Taking pictures of children in public is illegal

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

I've checked it out a little in the past. I was a psych major, and had access to academic studies, etc.
Not exactly a topic of interest, but it came up from time to time (since I was studying primary teaching).

There is research on this. Quite a bit, actually, although it's limited due to the difficulty in controlling and testing anti-social behaviours in a clinical fashion, as well as the general distaste for the topic, I would think.

But based on memory and what I read, there was no clear evidence rehabilitation was successful. Pedophile attraction to children seemed uneffected by various clinical interventions, and the best that could be achieved was behavioural control rather than modification.

In short, much like hetero or homosexual attraction, to be honest.

 

[Thief]

I've checked it out a little in the past. I was a psych major, and had access to academic studies, etc.
Not exactly a topic of interest, but it came up from time to time (since I was studying primary teaching).

There is research on this. Quite a bit, actually, although it's limited due to the difficulty in controlling and testing anti-social behaviours in a clinical fashion, as well as the general distaste for the topic, I would think.

But based on memory and what I read, there was no clear evidence rehabilitation was successful. Pedophile attraction to children seemed uneffected by various clinical interventions, and the best that could be achieved was behavioural control rather than modification.

In short, much like hetero or homosexual attraction, to be honest.

so...you can keep your camera as long as you NEVER let a child get in the shot?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

so...you can keep your camera as long as you NEVER let a child get in the shot?

Honestly, it gets a bit old when you offer up these one sentence questions, without ever responding to questions in return. It would be nice to see some level of investment if you're expecting me to invest and answer.

As to your question, I never said that. Ever.

 

[Thief]

Honestly, it gets a bit old when you offer up these one sentence questions, without ever responding to questions in return. It would be nice to see some level of investment if you're expecting me to invest and answer.

As to your question, I never said that. Ever.

Are you sure?
Note the title of this thread....
and was it you that leaned to the notion of confrontation?
and you didn't really have a practical line of application to draw.....

I'm just trying to help.

If you think the other guy is offensive....that's one thing.
DOING something about it is how YOU get in trouble.

I still say....get in the view of the lens and flip him off.
He'll get the idea and move on.

Hey! I know!.....have a loud whistle and point at him as you sound alarm!

 

[Shuttlecraft]

I just remembered, I was standing with the crowds up on Plymouth Hoe about 3 years ago at a military display and as I was videoing the marching bands and stuff, I noticed a woman with a couple of toddlers nearby keep glancing at me, and I thought of asking her "why do you keep looking at me?" but I let it go.
Now I realise she might have thought I was a peedo and was watching to see if I pointed the cam at her kids so she could call the cops on me!
I wonder what'd have happened if she had called them, and they found her kids were accidentally on the edge of one of the frames as I panned my cam around, would I have been charged or what?

 

[Skwim]

I just remembered, I was standing with the crowds up on Plymouth Hoe about 3 years ago at a military display and as I was videoing the marching bands and stuff, I noticed a woman with a couple of toddlers nearby keep glancing at me, and I thought of asking her "why do you keep looking at me?" but I let it go.
Now I realise she might have thought I was a peedo and was watching to see if I pointed the cam at her kids so she could call the cops on me!

And maybe she simply thought you were good looking. All kinds of "mights" and "maybes" one can indulge themselves in.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

And maybe she simply thought you were good looking. All kinds of "mights" and "maybes" one can indulge themselves in.

Nah mate, I know when a woman is fluttering her eyelashes at me, and I know when she's thinking "He's probably a perv!"..
Incidentally no 'perv' charge against me would ever stick because I once rescued an 8-year-old boy who'd been locked out of his house by his dad one frosty night gone midnight. I called the cops on his old man, but a peedo would have taken advantage of him.

 

[oldbadger]

I just remembered, I was standing with the crowds up on Plymouth Hoe about 3 years ago at a military display and as I was videoing the marching bands and stuff, I noticed a woman with a couple of toddlers nearby keep glancing at me, and I thought of asking her "why do you keep looking at me?" but I let it go.
Now I realise she might have thought I was a peedo and was watching to see if I pointed the cam at her kids so she could call the cops on me!
I wonder what'd have happened if she had called them, and they found her kids were accidentally on the edge of one of the frames as I panned my cam around, would I have been charged or what?

No...... you would not have been arrested. But if they inspected your camera memory and saw that you had been focusing on children's crotches, or something like that, then they might have arrested you then and there. There is a reason for that underlining. If the police arrest somebody then they do have the power to search that person's home at that time. If they found child pornography pics at your home........ that would have been that. Obviously you did not do anything bad, but I'm just saying how it might have 'worked' if you had....

