit is cobblers. I bcan't find one instance of this being reported as a problem apart from a few over protective parents dreaming up poop.

Most of the concerns clubs deal with have never happened, and I didn't say any of our parents had made these comments - they haven't - but "over protective parents making up poop" have to be listened to as well and that's where rugby club safety officers tend to be very cautious. Clubs have to keep their reputations intact - stories spread, true or not.

Re: Photography thread 11.02 : Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:28 pm  

WIZEB wrote:

I was also trying to suss this one out.
Are the parents of DHM's under 10 rugby team concerned that the local paedos will super impose their kids heads on a porno picture so that they can knock one out over them?

Really? You wrote this and thought it was alright?

Re: Photography thread 11.02 : Mon Jul 08, 2013 11:17 pm  

DHM wrote:

Really? You wrote this and thought it was alright?

Suppose I generalised using the plurality of the rugby parents when it was only you singularly expressing what I conceive as a certain amount of irrationality.
Hey, but you're a parent and I aint.

Re: Photography thread 11.02 : Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:58 am  

DHM wrote:

Really? You wrote this and thought it was alright?

It would seem to be one line of logic from your comment about Photoshopped 'obscene' materials that are made using images of real children.

If it's not, then what did you mean by what you described as an issue?

Re: Photography thread 11.02 : Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:43 am  

Mintball wrote:

It would seem to be one line of logic from your comment about Photoshopped 'obscene' materials that are ma using images of real children.

If it's not, then what did you mean by what you described as an issue?

I've heard it cited by individuals, (parents and members) at our club too, whether its true or not, (and it seems to be far-fetched), whether or not you can find any examples on the internet, (I am not going to go searching for some ) is irrelevant, totally irrelevant - what DHM is stating is the position that a private club committee funded and guided by a central professional body have to take into consideration in order to allay the fears of the most paranoid and "prove" that their club takes child safety seriously, on and off the pitch, like his club our club have a nominated Child Safety representative, ours is by coincidence a female school teacher and so takes the job very seriously - by another coincidence she is also the same person who is particularly talented at taking very good photos of the action shots that the kids like to see on the web - in all things there is a balance to be taken.

Re: Photography thread 11.02 : Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:58 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

I've heard it cited by individuals, (parents and members) at our club too, whether its true or not, (and it seems to be far-fetched), whether or not you can find any examples on the internet, (I am not going to go searching for some ) is irrelevant, totally irrelevant - what DHM is stating is the position that a private club committee funded and guided by a central professional body have to take into consideration in order to allay the fears of the most paranoid and "prove" that their club takes child safety seriously, on and off the pitch, like his club our club have a nominated Child Safety representative, ours is by coincidence a female school teacher and so takes the job very seriously - by another coincidence she is also the same person who is particularly talented at taking very good photos of the action shots that the kids like to see on the web - in all things there is a balance to be taken.

But do you concede that DHM maybe succumbing to the real and modern day irrationality of creeping paranoia?
It's him, after all, using the rhetoric of child abduction and there being some evil f**** out there.

Is it the loss of confidence amongst parents that is the real issue?

*Photography.

Re: Photography thread 11.02 : Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:07 am  

DHM wrote:

My take on things is with rugby clubs is there are legal requirements, there are requirements from the governing body and there are the bits every club adds on themselves as nobody fully understands 100% of either of the first two.

The whole post, of which I have quoted only part, was measured and informative but the part quoted above sums up the situation (although what DHM writes does not only apply to rugby clubs).

My 11 year-old grandson plays for his local football club and I am unofficially recognised as the "official" photographer, if you see what I mean. I photograph all their games, their presentation ceremony and the Christmas party. I post low-res images on Facebook and high-res versions of the same images on Flickr. The photographs are not watermarked and copyright is specifically waived for non-commercial use by anyone connected with either participating club.

Before every game either I or one of our coaches approaches the opposing team's coach to explain the situation and to request permission to continue. Not once - ever - has any coach or accompanying parent declined or raised any objections at all. I always send links to their club to be freely distributed to their parents, etc. The local FA secretary is fully aware of the situation and has often used my images on their website and his own Facebook profile.

Common sense can prevail. Sometimes.

Re: Photography thread 11.02 : Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:09 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

I've heard it cited by individuals, (parents and members) at our club too, whether its true or not, (and it seems to be far-fetched), whether or not you can find any examples on the internet, (I am not going to go searching for some ) is irrelevant, totally irrelevant - what DHM is stating is the position that a private club committee funded and guided by a central professional body have to take into consideration in order to allay the fears of the most paranoid and "prove" that their club takes child safety seriously, on and off the pitch, like his club our club have a nominated Child Safety representative, ours is by coincidence a female school teacher and so takes the job very seriously - by another coincidence she is also the same person who is particularly talented at taking very good photos of the action shots that the kids like to see on the web - in all things there is a balance to be taken.

That wasn't the point that I was attempting to make.

I was attempting to gain a better understanding of DHM's response to Wizeb's interpretation of the issue he had raised.

Beyond that, DHM says that there is an issue, and "one that I would hope few people have experience of directly but the use of images of children to generate obscene material in photoshop. This is a very real issue."

Not a perception of an issue, but "a very real issue".

For clarity's sake, I am not having a dig at DHM. But this does seem to rather get to the heart of the matter. If it is "a very real issue" [my emphasis], then there will be evidence of it. By which I mean police warnings or court cases etc.

Otherwise, it seems that the issue – and none-the-less real – is the paranoia.

And it remains a point that DHM's apparent objection to how Wizeb rephrased his "very real issue" is hard to understand. What else would he imagine people would go to such lengths for, using "obscene" materials? Is there not then at play a further issue – that of a somewhat puritanical fear of spelling out things clearly, for what they are?

Jerry raises an interesting point though: at what stage does an organisation say: 'enough is enough – there is no evidence for this'?