Taking pictures of children in public is illegal

[oldbadger]

Pedophilia is one of those things in which need to be treated in a responsible society, through therapy and possible medication and so forth.

Very good point! When do we ever hear about psychological research into paedophilia? All I ever read about is the sexual offender's register and court sentences, etc.

 

[oldbadger]

Yes, I must be jinxed concerning toilets.
For example I was once sleeping on the couch while staying overnight with a ladyfriend and her teenage son, and had to creep upstairs for a poo at 4 a.m., but nothing would come out except a series of farts on different octaves like the mothership blasts of sound in Close Encounters, that always happens when you're tryin to sh** quietly so's not to wake anybody.
So I crept back downstairs and let myself out into the back yard to do it in her dustbin, it was a 4 foot tall bin, so I had to climb halfway up her fence to hang my a** over it to get the job done.
She must have been spying on me from her bedroom window and seen me in action, because she cooled off towards me after that and we eventually split.
Huh, women!..

You don't creep upstairs to the loo for a poo! You creep upstairs to the loo for a REST! (This is a US forum!)

So you've lost girlfriend for chucking food around her lounge, and one for 'resting' in her dustbin. You could start a thread about the girlfriends that you've lost and why...... Yes! Please!

 

[dust1n]

Very good point! When do we ever hear about psychological research into paedophilia? All I ever read about is the sexual offender's register and court sentences, etc.

There's some. But do consider that science is just now getting good. Worse comes to worse, behaviorally unstable people end up in an institution. What can be done.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..So you've lost girlfriend for chucking food around her lounge, and one for 'resting' in her dustbin..

It was the same woman! She was Irish Kath with a fiery temper and I was lucky to come out of it alive!
The food incident happened some weeks before the dustbin incident, she'd undercooked the bacon one evening and it was like chewing rubber, so when she wasn't looking I fished it out of my mouth and slung it behind the settee for her cat, but it wouldln't touch it!
I meant to pick it up later but completely forgot about it, and she must have found it next day after I'd gone home.
She never said anything but gave me some funny looks after that..

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There's some. But do consider that science is just now getting good. Worse comes to worse, behaviorally unstable people end up in an institution. What can be done.

Is there much in the way of positive evidence? I've read a bit but it all seemed confusing, and offered little in the way of clear rehabilitave paths.

 

[dust1n]

Is there much in the way of positive evidence? I've read a bit but it all seemed confusing, and offered little in the way of clear rehabilitave paths.

You mean, do I have positive evidence that people can be treated?

 

[oldbadger]

Is there much in the way of positive evidence? I've read a bit but it all seemed confusing, and offered little in the way of clear rehabilitave paths.

In England I don't think that we have done anything to learn about the cause of or reactions to and treatments for paedophilia. We seem to be focused upon, hatred, the Sexual Offender's register, the taboos, the punishments blah blah.

It may be that psychologists are actually frightened to focus upon this subject for fear of damaging their careers..... possibly?

I wonder whether a 'Paedophiliacs anonymous' type of institution might be of some assistance to paedophiliacs, because (surely!) many or most of them must suffer horrendous guilt feelings etc..... ?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You mean, do I have positive evidence that people can be treated?

Yeah. Sorry, tend towards shorthand when posting from my phone.

 

[dust1n]

Yeah. Sorry, tend towards shorthand when posting from my phone.

This is best I've got: Pedophilia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's one of those things I don't particularly wanna go researching too much, in case I set of some internet alert, of what have ya.

 

[Alceste]

Maybe this is relevant...

I'm a really out gay guy in some town Jesustan. My siblings children aside, I am very careful around underage people. I never allow circumstances where I am alone with them. Not because I am a danger to them, but because they are a danger to me. All one of them has to do to screw me over royally is make some vague accusation of inappropriate behavior or say something that could be interpreted as such. It won't matter what the truth is. I will be guilty until proven innocent and then some. It might be a mistake and it might be a deliberate attack. It won't matter.
And there are kids who know they have this power. There are people who would quiz a kid looking for evidence that queers are a danger to the children. If it became public my name and photo would be on the front page under a headline including the term "alleged childmolester". When it got thrown out of court there would be one vague sentence buried in the court news.
There is just nothing important enough to do with kids worth the risk to me.

