'Paedophile Suspect' For Taking Son's Photo

<p>David W Griffin - <em><strong>"Actually that IS a reason to avoid the country."</strong> </em></p>

<p>That must be the most ridiculous thing I have read this year. Come one, get a grip. I can guarantee that tomorrow in London there will be tens of thousands of people toting cameras, from tiny P&S's to big SLR rigs. As a matter of fact, I will be toting a 5D + grip + 70-200mm F2.8 L IS. Am I afraid of being stopeed - no. Do I remotely think I will be stopped - no. Do I think they cops will be out to stop all the tourists photographing - no. I live in the city, have done for many years and speak from first hand experience. A narrow minded view formed by what you read in an internet forum, news article or on the telly, which are very isolated incidents usually with good cause, is what you have.</p>

<p><em>One of the first things I was told after coming to Canada is "Don't smile or wave at strangers' babies on the streets or in the metros".</em><br>

<em></em><br>

No offense, but whoever told you this had bizarre ideas. Relax. I've lived in Canada all my life, and I smile and wave at babies with impunity. I ask the mom 'How old?'. Moms and dads like to talk about their kids. It's like dog owners and their dogs; I've never met a dog owner who didn't want to talk about his/her dog.</p>

<p>Now, back to the issue of security guards. You are correct that some of them no doubt have PhDs in mediaeval philosophy, and a few may be moonlighting pastors. However, many of them are frustrated cop wannabes, which is why (IMHO) they sometimes do amazingly weird stuff. The mixture of (i) burgerflipper-level skills, (ii) cop career aspirations, (iii) ongoing frustration, and (iv) a derisory job where you're the perpetual butt of jokes-- well, it's just a bad combination. They take out their frustrations on the public more often than you would expect, and they occasionally behave really stupidly. I think this applies to <em>unter</em>cops of all descriptions, whether they're mall cops, institutional security, or bylaw officers. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>no ME country is a good place to visit if you are an American. Make sure you make out a will before you go.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've had these kinds of warnings about half the places I've traveled to. The only problems I've had were in France and Italy.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Not sure how it works in Britain, but this would be violation of rights, or at least unlawful intimidation via an untruth - in the US.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's the same in the UK. It would also be a crime for a police officer to force deletion of images as that would be destroying evidence.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As a matter of fact, I will be toting a 5D + grip + 70-200mm F2.8 L IS. Am I afraid of being stopeed - no. Do I remotely think I will be stopped - no. Do I think they cops will be out to stop all the tourists photographing - no.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well said. Lets get a sense of proportion here. Hardly anyone is a terrorist, hardly anyone is a paedophile and hardly any police officers are out to stop photographers.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've had these kinds of warnings about half the places I've traveled to. The only problems I've had were in France and Italy.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I will second that. I have photographer in some very "dicey" places/countries with the only violent altercations happening in Canada.</p>

<p>Hey, all off you, come to Spain, it´s a lovely place to take photos, go to beach, eat fantastic meals, drink incredible wines and spent a good time.</p>

<p>Although you do hear stories of over-zealous policemen in the UK I have never been stopped from taking a picture by one and I do<em> a lot</em> of photography around the City of London where I work - not to mention countless thousands of pictures of my two small daughters all over the country.<br>

Once a private security guard stopped me from photographing in Liverpool Street Station but that was only to tell me to get a permit from the security office.<br>

Some of the attitudes represented in this thread are ludicrously exaggerated. Get a grip people!</p>

<p>It's obvious the security guard made a foolish judgement in this case. Who knows what instructions he was recently given as far as people with cameras and such. Is it really necessary to go after the guy with such a vengeance. I agree calm down.</p>

<p>Tiger Woods has had affairs with many women, therefore all golfers must be serial sex maniacs! Come on people get some reality. I live in the UK and have never been stopped from taking photos of anything. Yes I would not take pictures of other peoples children or military establishments but that is true of anywhere in the world. Maybe one security guard took his job a bit too seriously but rather that than a free for all for all the weirdos in the world. Have you all stopped sending your kids to school because of Columbine? I don't think so, and rightly so, you applied common sense then so do the same now!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is ironic and profoundly hypocritical that such an obviously unfounded sweeping accusation is made as a condemnation of unfounded sweeping accusations. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well said, John. My work takes me across the globe - Asia, Africa, ME, Europe, South America. The only place I ever got questioned about shooting was at home in New York. So, what, I should move to Spain? </p>

<p>I wonder how many people defending England are the same who make up wild assumptions about other countries based on a few reports of bad behavior? Not funny when its your country that is getting bad press is it? Maybe we should all be a little more realistic about judging others?</p>

<p>I think the extreme of condeming an entire country (although it's hard to ascertain the "seriousness" of those comments by the individuals when it's only in text form on the internet) as well as the categorical denial of experiencing any problem by professional/well travelled photographers are both statements that are only smearing the actual issue.<br>

The fact is that it does happen and the fact is that it shouldn't. Photographers, and other suspicious people I suppose, get harasses by security, and (worse) police, and that those officers are often acting outside or in abuse of the law. It's a big issue, photographers who experience these altercations should be commended for taking it to the press and to the courtroom for violations against our fundamental rights.<br>

I know that the vast majority of people have never experienced this problem, myself included, but when you come out and delcare that you are a worldly photographer and you have never have an incident you are speaking as somewhat of an "expert witness" and are really pushing the point forward that this is NOT a major issue to be contended with, I hope you realize.</p>

