Father branded a 'pervert' - for photographing his own children in public park

badbob said:
You're obviously a terrorist paedophile:D
Click to expand...

A terrorist paedophile, so he molest young terrorist?;)

Anyway, to think what happened to me was rather irrational, with what V-Spec said - that is even worst. It's like saying Dog Walkers are responsible for animal cruelty (on foxes, rabbits and hares) and dogs are used to hunt by high horse men for pleasure.

Meh.
 
The problem is with owning a digital SLR. If you had a crappy compact no one would give a damn. But as soon as you look like you actually know what you're doing with some decent kit you instantly become a terrorist/pedophile.:(
 
p4radox said:
But as soon as you look like you actually know what you're doing with some decent kit you instantly become a terrorist/pedophile.:(
Click to expand...

Or a Japanese Tourist if you hang the Camera in front of you and look oriental. I've been aksed that once in town, I found it hilarious and started going up to my mates saying "David Beckem... David Backem!"
 
This kind of thing annoys me.

Though going to Liverpool and Manchester cathedrals I was asked on all occasions to not photograph children, we truely live in a paranoid world..
 
Greenlizard0 said:
This kind of thing annoys me.

Though going to Liverpool and Manchester cathedrals I was asked on all occasions to not photograph children, we truely live in a paranoid world..
Click to expand...

Mental... Its the way you have to be told which I find so bizarre..

"Don't take photos of any children, don't even look at them,, don't even approach them.... We'll man the harpoons if you so much as glance at them"
 
One day the Sun will publish a story about a serial killer that took photos of his victims in public, then we'll all get lynched.
 
jesus! toutch wood , ive not had any problems as of yet , i go to parks quite a lot n take pics of ducks etc... but now i have better gear i might be questioned ...


What legal rights do we have?

e.g. if i was in a park nice day etc , with tripod blah blah , and a plod came along and questioned me ?
 
ElDude said:
One day the Sun will publish a story about a serial killer that took photos of his victims in public, then we'll all get lynched.
Click to expand...

Truth.

The problem however lies on uneducated Joe public, like someone have said earlier. I mean, people whipping out their Nokia N95, snapping here, snapping there, no problem. Anyone holding a camera bigger than a compact camera - be it a Bridge camera (often mistaken as a DSLR anyway) or a kit out DSLR, people turn and stare.

Be it in admiration or illogical fear.

Would some paedophile / killer want such attention? I am so going to make an iron on shirt now... Front: "Just because I've got this camera don't make me a..." Back "*list of irrational stereotypes like paedo, reporter, terrorist...*"
 
Mp4 said:
What legal rights do we have?

e.g. if i was in a park nice day etc , with tripod blah blah , and a plod came along and questioned me ?
Click to expand...

Dr Jones said:
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php
Click to expand...

Have a read at that, I've now got a better understanding - if I return to that pond and that women comes to see if I'm snapping her again, I'll just push that in her face.

Basically, photography is public is almost always not a problem unless it's snapping on buildings that have restrictions (from Military to munitions), on private property or otherwise stated. Public park, anyone there is snapable - but if you're gonna use that specific photo commercially with them being recognisable, there'll be problems unless they sign some agreement to being part of your photo.
 
Dr Jones said:
Have a read at that, I've now got a better understanding - if I return to that pond and that women comes to see if I'm snapping her again, I'll just push that in her face.

Basically, photography is public is almost always not a problem unless it's snapping on buildings that have restrictions (from Military to munitions), on private property or otherwise stated. Public park, anyone there is snapable - but if you're gonna use that specific photo commercially with them being recognisable, there'll be problems unless they sign some agreement to being part of your photo.
Click to expand...

Thanks :) shall have a read :D
 
More info for you, I have this printed out and kept in my Camera Bag.

Taken from the official police guidelines for handling photographers

"Members of the media and public have a duty to take photographs and film incidents and we have no legal power or moral responsibility to prevent or restrict what they record. It is a matter for their editors to control what is published or broadcast, not the police. Once images are recorded, we have no power to delete them without a court order, even if we think they contain damaging or useful evidence."
 
Last edited:
Dr Jones said:
And with the access of Internet being so public, I'm not surprised so many get paranoid about it. I often take what Daily Mail says with a pinch of salt but having personally experiencing comments first hand, it does put a downer on photography in public.

I was happily snapping ducks and birds in a public pond the other week with my Sigma 70-300. Because it looked "massive" and I was sitting on the bench zooming in and out at some seagulls across the pond, a lady from the other end had to come over and say if I was "taking pictures of her sun bathing" - she was no where near where my lens were pointing. She also looked pretty ******.

"Had" to let her inspect my camera to clear my innocence.

She said only then said "ok, fine, just stop shooting that way" and walked off.

She was no way hot anyway, those ducks and goose where more interesting that her laying on some public park showing her bits, IN PUBLIC. (I say bits, but nothing naked, a sarong and bikini) Meh! If you dare to wear something like that in public then you're basically parading yourself anyway!

That's one big reason why I don't do a lot of candid snaps of public doing their natural poses, one way or another, someone will come around and bite me in the eye for snapping them.
Click to expand...

the correct reply should be

"no love, im not taking pictures of you, I would need my wide angle lens for that so get stuffed"

to be quite honest.

Rude people need to be spoken to as such imo.
 
Tbh amazing how he could stay more or less polite and not lose control, he handled it okay I guess ignore the idiots and live on...

'Then another woman joined in
Click to expand...
But at this point I think with my attitude I'd start swearing at them to **** off and stay away from me, I showed you I'm picturing my own children now better **** off you fat ******* swine you're blocking the view with your ugly face...

Or something like that, I wouldn't keep my temper with such a ridiculous situation.

Again, respect that he kept calm more or less...
 
Surely even pedophiles would want more from their porn than that :/

I mean other wise we'd have to confiscate all people eye's around children.
 
Personally if I want to take a sneaky photo I use my phone's camera rather than my DSLR, which according to joe public is ok since pervs use DSLRs! It's true madness, thankfully I've not been confronted yet but eeeek the moment when I will be :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom