'Paedophile Suspect' For Taking Son's Photo

[astral]

<p>Said earlier: "On average, there is one story like this every two months." This is wrong, the current rate is closer to one incident per week - as reported in the newspapers or Amateur Photographer magazine. And incidents - particularly related to alleged terrorist threats - are not confined to London, nor to sensitive locations - however they are so far apparently random..</p>

<p>Reactions here on pnet range from the hyper-paranoid to the 'head in sand' - neither of which are helpful. The real issue is that while the likelihood of a 'stop' by police is statistically quite small and cannot meaningfully be measured, the consequences can be quite serious. <em>At the worst</em> this can involve arrest and detention, fingerprints and DNA samples being taken. So the basic issue is not <em>whether </em> the average photographer is likely to be stopped by police (or other self-appointed 'authorities') it is what is likely to happen once stopped. In <em>almost </em> all reported instances, police actions have been inappropriate, and since December almost all have been in contravention of specific guidance which was communicated to all police forces by Britain's most senior police officer. If anything, there <em>appears </em> to be a tendency for the relatively few incidents that do occur, to be "<em>blown out of all proportion</em> " - even being escalated to a terrorist issue (etc) - by the police officers involved, rather than the photographers.</p>

<p>Of course the number of 'non-incidents' that result in a friendly 'bobby' asking politely "what are you taking photographs for?" are wholly unreported, but one might reasonably presume that they are on the increase - otherwise the police cannot be doing their job properly.</p>

<p>Ultimately, if the police themselves are incapable of acting reasonably, proportionately, correctly, in such circumstances, how can we expect a more poorly-regulated body of security guards (many being ex-police officers) and petty officials to adhere to the higher standard?</p>

<p> </p>

[bjcarlton]

<p>

<p >Am I the only one who gets that Jeff was making a joke here -- pointing out some of the logical flaws in the discussion?</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=19592">Jeff Spirer</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/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; 11:53 a.m.</p>

 

<p>John makes a good point.<br /><br />BTW, I have never heard of any problems with store security guards in Yemen. Based on this thread, I'm thinking that's a great place to visit now.</p>

 

</p>

[peterq]

<p>Incredible.<br>

This way of "being concerned" leads to the next situation:<br>

Men with camera's are suspected because they might be seeking children and sneeky make pictures of them.<br>

Weird, just weird.</p>

[mirek_elsner1]

<blockquote>

<p>From the article: "I told him it was ridiculous because it was my own son. He then started asking me what I was doing in Sunderland, asked for my name and address and told me he had the right to delete my pictures."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Does anybody know the UK law and can comment on whether that would be legal? I would think deleting the pictures is de facto removing the evidence and I am curious if a policeman has the right to remove your intellectual property like that.</p>

[tveck]

I totally agree with John.

[dejansmaic]

<p>What about the traffic cam guys watching live web cams of people at intersections, malls, parking lots? :-)</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Does anybody know the UK law and can comment on whether that would be legal? I would think deleting the pictures is de facto removing the evidence and I am curious if a policeman has the right to remove your intellectual property like that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Neither a security guard or a police officer can order you to delete images. If you have comitted a crime (or are suspected of comitting a crime) then the images are evidence. Destroying evidence is a serious crime in itself. If you are not being charged with a crime then you got the images legally and there is no reason to delete them.<br>

A police officer can only confiscate cameras, film and memory cards with a court order.</p>

[alec_myers]

<blockquote>

<p>A police officer can only confiscate cameras, film and memory cards with a court order.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I believe a policeman can seize what he believes to be evidence of a crime, be it photos on a memory card or anything else, no court order needed. Definitely he can't delete anything, and a security guard certainly can't seize anything at all. </p>

[rick_williams6]

<p>Thanks for the heads up guys.<br>

Next time I embark on a wanton, 'paedophilic' rampage, it certainly wont be around shopping malls or the like.<br>

None the less. If the urge becomes all too overwhelming whilst out shopping for my rice crispies. I'll ensure to pack my trusty compact prior, so I can cover the job with a little more subtlety.<br>

