to be annoyed that a stranger lined my children up and took their picture in the park without asking permission?

[IlanaK]

In Regent's park today with a friend. Three boys all way ahea dof us on the path scootering. A group of tourist men lined them up with the stream and trees as backdrop and took their phot before we could get to them.

They got a right telling of from me though.

Was I being unreasonable?

Message withdrawn

dittany - what an odd post.

someone who is rational in their fear of stranger danger is a coward?

what utter drivel

Weirdly, I was sexually assaulted by a total stranger when I was a child. And I still let a man I'd never met hold my baby throughout a meal out the other week because he was dying to have some grandchildren of his own.

An unpleasant experience as a child doesn't necessarily mean you end up viewing all strangers as dangerous.

I find it really, really sad that some of you think like that

Following on from Spicemonster's post. I feel very lucky to have young children, and I think that friendly approaches from strangers are almost all because they love contact with children - often they are missing their grandchildren, or remembering their children at that age. I feel sorry that so many people now feel uncomfortable smiling at or chatting with children in the street.

I had a bad experience as a child and the most painful outcome of it was the fear and insecurities I felt when surrounded by people I didn't know.

Now I have a child, there's no way I will instigate these fears on him to protect him. It would be as causing the damage myself to keep him "safe".

So, I'm prepared to take the risk and teach my child to see there's goodness in people, because it took me years to get that confidence back.

In any case, I can be vigilant without being obsesive and a tourist taking photographs of him is a risk I'm willing to take as it is highly unlikely that something worse may come from those actions.

What I don't get is how preventing strangers to take pictures of children in public places can have any impact at all on paedophilia.
The link is so tenuous. What about men walking past a school, maybe they some of them are perverts so all men should be suspected as such?

you are consistently and completely missing the point dittany.

No one is pretending that there's no problem with child abuse but there is (and on this we disagree obviously) no rational argument for disallowing or berating a tourist for taking a photo of your child. Oversuspicious daily mail fuelled paranoia IMO.

The chances that they are a paed are probably something like a trillion to one whereas the chances that your neighbour/ friend/ grandfather/ gym teacher is, is statistically less, but you'd allow Jeannie's Dad from no42 to take a photo wouldn't you?

I have absolutely no statistics to back that up but in most cases abusers are people you know/ trusted family members or friends of (Spice - apart from your case obv ).

i didn;t use rationalise. i said to be rational.

who is pretending there is no problem?

from what i have seen there are posts saying that whilst these men should have asked permission there may be umpteen reasons why this didn't happen.
they have also said that there is probably a million reasons why this was not anything to worry about.

I guess if you really want to protect your child from being abused the best bet is not to leave them alone with family members including parents. Yes, that is said tongue in cheek but rationally right.

abuse on a child buy a stranger accounts to less than 1% of all reported abuse.

but somewhat flippant hercules.....

Yes, it was I suppose. Just trying to inject some reality.

I think the realistic point is the fact that even if your child's photo is cut and pasted (highly unlikely according to my friend in the know) he or she is not being abused, s such and will suffer no direct harm.

Well,I agree with that.

I meant that agree post in reply to wisteria.

because they look nice

and they were tourists

and they are British children

in london

on scooters

with trees behind them

in Regent's Park

I bet it was a lovely innocent photo

I have not criticised her for being paranoid about it - her choice - the argument has moved on from the OP.

Chequers - good, I'm glad. When do you think things started to change?

yes but yet again and I am beginning to feel like my copy of SNAP! by The Jam (scratched), they were tourists and other countries do not have this 'in built' paranoia suspicion of other adults, so they were probably acting in all innocence.

I take pictures of children in the street when I am abroad. If there are no parents around, and the children are happy, I don't get permission.
Does that make me a pervert?

I don't agree that in our culture it's wrong to take pictures of children.

We have a long tradition of adults and children being portrayed in art, and it's still perfectly acceptable for children to be the subject of a portrait.