Did anyone see todays News of the World?

[charliecat]

Front page, 2 peadophiles in a park with a video camera, on tripod, videoing little kids feeding the ducks. Havent read it yet waiting for dp to finish it.

I agree too joelallie. Sadly I think the more obsessed we become with hiding our children away from potential pedophiles and covering them up on beaches, the more potential pedophiles we create. I don't know if I am right, but seems to me that either countries like Britain and the US which are obsessed with stranger danger are just more paranoid or they really do have more pedophiles and then you have to ask why.

QE: "Photography of any kind is not allowed in a swimming pool, so why shoiuld it be accepyable ina park?"

As someone with a keen interest in amateur photography, I actually find that really sad. I already feel self-conscious taking a camera around with me anywhere that isn't an "obvious" tourist spot (DH, who also has an interest in photography, doubly so) in fear of either being thought of as a potential terrorist or child molester.

The law is actually quite clear - photography is permitted in public places. Anywhere privately owned is subject to the permission of the owner (hence certain shopping malls, museums, swimming pools etc are not allowed photography).

I don't take pictures of other people's children at all - not without express permission (which is sad, because some of the best child photography I've seen are unposed play shots where the child isn't aware you're watching them) - I'd love to try more unposed street portrait photography of people going about their daily business, but it's threads like this that completely put me off, tbh.

I'm glad these men got arrested for breaking terms of their parole - but I think that's where the focus has to be. I'm not going to get worried about my children going out in public places fully clothed! And I don't want to worry about getting into trouble because I wanted a photo of my own child feeding the ducks and someone elses child happened to wander into view at the same time...

UK Photographers Rights - useful guide for any other photography enthusiasts reading this thread.

Agree with Joelalie and Mytowpenworth. We - or qt least NOTW - seem to be losing a sense of percpetive.

The risk of abuse is far higher in the home/from someoen you know than in the park/from strangers. And even then, the vast majoirty of people are good decent people. Perverts are not the norm.

Years ago, dh and I went to a RedSox game - my first over baseball game. Thiere was a family group close by with a number of young kids - dh took some pictures of them, as they looked so cute, plus they epitomises the "day out for all the family" nature of Amrican baseball. He wasn't doing it for any paedophiliac tendencies, but becasue they would make good photos - but he did stop taking prictures when the prents looked like they were getting concerned at a stranger taking pictures. What is really sad is that we now have a culture that is sooooo distrusful.

When men have to think twice about going to confort a child that looks lost and/or is crying, then we really have lost the plot.

I know that is a bit different to what NOTW was on about, and that these men did have a track record - but the hysteria that surrnounds such articles engenders an ethos of fear and distrust wthin society that I do not think is a good thing. To me, that is a greater risk to our childern's futures than the potential risk of paedophiles.

I didn't say I disagreed with taking photos of kids in parks, was just making the comparison with swimming pool policy.

I have no objection of anyn parent taking photos of their kids in a park and if mine happen to get caught in the background, that wouldn't bother me at all. What I most certainly would onject to is a complete stranger who started snapping my kids without a) asking my permission first or b) for no good reason.

And, I am all for allowing kids their freedom and innocence without looking over my shoulder wondering if there is a potential paedo in the vicinity.

Yesterday me, dh and the kids were watching the England game on a big screen in Milton Keynes next to a fountain in the middle of a shopping centre. ds4 was stripped down to just his nappy happily running backwards and forwards between us and the fountain. I was happy to just let him wander knowing he wouldn't stray far before coming back to us and only to were I could see him. dh on the other hand wouldn't allow him to because as he said "you just never know who might be a bout". I wanted to slap him.

Just thought I'd add that so you know where I'm coming from before I get accused of being a paedo hunter vigilante type.

Didn't think you were QE!

Yup - DH gets very stroppy when I say about DD running round the beach "nakey" . He gets picky enough about her being in the back garden naked!

"Someone might see her, and anything could happen"

FlameBoo

The NOTW is sensationalist crap. A journalist would have followed those men around in the hope that he would get a picture (or several) of them acting in an inappropriate way. That journalist would have had two options.