The fact this story even made the news is astounding.<br>

Welcome to the paranoia epidemic.</p>

 

[henry_cheng3]

<p>this pedophiliaphobia is completely out of hand. we should start mandating burkas for kids. after all, if photos of fully clothed children in public can be suspect, we have to assume that any adult who so much as glimpses a kid might be getting off! it is simply not safe for children to be seen so don't let the munchkins in public without their shrouds! adopting the burka for children would mean that proud parents could then feel free to photograph their lovelies anywhere and anytime, without arousing any unwanted attention. of course it would be helpful to put names prominently on the burkas for identification. wait, what if there are pedophiles with a fetish for kids in burkas? never mind. </p>

[michael_g._gordon]

<p>I photographed in Iceland for two years with no challenges whatever. I was not challenged in Norway. It is when I returned to the United States that I encountered challenges in unlikely circumstances (and, curiously, failed to be challenged at times when I was expecting it).<br>

Photography entails some grey areas and the whole issue of public access, privacy, newsworthiness, pursuit of hobby is not "settled". That part of the United States Declaration of Independence that declares a right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" (ie, photography) is not actually a *law*.<br>

The kind of camera you have can make a big difference at the conclusions to which people leap. I have been challenged at Canyonlands National Park, assuming I was making commercial photographs that required a permit. At the time, I had no idea that such a thing existed. It's a national "park". <br>

As it happens, under the circumstances a permit would not have been required *even if* it had been for commercial purposes; namely, the only thing that distinguished me was a nicer camera than most tourists use. The requirements seem reasonable (still photographers require permit when going to areas that the public is not normally allowed, or which involves sets and props, or when for some reason the park service must monitor the activity).<br>

FYI, the current rules on the topic: http://home.nps.gov/applications/digest/permits.cfm?urlarea=permits<br>

And some commentary from a Large Format (LF) photographer http://www.largeformatphotography.info/travel/national-parks.html<br>

As to the U.K. photography situation, I have been following this for several years and it does seem that quite a few constables exceed their charter; not just isolated incidents. Closely related of course is the famous case of the geek and his backpack in the tube. I am pleased to discover an apology, so maybe things are turning around on this paranoia: http://m.boingboing.net/2009/09/24/london-cops-finally.html</p>

 

[15sunrises]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=759285">Scott Murphy</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub7.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Feb 27, 2010; 11:41 a.m.</p>

<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>

 

</blockquote>

<p>It's very satisfying that nobody has even attempted to respond to this drivel. This kind of perpetuation of hatred and stereotypes is really starting to lose its place in modern society.</p>

[digitmstr]

<p>>>Good idea. Lets blow it totally out of proportion.<<</p>

<p>The security guard did that already. Too late... Photographers can't just sit and take it - if you just sweep this stuff 'under the rug' things will never change for the better.</p>

<p> </p>

[jean_yves_mead]

<p>Off topic:</p>

<blockquote>While some security personnel act over-zealously or not "the brightest and best", there are lots of intelligent people serving in that role and many are bright people who attend college and post-graduate studies, who were laid off due to the poor economy from 'sophisticated' jobs and are otherwise good and decent people. It is ironic and profoundly hypocritical that such an obviously unfounded sweeping accusation is made as a condemnation of unfounded sweeping accusations. Perhaps this should tell us who among us is not "the brightest and best" eh?</blockquote>

<p>John, you are absolutely correct, and I apologise to all for my thoughtless and, frankly, stupid quip.</p>

<p>On topic: <br /> The incident in the original post happened on private property and involved the behaviour of one private individual who may or may not have interpreted correctly his employer's policies. I'm sure it was unpleasant and insulting for the father, but it's no more representative of British law and custom than, say, the British National Party's old constitutional restriction on membership to "indigenous Caucasian"s.<br /> <br /> Yes there have been problems, and photographers have been (and still are being) victimised and treated wrongly as criminals. Mostly this seems to stem from over-zealous police officers - and, more commonly it seems, Special Constables - who are ignorant of or misunderstand or misapply the various anti-terrorist laws^* . The thing is, the vast majority of police officers and Specials are perfectly happy to deal with and assist photographers and tourists, and this one report should be no reason to avoid coming to the UK. One might as well avoid France because of the rudeness of one Parisian waiter.</p>

