Re: A 21st-century witch burning : Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:29 am  

It's simple.
Taking photographs in public is fine, the key point being "in public", there is no privacy "in public" (harassment is different).
Taking photos of fully-clothed kids in a normal public situation is a perfectly valid subject, where's the problem?

In answer to Jose ... I have a print photo of my daughter from 30 years ago back when she was three, stark naked, before a bath to wash off all the juice stains from her face, hands, arms, legs etc from the blackberries we'd been picking.
Covered in the stuff she was and it made a rather endearing photo.
If Jose had been working at Boots back then he'd have phoned the Police ... but, and here's the point, NO-ONE DID ... and I wouldn't have expected them to either.

I have a picture of myself, aged about 18 months (must be a daguerrotype ), naked except for a sun hat, with genitals clearly visible, sitting cross-legged on the Scarborough sand.
I have no idea who took the picture ... ooh what if it was a paedo and I've been harmed by it ever since? Ridiculous.
Or, worse, what if a paedophile got a copy while it was being developed .... oooh, I'm defiled. Also ridiculous.

Re: A 21st-century witch burning : Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:53 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

It's simple.
Taking photographs in public is fine, the key point being "in public", there is no privacy "in public" (harassment is different).
Taking photos of fully-clothed kids in a normal public situation is a perfectly valid subject, where's the problem?

The problem is in the mind of the person who thinks there is a problem.

El Barbudo wrote:

In answer to Jose ... I have a print photo of my daughter from 30 years ago back when she was three, stark naked, before a bath to wash off all the juice stains from her face, hands, arms, legs etc from the blackberries we'd been picking.
Covered in the stuff she was and it made a rather endearing photo.
If Jose had been working at Boots back then he'd have phoned the Police ... but, and here's the point, NO-ONE DID ... and I wouldn't have expected them to either...

And there have been cases of people being reported for exactly this – and another I remember where Boots (IIRC) refused to print photos a woman had taken of the 'rude' frescos at Pompeii.

Fuckwittery, prudery and paranoia.

Re: A 21st-century witch burning : Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:41 pm  

Many years ago my daughter was a very good diver and trained at Shipley. She had a flaw in her technique, minor having said that. Her very good coach tried to explain it to her, it didn't work. I took a video of her and she totally got it when she saw it. The following week there were signs up prohibiting filming.

Re: A 21st-century witch burning : Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:07 pm  

Mintball wrote:

...and another I remember where Boots (IIRC) refused to print photos a woman had taken of the 'rude' frescos at Pompeii...

Oh, now that is really ridiculous, the copyright must have run out centuries ago.

Re: A 21st-century witch burning : Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:31 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

Oh, now that is really ridiculous, the copyright must have run out centuries ago.

On a not-unrelated note, we went to the Life and Death in Pompeii & Herculaneum exhibition at the British Museum a few weeks ago.

Everyone had had to book for a set time, but it was still packed.

One of the exhibits was a sculpture of Pan and the Goat, which was discovered in the 1750s in Herculaneum.

It features the half man-half goat god Pan shagging a goat. Actually, it's more like 'making love to', because the tenderness is part of the fun.

It spent 200-plus years in one of the 'Secret Museums', where only nice, white, respectable, middle-class (and above) men could see it by appointment.

So there it was and there was I, knowing that history and determined to see it.

It was in a small side room, with a little warning on the wall at the entrance.

But amazingly, it was the only part of the exhibition where you didn't have to queue to see an exhibit. Nobody was near it.

In fact, everyone in the little room was standing as far away from it as possible, pretending to look only at the entirely non-rude exhibits behind windows on all sides, but all the while casting glances at it.

Me being me, I rushed in, with tb not far behind, going: 'wow' – it is absolutely exquisite.

Then, behind us, we heard a very plummy male voice.

"Oh dear," it said.

Then a female plummy voice responded.

"Oh dear, oh dear."

Pause.

"Well, shall we have a look – quickly?"

Worth the admission fee alone.

Re: A 21st-century witch burning : Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:33 pm  

billypop wrote:

Many years ago my daughter was a very good diver and trained at Shipley. She had a flaw in her technique, minor having said that. Her very good coach tried to explain it to her, it didn't work. I took a video of her and she totally got it when she saw it. The following week there were signs up prohibiting filming.

Similar situation with my daughter and her high-jump technique. She had a lazy left leg but once she'd seen the video, she corrected it herself. Similarly too, I was requested not to take video footage, even though the only person in-shot was my own daughter.