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Are you sure?
Note the title of this thread....
and was it you that leaned to the notion of confrontation?
and you didn't really have a practical line of application to draw.....

I'm unsure whether you're misunderstanding me or misquoting me. I'll try and clarify.
1) 'Confrontation' is me approaching a person target photographing my child. I wouldn't go out of my way to seek confrontation, have never been in trouble with the law for any sort of confrontation, and would be seen as a pacifist by most everyone who knows me. But if a stranger was photographing my child repeatedly, I'd approach them. Dependant on their explanation and action, things could escalate to 'confrontation'.

2) Practical line of application...no that's wrong. I do have a practical line of application. This is as described above. What I don't have is a LEGAL avenue in the stated case.

I'm just trying to help.

I've never had an issue with you before, but we're at best talking past each other in this thread.

If you think the other guy is offensive....that's one thing.
DOING something about it is how YOU get in trouble.

This is the bit that frustrates me. I have repeatedly agreed that if I started a confrontation, and that ended up in law-breaking behaviour (eg. I hit the bloke, or take his camera) that I would be in legal trouble. What is it you think you're telling me here?

I still say....get in the view of the lens and flip him off.
He'll get the idea and move on.

In truth, I'd probably just give him the stare. It's unlikely, in my opinion, that someone being watched by a father would ignore that and continue photographing said father's children. Very unlikely.

Hey! I know!.....have a loud whistle and point at him as you sound alarm!

MOST of the time, but not always, playgrounds have multiple parents. Raising an alarm that someone is a potential pedophile based on my suspicion alone could prove to be a less responsible act than other alternatives and lead to violence/vigilantiism.
Whilst it's me approaching him, I can control the escalation.
If there were police to talk to, that would be another option unlikely to lead to violence.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Incidentally when I was arrested on a vigilante charge in 2001 the coppers also seized my PC, no doubt hoping to find any other stuff they could nail me on, but it was clean as a whistle and they had to give it me back 6 weeks later.
PS- another thing worth mentioning is that they also took a swab of DNA from the inside of my cheek, probably hoping to match me with Jack the Ripper or somebody, but that came up clean too..

 

[Thief]

I'm unsure whether you're misunderstanding me or misquoting me. I'll try and clarify.
1) 'Confrontation' is me approaching a person target photographing my child. I wouldn't go out of my way to seek confrontation, have never been in trouble with the law for any sort of confrontation, and would be seen as a pacifist by most everyone who knows me. But if a stranger was photographing my child repeatedly, I'd approach them. Dependant on their explanation and action, things could escalate to 'confrontation'.

2) Practical line of application...no that's wrong. I do have a practical line of application. This is as described above. What I don't have is a LEGAL avenue in the stated case.



I've never had an issue with you before, but we're at best talking past each other in this thread.



This is the bit that frustrates me. I have repeatedly agreed that if I started a confrontation, and that ended up in law-breaking behaviour (eg. I hit the bloke, or take his camera) that I would be in legal trouble. What is it you think you're telling me here?



In truth, I'd probably just give him the stare. It's unlikely, in my opinion, that someone being watched by a father would ignore that and continue photographing said father's children. Very unlikely.



MOST of the time, but not always, playgrounds have multiple parents. Raising an alarm that someone is a potential pedophile based on my suspicion alone could prove to be a less responsible act than other alternatives and lead to violence/vigilantiism.
Whilst it's me approaching him, I can control the escalation.
If there were police to talk to, that would be another option unlikely to lead to violence.

You assume far too much.
Controlling the escalation?......sure.....good luck.
That's how your arrest and confinement follow.

If you really believe.....taking photos is wrong......too bad.

It's a an ugly world ....deal with it.

As for the park.....stay away from the bad guy.
Do not approach.
I have not seen anything in your posting that you really understand.
You'll just get yourself in deep trouble.

Your closing remark is the only clever one.
Good luck finding a patrolman on foot.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You assume far too much.
Controlling the escalation?......sure.....good luck.
That's how your arrest and confinement follow.

Yes...it is entirely possible, and my responsibility if things escalate. Having said that, I am quite capable of controlling my own behaviour (only) and this allows me some input in controlling escalation when the situation involves me and one other person.
I can have a nice sensible chat with someone as a first response, for example. I can NOT raise a general alarm by blowing a whistle and telling other parents I think someone is a pedo, for example.

Do you think yourself incapable of somewhat controlling escalations in disagreements with others? That seems an unusual position to take.

If you really believe.....taking photos is wrong......too bad.
It's a an ugly world ....deal with it.