<p>^* <small>(This, I guess, would be remedied by keeping the officers properly trained and informed, and this is happening now)</small></p>

[john_caradimas]

<p>Gents, just one small comment.</p>

<p>I see that the discussion is mostly focused on the errors/unacceptable behavior of the Law Enforcement officers or the private guards. However, I believe that this is just the tip of the iceberg, the people we should really blame about such behavior are not the enforcers but the legislators who come up with such a ridiculous abd possibly misleading laws.</p>

<p> </p>

[heimbrandt]

<p>It is always sad when the aim for political correctnes goes too far. In this case it clearly has.</p>

<p>Comments about this beeing a reason to avoid going to the UK are really not that clever. According to such logic, one should never leave one's own country - or for that matter one's home. Any given county (civilized or not) has laws, rules and regulations that in some respect may have had a good idea behind them but ended up like the case at hand.</p>

[brucecahn]

<p>I have experienced exactly the same thing in NYC, many times. I do not understand why parents go into such a panic if someone photographs their child. It has become so oppressive here that I have pretty much had to give up street photography, at one time a favorite activity of mine. You hold up a camera here, not just to photograph a child, and there is a problem. A building super gives you a hard time for shooting his building, a junky tries to steal your camera, someone else threatens you. I used to be able to laugh this stuff off. As I have gotten older it has become too much of a battle.</p>

[andre_noble5]

<p>The larger issue here is that Western societies are slowly making it an illegal status for men to be involved in the lives of children. Britain and Australia are at the head of the pack, trailed closely by the U.S., and then continental Europe.</p>

[clive1]

<blockquote>

<p>That gives me an idea for a new T-shirt - "I'm not a paedophile, I'm a terrorist!"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hilarious! I'm claiming that as my own!</p>

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>99% of the time - you're not going to get hassled for taking photos of your child in a mall with a cell phone. If you whip out the D300 with a 70-200 f2.8 on though - you'll get walked out.] And that goes to prove how Dumb those people are:, I go to mall in boston High profile mall in boston, And the Security people Dress like there Cops with Pants tucked into their high top boots , They should in reality should be dressed down like security folks In slacks and shirt and tie and blazer , not in the B.S they wear now :</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<blockquote>

<p>It has become so oppressive here that I have pretty much had to give up street photography, at one time a favorite activity of mine. </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'm sorry folks... but being a comparatively wealthy photographer in a western country (no matter how ridiculous the rules are getting) doesn't qualify you as an oppressed. </p>

<p>There are a lot of people in this world who deal with real oppression and misery every day. </p>

[sven_felsby]

<p>Craig, oppression comes in many shapes, and if you start bending rules, it will become much easier bending vital rules.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>It's very satisfying that nobody has even attempted to respond to this drivel.</em></p>

<p>How many examples of self contained single sentence contradiction can one thread have? <em><br /> </em></p>

[john_h.1]

<p>OK, what can we actually do to help prevent incidents of this sort?</p>

[igor_smirnoff]

<p>Bringing up "Yemen" is the favorite point of so many when it comes to discussing certain cultures bent on sex and terrorism. You can't crminalize a legal activity just because you may have "illegal" inclinations in your sex preferences.<br /><br />I have spent a month in Japan. People will actually say thank you for taking pictures of their children. You can shoot in malls and virtually everywhere. No problem. There must be paedophiles in Japan, however, it is against the culture to suspect that you are one, just because you have a camera. <br /><br />And, even if you are a paedophile, mustn't you be allowed to shoot like anybody else? What if you like animals? <br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2769/4209538389_0faa165fd4.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="332" /></p>