This is the reason I have trouble sympathizing with people who behave suspiciously around kids. At the least, it shows poor judgement.

Tom

Tom, that is so unfair. **** Jesustown. I'm sorry you feel that way, and even more sorry that your feelings are completely justified, given the bigotry of your community.

 

[Alceste]

Same thing for teachers ... leave doors open, don't give individual kids rides, etc. When I coached, parents and teachers often drove to games. We'd be coming back from another town, and I always dropped off the one (and parents) I trusted the most last.

Yup. I was a private music teacher in a store, and all the studio doors were glass. The lack of privacy was actually good for business.

 

[oldbadger]

It's one of those things I don't particularly wanna go researching too much, in case I set of some internet alert, of what have ya.

That's it....... that's possibly why professionals are not attracted to research into assistance and deterrents, etc....

 

[Thief]

This is blatantly and demonstrably false.
Some moral beliefs informed law creation. Certainly not the other way around.

Have you bothered to ask a practitioner of law.....how the laws are formed?

Morality varies quite a bit.....if you ask around.

Is it moral to take pictures of children in the park?........
CUT HIS HAND OFF!

There....is that moral enough for you?

 

[oldbadger]

Have you bothered to ask a practitioner of law.....how the laws are formed?

............. why would he?

Practitioners of law don't form laws...... they practice within and under them.

Legislators write laws.

Governments instruct legislators.

Here, the people vote for governments.

Want to question a law? Go to the people.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Have you bothered to ask a practitioner of law.....how the laws are formed?

I did Year 12 (Senior in US terms) Legal Studies. Whilst I normally wouldn't offer that as relevant to ANYTHING, the basics about how laws are formed and why is covered in about Year 8. This is neither tricky nor controversial. But for what it's worth, Oldbadger's point is entirely correct.

Morality varies quite a bit.....if you ask around.

Of course it does. Did I claim it doesn't? You're the one who suggested laws form morals. Laws of the land are consistent, although they are not static.

Is it moral to take pictures of children in the park?........
CUT HIS HAND OFF!

Hard to respond to this, as I have no idea what you're talking about. In legal terms, near as I can tell, it's not illegal to take photos of children in a park in my country. If you stalk one child, or if you target that child in certain ways (eg. upskirts) then that changes.

From a moral point of view, my opinion is that taking photos of kids to go home and wank to is immoral.

At no time have I advocated cutting anything off anyone, and neither does an argument that I have further your position that laws inform morals.

There....is that moral enough for you?

The moral position of an individual is completely irrelevant to whether laws inform morals or morals inform laws. I could suggest you should be free to take upskirts of kids, or I could say that all cameras should be banned from public areas. These are moral positions which don't refer to the law, and are not legal positions.

At this point, I'm completely lost as to what you're trying to argue, apart from taking what you seem to think is a contrary position.

Anyhow, in case you actually believe laws form morals, I thought I'd link to some references for you. I'm hoping you invest some time and read/respond, but despite calling on me to 'bother asking a practitioner', I see no evidence of investment in your position by you. I sincerely hope I'm misreading that.

Five Major Reasons Why Laws Exist in Society

Note : Identifies 'morality' as one of five drivers behind law creation.

Philosophy of law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note : Good old Wikipedia identifies some of the major schools of thought as they relate to the law. Which represents your position?

And finally, consider some of these old UK laws...in each case,

Ordinance for Abolishing of Festivals, 1647
(Effectively a ban on Christmas celebrations enacted by Puritans under Cromwell.

Metropolitan Police Act 1839, Section 54, Sub-section 17
Every person who shall fly any kite or play at any game to the annoyance of the inhabitants or passengers, or who shall make or use any slide upon ice or snow in any street or other thoroughfare, to the common danger of the passengers.

As recently as 2012 it was technically legal to shoot a Scotsman in York if they were carrying a longbow. Whilst this is obviously archaic leftovers, it speaks to the point that LAWS DON'T INFORM MORALS.