If someone follows my daughter around a playground taking photos of her, I'll be having a discussion with them. This is reality. This is, in fact, how I would deal with it.

As for the park.....stay away from the bad guy.
Do not approach.

Thank-you for your concern. Have we established that he's a bad guy?

I have not seen anything in your posting that you really understand.

Understand what exactly? That approaching someone can lead to an escalation, and that I'd be legally responsible if that happened? The hint that I understand that would be in the fact that I've said as much about 5 times, despite getting no acknowledgement of that.

You'll just get yourself in deep trouble.

Maybe. My task is to evaluate the situation and act accordingly. I'm really unsure how your suggested actions (which included flipping someone the bird and/or blowing a whistle) are less likely to escalate the situation than me going to talk to them. I'm actually pretty good at talking to people. No reason for you to believe that, and I'm not asking you to.

Your closing remark is the only clever one.
Good luck finding a patrolman on foot.

Who's trying to be clever?
My supposition is that there'll be no copper around unless I happen to be in the company of one (one of our friends we sometimes go to the park with is a police officer). If there was one, that influences my action. If not, then I would suppose that action is not really open to me. That supposition is entirely consistent with how I posted.

 

[Thief]

Yes...it is entirely possible, and my responsibility if things escalate. Having said that, I am quite capable of controlling my own behaviour (only) and this allows me some input in controlling escalation when the situation involves me and one other person.
I can have a nice sensible chat with someone as a first response, for example. I can NOT raise a general alarm by blowing a whistle and telling other parents I think someone is a pedo, for example.

Do you think yourself incapable of somewhat controlling escalations in disagreements with others? That seems an unusual position to take.



If someone follows my daughter around a playground taking photos of her, I'll be having a discussion with them. This is reality. This is, in fact, how I would deal with it.



Thank-you for your concern. Have we established that he's a bad guy?



Understand what exactly? That approaching someone can lead to an escalation, and that I'd be legally responsible if that happened? The hint that I understand that would be in the fact that I've said as much about 5 times, despite getting no acknowledgement of that.



Maybe. My task is to evaluate the situation and act accordingly. I'm really unsure how your suggested actions (which included flipping someone the bird and/or blowing a whistle) are less likely to escalate the situation than me going to talk to them. I'm actually pretty good at talking to people. No reason for you to believe that, and I'm not asking you to.



Who's trying to be clever?
My supposition is that there'll be no copper around unless I happen to be in the company of one (one of our friends we sometimes go to the park with is a police officer). If there was one, that influences my action. If not, then I would suppose that action is not really open to me. That supposition is entirely consistent with how I posted.

Black belt here!
Grew up in a housing project.
We say hello by a quick punch to the eye!....for real.

You need a gun.

That's because you believe you're in control.....and you are not.

You try to take someone camera....he will beat you with it.
You will then go to jail because you made the approach.
You got in the guy's face and became insistent.

After you get out of jail you will be sued.
You will lose your house and your truck.

All because you wanted to be 'protective'.

choose your battles.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Black belt here!
Grew up in a housing project.
We say hello by a quick punch to the eye!....for real.

Fair enough. Do you hang around taking photos at kid's playgrounds of my daughter for no apparent reason? If so, then we might have an issue. If not, you seem to be suggesting that some people will be tougher than me. This is true. Not something I'm ignorant of.
For what it's worth, if I shove someone (as an example) and they punch me, and they are above a certain registered standard, it would be considered assault with a weapon. Kinda besides the point, but I wouldn't be the only one with a legal issue.

You need a gun.

Naw...I'm Australia. We have different laws and different levels of gun ownership here.

That's because you believe you're in control.....and you are not.

I am in control of my own reaction to events. That is all I have ever claimed. When have I claimed more than that?

You try to take someone camera....he will beat you with it.
You will then go to jail because you made the approach.
You got in the guy's face and became insistent.

I wouldn't walk up to someone and try to take their camera, I would walk up and ask them what they are doing, and not in the tone you are probably imagining. However, even played your way, I doubt I'd go to gaol for it. If your intention is to state that I could be in legal trouble, I have readily admitted that multiple times.

After you get out of jail you will be sued.
You will lose your house and your truck.

For what? Trying to take his camera? Phhht. Pain and suffering related to me approaching someone and being argumentative are now going to cost me my car and house?
Or you're supposing I'm walking up acting tough, trying to hit someone who looks suspicious?

All because you wanted to be 'protective'.

Yes. Protective. Not 'over-protective'. Not 'wrap my girls in cotton wool and punch anyone that looks sideways'.
Any father that doesn't have some level of protective behaviour towards his kids (mine are 4 and 6 for frik's sake) doesn't deserve to refer to themselves as a father.

choose your battles.

I always have, and I always will. Why would you think otherwise? I have no criminal record. I have very, very rarely got into physical altercations over anything.

 

[Thief]

Fair enough. Do you hang around taking photos at kid's playgrounds of my daughter for no apparent reason? If so, then we might have an issue. If not, you seem to be suggesting that some people will be tougher than me. This is true. Not something I'm ignorant of.
For what it's worth, if I shove someone (as an example) and they punch me, and they are above a certain registered standard, it would be considered assault with a weapon. Kinda besides the point, but I wouldn't be the only one with a legal issue.



Naw...I'm Australia. We have different laws and different levels of gun ownership here.



I am in control of my own reaction to events. That is all I have ever claimed. When have I claimed more than that?



I wouldn't walk up to someone and try to take their camera, I would walk up and ask them what they are doing, and not in the tone you are probably imagining. However, even played your way, I doubt I'd go to gaol for it. If your intention is to state that I could be in legal trouble, I have readily admitted that multiple times.



For what? Trying to take his camera? Phhht. Pain and suffering related to me approaching someone and being argumentative are now going to cost me my car and house?
Or you're supposing I'm walking up acting tough, trying to hit someone who looks suspicious?



Yes. Protective. Not 'over-protective'. Not 'wrap my girls in cotton wool and punch anyone that looks sideways'.
Any father that doesn't have some level of protective behaviour towards his kids (mine are 4 and 6 for frik's sake) doesn't deserve to refer to themselves as a father.



I always have, and I always will. Why would you think otherwise? I have no criminal record. I have very, very rarely got into physical altercations over anything.

A model citizen.......

 

[Shuttlecraft]

As I passed a pub a few years ago, a young boy came out of a side entrance lugging two heavy empty metal beer barrels to a nearby collection point, probably helping his dad run the pub, so I asked him if he needed any help, but he said no thanks, so I carried on walking.
Later I returned that way and the boy and his young sister(?) were sitting outside, and as I passed, the girl said to me "Are you a bad man?"
"No I don't think so" I answered and walked away.
Obviously the boy had told his mum and dad I'd offered to help him earlier, and they'd probably said "Good lad, have nothing to do with strangers, they might be bad men", and his sister had overheard.
The moral seems to be not to be a good samaritan where kids are concerned, and just mind your own business!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

A model citizen.......

Phhht...
Thoughtful post, right there.

 

[ZooGirl02]

In my opinion, if a person is a taking pictures of children for sexual purposes then he/she should be arrested and thrown in jail. In my opinion, it's practically the same thing as child pornography even if it is done with fully clothed children in public.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Here's a tricky one, it's a true story-
Some years ago a 7-year-old-girl peed herself at school (like kids sometimes do), and later she laughed about it and told her parents "Mr X (one of the teachers) dried me with a towel and touched me down there" (pointing at her crotch).
Rightly or wrongly her parents decided to let it go because the girl regarded it as funny, so they didn't want to make a big thing of it with the school and police.
Happily the girl grew up to be a fine young woman and probably forgot the incident long ago.

What does this forum think? Would you have kept quiet like her parents did, or raised hell with the school and brought in the police?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Here's a tricky one, it's a true story-
Some years ago a 7-year-old-girl peed herself at school (like kids sometimes do), and later she laughed about it and told her parents "Mr X (one of the teachers) dried me with a towel and touched me down there" (pointing at her crotch).
Rightly or wrongly her parents decided to let it go because the girl regarded it as funny, so they didn't want to make a big thing of it with the school and police.
Happily the girl grew up to be a fine young woman and probably forgot the incident long ago.

What does this forum think? Would you have kept quiet like her parents did, or raised hell with the school and brought in the police?

Well...fairly or unfairly, I suspect my actions would be informed by my opinion of the teacher.

From the parents point of view...it's hard. If your child isn't upset by it, and you go through some careful questioning to find out of this is happened before, etc, and she's neither upset nor suggests anything has happened before, then I'd be likely to write it off as one of those things. Accusations have to be made carefully, because they'll impact/destroy careers regardless of their truth, and trying to get context from kids is bloody hard. Having said that, I'd probably become more watchful of said teacher (in so far as that is actually possible) and carefully question my kid moving forwards.

From the teachers point of view (I think I've mentioned I'm an ex-primary school teacher to ya?)...he's an idiot. A simple fact of life in a primary school is that there are PLENTY of females on hand. Finding a woman to dry/change the kid (why the heck was she being dried and not changed? Anywhoos...) is not hard at all. So at best I'd say his judgement is crap.