<p>It is a losing battle on the war on photographers, I see more and more people with cameras and more and more people are fighting back by suing.</p>

<p><em>I wonder how many people defending England are the same who make up wild assumptions about other countries based on a few reports of bad behavior? Not funny when its your country that is getting bad press is it? Maybe we should all be a little more realistic about judging others?</em></p>

<p>Its ironic and profoundly hypocritical to make wild assumptions and be unrealistic about judging others as a condemnation of people making wild assumptions and being unrealistic about judging others.</p>

<p>There is no evidence whatsoever to even suggest that anyone defending England has engaged in that behavior. The assumptions in this thread are surpassing the assumptions made by the security person.</p>

<p><em><br /> </em></p>

<p> </p>

<p>It's not the country it's the people living in it that project the bad image. I really think that this security guard had nothing better to do than just bother people taking photos of their kids I would like to see him catch a real criminal or a bulgral. My wife and I are expecting a baby girl and I will be taking photos of her whenever and wherever. This world has gone mad!.</p>

<p>There are plenty of incidents in the US and they're on the upswing, but there seem to be MORE incidents of this type in Britain, at least that's what reading and listening to the BBC seems to indicate. It's all a matter of probability. You might go to Britain and have a great vacation, take loads of pictures, even drag your tripod along and never get bothered. But the probabilities seem to indicate that your chances of getting accosted by the police or a security guard are pretty good. I might get the same treatment here, but at least I don't have to pay big money to get here (cause I'm already here). </p>

<p>I enjoyed it when I was there 30 years ago, but I just don't think it's a place to go today for a photography vacation. And I don't have to. There are plenty of places to see here in the US. So even though I'd like to go back, that factor IS a deciding factor for me. If I'm going to have to explain myself to cops, I guess I'll do it here.</p>

<p>If I had some compelling reason to go to Britain (like business) I'd go and take my chances. But since I don't, I won't. I'll keep watching Dr. Who and Top Gear though!</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=19592">Jeff Spirer</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Feb 26, 2010; 06:17 p.m.</p>

 

 

 

<p>I've had these kinds of warnings about half the places I've traveled to. The only problems I've had were in France and Italy.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Only in France and Italy, you are not likely to be kidnapped or shot for being an infidel and part of the "Great Satan". Or blown up by some madman suicide bomber.</p>

<p>That part of the world is unhinged. Two of my translators who used to go on patrol with me have left Iraq and come to the states, bringing their families with them. And they will be the first to admit that whole region is utterly insane. Religion of peace <em>my ass</em>.</p>

<p>Let's see. There are 56,000,000 people in the UK. Roughly two thirds of them own some kind of camera. On average, there is one story like this every two months. Say that represents 1% of such incidents, so we're looking at 600 incidents per year. that means you have a 0.000002% chance of being accosted by a security guard or police officer because you took a picture in a public place.</p>

<p>If this worries you, perhaps you should seek professional assistance.</p>

<p>I suspect that is deceptive. Segregate those statistics by type of camera (point and shoot, cellphone, DSLR, DSLR with a big lens) and whether they are carrying a tripod and see where they go. I'll bet you could take a biggish DSLR with a long lens and a tripod almost anywhere in London without somebody starting to ask questions. </p>

<p>If it worries me, maybe I should stay out of London.</p>

<p>Ludicrous. This is what the world has come to.</p>

<p>Drat! Forgot the standard warning: 87.32% of all statistics are invented on the spur of the moment.</p>

<p>Peter K: <em><strong>"well as the categorical denial of experiencing any problem by professional/well travelled photographers are both statements that are only smearing the actual issue."</strong> </em> <br /> I see, 1st hand reports only "smear", tarnish, or confuse the issue. No more witnesses in court then, as they will only be smearing the case.......</p>

<p>Peter K: <em><strong>"The fact is that it does happen and the fact is that it shouldn't"</strong> </em> <br /> Under the right circumstances, it should and I support it. If someone is clearly behaving in a suspicious manner then by all means confront them.</p>

<p>David Griffin: <strong>"But the probabilities seem to indicate that your chances of getting accosted by the police or a security guard are pretty good"</strong> <br /> Well, no point flogging a dead horse. If that is what you feel David, then be my guest to stay at home. I suppose you know better than people like myself who actually live in London. Amazing.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I want to contribute my experience from a short stop-over in Heathrow, at mid-January.<br>

I had some time between my flights, and being an avid smoker I had to find a place where I could smoke. So I exited the airport completely, even though I would have to go through security check again, to reach the outside where there was the only smoking area.<br>

While enjoying my cigarette, I noticed some interesting "Christmas lights" and shapes that I was interested in photographing. Having read all those stories about the latest laws etc. I thought it would be prudent to ask first, so I located a couple of policemen who were inside the building. I went in and asked if it was OK to take pictures of that area. They nodded and gave me permission.<br>

Later on, a little before our flight, while waiting at the gate, I noticed several people snapping pictures of the airplanes which were at the gates, without anyone bothering them. And our flight was to US, so there were supposed to be additional security measures at that gate, but I didn't see any.<br>

I am not sure if that was before or after the new law was brought in effect, but if what we read lately is any indication, I am sure that if you are interested in photography, UK shouldn't be very high on your list of countries to visit. I know it isn't for me, both for the photography-related restrictions and the fact that smoking is as restricted there, as it is in US.<br>

Yeah, I know, to each his own.</p>

 

<p>Perhaps, as suggested by someone who commented in the Sky news site, the guard should be taken to court for slander.</p>