Re: A 21st-century witch burning : Wed Oct 30, 2013 5:03 pm  

Mintball wrote:

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.

So a guy sitting in a park and taking photographs of teen and pre teen girls is okay?

Re: A 21st-century witch burning : Wed Oct 30, 2013 5:25 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

So a guy sitting in a park and taking photographs of teen and pre teen girls is okay?

In this paranoid era, probably not, a couple of decades ago not many would have noticed.

On the other hand this imaginary bloke of yours could be taking pictures of the landscape, or trees, or the cloud formations, or trying out his new zoom lens or wide angle lens, or just practicing his hobby, or he may just think that pictures of children playing in a park make very good compositions.

As I mentioned previously, we look at pictures of children playing in parks from the 1960s now and regard them with nostalgia and would certainly count them as being a valuable social commentary and worth archiving.

Why does your imaginary bloke sitting in a park taking pictures of girls (and why do you pick just girls as an example) trouble you so ?

Re: A 21st-century witch burning : Wed Oct 30, 2013 5:30 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

So a guy sitting in a park and taking photographs of teen and pre teen girls is okay?

Why not?

And why not a woman taking pictures of lads? And all the points Jerry has made above.

You've already made up your mind that anyone taking pictures of people in public spaces is obviously dodgy. – or at least if they fit your profiling.

And you still haven't answered my earlier question about the two pictures that I posted.

Re: A 21st-century witch burning : Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:26 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

In this paranoid era, probably not, a couple of decades ago not many would have noticed.

Just like no one noticed Jimmy Saville was screwing everything he could get his hands on.

I'm 40. When I was in primary school a kid from our school was murdered about half a mile from our house. It was post Sutcliffe (my dad was questioned my cops down south simply because he was a truck driver with a northern accent). It was post Brady and Hindley.

I don't recognise those times as innocent times. The difference between then and now is the instant availability of digital cameras which mean that virtually anyone could have access to pictures. Back in the 80s the pictures would have needed to have been developed. I'm pretty much certain than anyone going to Boots to develop a roll of pictures of random kids that seem to have been taken without their knowledge would have been talking to a cop about those pictures. But I doubt it would have happened often simply because no one would have dared taking those pics to Boots to develop.

On the other hand this imaginary bloke of yours could be taking pictures of the landscape, or trees, or the cloud formations, or trying out his new zoom lens or wide angle lens, or just practicing his hobby, or he may just think that pictures of children playing in a park make very good compositions.

If AP is taking his pictures of his favourite clouds then that is going to be quite evident. And if someone thinks he's taking pictures of their kids they can just get him to show him the cloud pictures.

As I mentioned previously, we look at pictures of children playing in parks from the 1960s now and regard them with nostalgia and would certainly count them as being a valuable social commentary and worth archiving.

And I'd say that most of the pictures that were taken were done with the knowledge and permission of the people involved. Just because someone is in a public place doesn't give you the right to make them your photographic subject.

Why does your imaginary bloke sitting in a park taking pictures of girls (and why do you pick just girls as an example) trouble you so ?

It was just an example that quickly sprung to mind.

I also think a bloke walking down a high street and taking pics of random people without their permission would also be challenged. But if he was taking pics of kids he'd be challenged 10 times quicker.

Re: A 21st-century witch burning : Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:36 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

If AP is taking his pictures of his favourite clouds then that is going to be quite evident. And if someone thinks he's taking pictures of their kids they can just get him to show him the cloud pictures.

Not necessarily, you don't have to be pointing your camera directly upwards in order to take photos of the sky - and what about landscapes ?

And I'd say that most of the pictures that were taken were done with the knowledge and permission of the people involved. Just because someone is in a public place doesn't give you the right to make them your photographic subject.

You'd probably be wrong then.

I can't remember the name of the bloke but in recent years there was an archive of photos taken in Leeds in the 1960s by a French photographer who went on to become quite famous, the Leeds photos were done while he was studying here, all of his photos were of a photo-journalism style where he just wanted to document the terraced streets and the people who lived there, he simply wandered around taking photos of whatever and whoever took his fancy, didn't ask for permission because he didn;t speak much English and he certainly didn't get anyone to sign a disclaimer - was he a pervert ?