Re: A 21st-century witch burning : Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:35 pm  

Here is a still picture from Odsal Horrific, isn't it? An unsuspecting child, aged maybe 10 or 11, and all the rest of the violated, unsuspecting public too. But it gets worse. Much worse. Because it is not a single image, no, it is a still from a video available on the Yorkshire Film Archive page As part of the Stadium Legends project, YFA and filmmaker Ed Torsney teamed up with the Bradford Bulls Foundation to bring to life – via Odsal’s Sky Sports big screen – some of the previously unseen footage witnessed by the rugby amphitheatre during its 77 year history. This fast paced film, packed with Odsal thrills and spills, includes footage of the record breaking 1954 Challenge Cup replay, a 1947 Great Britain V New Zealand test match and Bradford Northern proudly returning from Wembley in the 1940s. In fact, there are countless thousands of men, women and children appearing in this film. I know, it is utterly disgusting. And not a single disclaimer form. Just think what untold damage such shameful anonymous filming in public must have caused. Or rather, LGJM is spouting the usual claptrap. If you do not want your children to be viewed by other humans in a public place then do not take them out in public. A "paedo" taking away a surreptitious image of your child to view later is the sort of irrational and paranoid "fear" that is so typical of 21st century dumbed down knee-jerk moral humbug and hypocrisy. It is hardly any different to your child being viewed "live" by the same "paedo", and in any case, the incidence of small and even covert video and still cameras is now so rife, really, trying to "protect" your child from having a blatant photo taken by someone who "might be" a paedo is really pi.s.sing in the wind, isn't it, as you might be totally surrounded by hundreds of paedos with buttonhole or bag cameras all recording every move your child makes. Indeed wouldn't this be the likely preferred MO of a paedo? Some people really do need to get a slap, and be brought back into reality. If you sat them down and spent some time asking them to rationalise their "fears", and explaining why they are pointless as well as baseless, then eventually the penny might drop but the fashion is instead to feed the paranoia and encourage witch-hunts and vigilantism. And of course the same children in the same city centre walking the same streets are constantly being recorded from all angles by innumerable video cameras anyway.

Here is a still picture from Odsal Horrific, isn't it? An unsuspecting child, aged maybe 10 or 11, and all the rest of the violated, unsuspecting public too. But it gets worse. Much worse. Because it is not a single image, no, it is a still from a video available on the Yorkshire Film Archive page As part of the Stadium Legends project, YFA and filmmaker Ed Torsney teamed up with the Bradford Bulls Foundation to bring to life – via Odsal’s Sky Sports big screen – some of the previously unseen footage witnessed by the rugby amphitheatre during its 77 year history. This fast paced film, packed with Odsal thrills and spills, includes footage of the record breaking 1954 Challenge Cup replay, a 1947 Great Britain V New Zealand test match and Bradford Northern proudly returning from Wembley in the 1940s. In fact, there are countless thousands of men, women and children appearing in this film. I know, it is utterly disgusting. And not a single disclaimer form. Just think what untold damage such shameful anonymous filming in public must have caused. Or rather, LGJM is spouting the usual claptrap. If you do not want your children to be viewed by other humans in a public place then do not take them out in public. A "paedo" taking away a surreptitious image of your child to view later is the sort of irrational and paranoid "fear" that is so typical of 21st century dumbed down knee-jerk moral humbug and hypocrisy. It is hardly any different to your child being viewed "live" by the same "paedo", and in any case, the incidence of small and even covert video and still cameras is now so rife, really, trying to "protect" your child from having a blatant photo taken by someone who "might be" a paedo is really pi.s.sing in the wind, isn't it, as you might be totally surrounded by hundreds of paedos with buttonhole or bag cameras all recording every move your child makes. Indeed wouldn't this be the likely preferred MO of a paedo? Some people really do need to get a slap, and be brought back into reality. If you sat them down and spent some time asking them to rationalise their "fears", and explaining why they are pointless as well as baseless, then eventually the penny might drop but the fashion is instead to feed the paranoia and encourage witch-hunts and vigilantism. And of course the same children in the same city centre walking the same streets are constantly being recorded from all angles by innumerable video cameras anyway.

Re: A 21st-century witch burning : Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:39 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Here is a still picture from Odsal ...

Re: A 21st-century witch burning : Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:41 pm  

Awful I accept, but why do I keep having thoughts of the ex-NOTW editor every time I see this thread title?

Re: A 21st-century witch burning : Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:46 pm  

WIZEB wrote: Awful I accept, but why do I keep having thoughts of the ex-NOTW editor every time I see this thread title? Because the media has a responsibility in the issue as a whole, and Brooks was the one who decided to use her rag to 'out' who she decided were paedophiles, thus causing the Paulsgrove riots, where it was used as a cover for score settling, and at least contributed to the sort of climate where vigilante nutfucks drove a paediatrician from her home because a) they were too fücking thick to understand the difference between 'paedophile' and 'paediatrician', and b) because they 'thought' that they had the right to take the law into their own hands. As did the nasty little pieces of shït who committed this crime. If anyone's interested, some wider thoughts.

WIZEB wrote: Awful I accept, but why do I keep having thoughts of the ex-NOTW editor every time I see this thread title? Because the media has a responsibility in the issue as a whole, and Brooks was the one who decided to use her rag to 'out' who she decided were paedophiles, thus causing the Paulsgrove riots, where it was used as a cover for score settling, and at least contributed to the sort of climate where vigilante nutfucks drove a paediatrician from her home because a) they were too fücking thick to understand the difference between 'paedophile' and 'paediatrician', and b) because they 'thought' that they had the right to take the law into their own hands. As did the nasty little pieces of shït who committed this crime. If anyone's interested, some wider thoughts.