 

[Thief]

I did Year 12 (Senior in US terms) Legal Studies. Whilst I normally wouldn't offer that as relevant to ANYTHING, the basics about how laws are formed and why is covered in about Year 8. This is neither tricky nor controversial. But for what it's worth, Oldbadger's point is entirely correct.



Of course it does. Did I claim it doesn't? You're the one who suggested laws form morals. Laws of the land are consistent, although they are not static.



Hard to respond to this, as I have no idea what you're talking about. In legal terms, near as I can tell, it's not illegal to take photos of children in a park in my country. If you stalk one child, or if you target that child in certain ways (eg. upskirts) then that changes.

From a moral point of view, my opinion is that taking photos of kids to go home and wank to is immoral.

At no time have I advocated cutting anything off anyone, and neither does an argument that I have further your position that laws inform morals.



The moral position of an individual is completely irrelevant to whether laws inform morals or morals inform laws. I could suggest you should be free to take upskirts of kids, or I could say that all cameras should be banned from public areas. These are moral positions which don't refer to the law, and are not legal positions.

At this point, I'm completely lost as to what you're trying to argue, apart from taking what you seem to think is a contrary position.

Anyhow, in case you actually believe laws form morals, I thought I'd link to some references for you. I'm hoping you invest some time and read/respond, but despite calling on me to 'bother asking a practitioner', I see no evidence of investment in your position by you. I sincerely hope I'm misreading that.

Five Major Reasons Why Laws Exist in Society

Note : Identifies 'morality' as one of five drivers behind law creation.

Philosophy of law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note : Good old Wikipedia identifies some of the major schools of thought as they relate to the law. Which represents your position?

And finally, consider some of these old UK laws...in each case,

Ordinance for Abolishing of Festivals, 1647
(Effectively a ban on Christmas celebrations enacted by Puritans under Cromwell.

Metropolitan Police Act 1839, Section 54, Sub-section 17
Every person who shall fly any kite or play at any game to the annoyance of the inhabitants or passengers, or who shall make or use any slide upon ice or snow in any street or other thoroughfare, to the common danger of the passengers.

As recently as 2012 it was technically legal to shoot a Scotsman in York if they were carrying a longbow. Whilst this is obviously archaic leftovers, it speaks to the point that LAWS DON'T INFORM MORALS.

ok...I see you DO get the point.
Shall we then declare cameras as contraband in all public parks?
(suspicion and paranoia rule!)

 

[Thief]

............. why would he?

Practitioners of law don't form laws...... they practice within and under them.

Legislators write laws.

Governments instruct legislators.

Here, the people vote for governments.

Want to question a law? Go to the people.

A little late after the arrest.
The judge will say.....ignorance is no excuse.
He won't care your personal belief or intent.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

ok...I see you DO get the point.
Shall we then declare cameras as contraband in all public parks?
(suspicion and paranoia rule!)

No, I wouldn't have thought so.
I'm neither a suspicious nor paranoid character.

BTW, you should always feel free to address any point or question raised in any one of my posts.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

A little late after the arrest.
The judge will say.....ignorance is no excuse.
He won't care your personal belief or intent.

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I answered this directly earlier.
I wouldn't expect the judge to make an excuse for me based on ignorance of the law, and I (in fact) am NOT ignorant of the law, at least not in this case.

I'm not sure why you're conflating moral behaviour and the law. It is possible to take actions due to morality without reference to the law. That doesn't give you a 'free pass' if said action is contrary to the law.

What is it you are arguing with????

 

[Thief]

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I answered this directly earlier.
I wouldn't expect the judge to make an excuse for me based on ignorance of the law, and I (in fact) am NOT ignorant of the law, at least not in this case.

I'm not sure why you're conflating moral behaviour and the law. It is possible to take actions due to morality without reference to the law. That doesn't give you a 'free pass' if said action is contrary to the law.

What is it you are arguing with????

Your expectation will rule as law?

sure thing!....NOT!

And a free pass of search and seizure of personal property might have drawbacks.