If I remember his name I'll post a link.


If a person is on a public place. lets say wandering down Briggate in Leeds on a Saturday afternoon, and you are in Briggate taking photos of, lets say Harvey Nicholls, and that person is walking out of Harvey Nichs at the same time as you press your shutter, then should you instantly rush across and apologise and get them to sign a disclaimer, or show them the photo and promise to delete it, or just think "bollax, that cow just ruined my photo of the Burmantofts terracotta frieze on that beautiful building"

Re: A 21st-century witch burning : Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:16 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

... And if someone thinks he's taking pictures of their kids they can just get him to show him the cloud pictures.

And I'd say that most of the pictures that were taken were done with the knowledge and permission of the people involved. Just because someone is in a public place doesn't give you the right to make them your photographic subject ...

Then, as expected, you're talking crap.

I suggest you acquaint yourself with Henri Cartier Bresson, the father of street photography, then you might actually begin to understand what candid photography can gain.

Re: A 21st-century witch burning : Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:55 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Again, context is important. If it was a parent filming his kid on his kids big day playing in a SL stadium that's one thing. But if the guy had no ties whatsoever to any players and was just filming for "the rugby" then I would be suspicious.

What difference is there between watching a game and watching it through a lens?

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Clearly not. But if some guy was taking a video of an unrelated 6 year old whose skills were more Carlton Palmer than Maradona then one would ask why he was choosing to taking videos of him.

"My child is poop at football, do you fancy him or something?"

Re: A 21st-century witch burning : Thu Oct 31, 2013 8:05 am  

Mind, I'm fascinated by LGJM's determined efforts to claim that "youngsters" (as per reports of this case) in reality means children under the age of 10.

I suppose it's crucial to attempting to smear the victim of this horrific crime.

Re: A 21st-century witch burning : Thu Oct 31, 2013 8:57 am  

A few weeks back my girlfriend and I decided to walk into Pudsey park to eat a sandwich that we'd bought from Greggs. It was a nice, sunny day. Kids were playing on the slides, parents were pushing swings, Helen and I were chatting away.

I can't remember the exact subject but I decided to Google something and so got my phone out. Helen quickly told me to put it away in case "someone thinks you're photographing their kids." The thought had never occurred to me before. There's been many an occasion in the past where I've sat in parks during my lunch break, pottering with my phone to pass the time. I'm 32 years old, a little over weight, no kids of my own, typical IT nerd character - I probably fit the profile of a nonce for many a paranoid parent. Have there been people ushering their kids away from my corner of the park and I've just not realised? Could I have become the victim of mob rule simply because I decided to have a look at RLfans in the sunshine?

I've had this conversation with people at work recently (it came about because one of them had bought a GPS tracking bracelet [it looked a lot like an offender's tag] for her daughter which I found rather unpleasant and Orwellian) and the consensus was simply "you don't understand because you don't have kids."

Re: A 21st-century witch burning : Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:20 am  

Bullboy wrote: I've had this conversation with people at work recently (it came about because one of them had bought a GPS tracking bracelet [it looked a lot like an offender's tag] for her daughter which I found rather unpleasant and Orwellian) and the consensus was simply "you don't understand because you don't have kids." Get your workmate a copy of Paranoid Parenting for Xmas? Mind you, ''she won't understand because she has kids.'' http://www.frankfuredi.com/index.php/site/article/272/

Bullboy wrote: I've had this conversation with people at work recently (it came about because one of them had bought a GPS tracking bracelet [it looked a lot like an offender's tag] for her daughter which I found rather unpleasant and Orwellian) and the consensus was simply "you don't understand because you don't have kids." Get your workmate a copy of Paranoid Parenting for Xmas? Mind you, ''she won't understand because she has kids.'' http://www.frankfuredi.com/index.php/site/article/272/