1. Inform the police that he was in a park where two known paedofiles were taking pictures of young children

or

2. stay in the park for an hour taking pictures of the men taking pictures of the children and thinking up the sensationalist headlines to go with the pictures in the hope that a front page story would come out of it, which would result in a bit of hipe and potential vidulantiism.

Now if the NOTW really had the public interest at heart, they would turn these cases over to the police without publishing them on the front pages of their tacky rag. There is one reason and one reason only that the NOTW insist on keep publishing these stories, to sell more papers!

On a slightly different note can anyone tell me if a peadophile who is doing time can go back to the area from where they were caught upon release?

not 100% but i think yes unfortunatly

Not sure of all the in's and outs of the situation, (as it came from dp) but to be honest, what was the gentleman doing talking to the child when mums back was turned?
It's probably just me being over-protective but I find it hard to go shopping without someone with me because i refuse to let go of ds' buggy!

I think each case is different - don't think there's one rule for all

I'm with joelallie. I don't see why people shouldn't be able to take pictures of anything and anyone that's out in public. Yes, convicted paedophiles taking pictures of children in the park is probably against their parole conditions, and that's a problem, but why on earth should that mean anyone else can't take pictures?

CCL - who knows but why assume he was being offensive. Most friendly old men are just that...friendly old men. They like kids. If the mother has turned to speak to someone else for a moment and the old man had just said 'hello' to the little girl how could that be assumed to be a problem. If, on the other hand he had said something dodgy I can understand the mother's reaction perhaps...although 'don't you dare speak to my daughter like that, please leave her alone' might have been a more proportionate response than tw*tting him one But I find it hard to beleive that anyone would have said anything that could have been construed as threatening with the mother standing next to her.

cheesecakelover people do talk to children for very innocent reasons. Maybe the child had a colourful top on and the man just commented on his way past. Maybe the child spoke to him first - this does happen. I think it's a sad society when we assume that everyone who talks to a child is doing so with ill intent. Punching a man purely for speaking to your child is way out of order and imo your friend should have had the book thrown at her. What example is she setting to her child!

People are mind-bogglingly paranoid these days. I often explain to other mums that kids are much much more likely to get run over by a car than abducted by a stranger. Often, they don't believe me.

Could have been anything.

There could have been evil intent.

Alternatively, it could have been the child who spoke to the man.

I don't know.

it's so sad isn't it? People are so quick to jump to conclusions about a stranger looking at/talking to their child, but how many would ever think that someone closer was capable of hurting them? Out of every 100 children who are abused, only 1 is abused by someone they don't know.

They are much more likely to be abducted or abused by someone they know than by a complete stranger.

I am going to have to warn my kids to to stay away from their friends dad if he ever shows his face around here again. He is currently doing two years at her majesties pleasure for inapropriate behaviour with minors. Luckily not his own kids as their mum removed them from the family home over 12 months ago as he turned into a control freak and she was worried that he would turn violent. It appears that he was allready on the sex offendes register but had managed to hide this fact from his wife as it happened before he met her.

sowoffended what evil intent is a man likely to have when talking to a child who is with its mother in a public place? It's not likely he'd be able to lure her away is it considering the mother was standing next to her. Seriously I think that people really need some perspective. It's papers like the NOTW that encourage this "lock up your children, every man is a threat" mentality.

The lady in question is not a friend of mine, more of dp. If she was my friend I would have got more out of her than dp did, but thats men for you!
But as you quite rightly say, it could have been the child that started conversation.
I find it strange that I work in a large mother and child shop and talk to children everytime I work and no one bats an eyelid. Do you think it's possibly because I'm female, or the fact that I work there?

I have perspective.

CCL originally said that he spoke to the child so the woman thumped him, and then said she didn't know the details, she followed up by asking "what was the gentleman doing talking to the child when mums back was turned?".

I was answering that point.

We don't know if he said hello, or spoke to her for a few minutes. We don't know if the woman knew the bloke, or knew that he was an offender.

The odds are overwhelmingly that it was an innocent remark/conversation, I don't know as I have such scant detail.

I try not to make assumptions either way until I know the facts.