Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 10 Dec 2008 (Wednesday) 14:17
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Accused of being a paedophile!!!

 
this thread is locked
Roy ­ Mathers
I am Spartacus!
Avatar
41,285 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 1788
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
     
Dec 12, 2008 16:15 |  #316

You don't need a licence to be a photographer in the UK, so why would you need a licence to put it on a business card?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Jimconnerphoto
Goldmember
Avatar
2,165 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Southern California
     
Dec 12, 2008 16:38 |  #317

thanks for clearing that up. I was not sure if you needed a license.


Wedding and Portraits www.jimconnerphoto.com (external link)
Commercial Work www.jamesdconner.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
thebishopp
Goldmember
1,903 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Indiana
     
Dec 12, 2008 16:54 |  #318

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #6862913 (external link)
What frosts me is the unwillingness of any level of law enforcement to admit that they could have allies with valuable skills right in their own back yards.

Speaking as a photographer and a pilot, I'm more than willing to work with the authorities to help observe and secure airports. I'd be the first to squawk if something appears out of the ordinary around hangars or aircraft parking areas and with a long lens, I can see a lot.

Instead, all we get (at least sometimes) is a hassle for wanting to be near an airport with a camera.

Hey Government Robots: Wake up and recognize that there are people who know a thing or three about how to keep an eye on the very thing you're trying to secure without burying everything in stuipd rules and regulations.

Now that is not a fair statement. I have known many local level (city/county) police officers who are willing to see that there are "allies with valuable skills" right in our own back yards (in fact when I wore a badge I was one of them).

That being said, you are right that there are many who don't. The reasons for that though can be varied (some legitimate as in security reasons, ongoing investigations, etc.) There appears to have always been an us vs them mentality and I think some of it is brought on by the nature of the job.

We can get into the reasons why but knowing some LEO's you probably have an idea and I'm sure there are many current or ex LEO's here on this board and probably subject matter best suited for another thread.

Don't feel picked on though :-) ! It occurs even within department's themselves. In one particular case we had an ex-marine corps sniper (vietnam). After several years he put in for the sniper position with my former departments "SWAT" team. Instead they gave the position to one of the chief's "golden children" who's training with rifles was only with hunting deer (no prior military or any long arm weapons training at all).

Not trying to get off track, just replying to your post and trying to show that it also occurs amongst the "ranks" as it were.


"Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor even implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous." My Zen (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
thebishopp
Goldmember
1,903 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Indiana
     
Dec 12, 2008 17:05 |  #319

tiziano wrote in post #6863577 (external link)
I would never hit an unarmed woman, Expecially for defending a camera. I would defend myself, holding her until she calms down or the police arrives...

Edit: just deleted my last remark, as it was a stupid one.

As long as you would extend this to unarmed MEN then I would say it was OK.

If not then sir, then that is a sexist statement and beliefs such as those set back women's rights who knows how many years.

Note: I know quite a few women who could and would give a "man" a run for his money if not outright beat him down.

I don't believe he was advocating use of "inappropriate force" merely providing options to deal with an assault.


"Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor even implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous." My Zen (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CAL ­ Imagery
Goldmember
Avatar
3,375 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2008
Location: O-H
     
Dec 12, 2008 17:15 |  #320

This whole story begs the question: why would a person come out of his/her cave if he/she did not want to be viewed?


Christian

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FlyingPhotog
Cream of the "Prop"
Avatar
57,560 posts
Likes: 162
Joined May 2007
Location: Probably Chasing Aircraft
     
Dec 12, 2008 17:23 |  #321

thebishopp wrote in post #6866570 (external link)
Now that is not a fair statement. I have known many local level (city/county) police officers who are willing to see that there are "allies with valuable skills" right in our own back yards (in fact when I wore a badge I was one of them).

My aplogies as I wasn't as clear as I should have been...

The term "Government Robots" was directed squarely at Washington, the FAA and the OHS.

I've never had an issue with any member of the Chandler PD. In fact, two of my favorite places from which I like to shoot our local airstrip are within direct eyesight of a neighborhood police station.

All I've ever gotten was a wave! :)

I understand that the PHX PD are quite ok with photographers perching on parking decks and such over at Sky Harbor as well. They'll come check you out but once they see your just engaging in photography, it's cool. I guess they figure if you're willing to pay the on-airport parking rates just to hang out for a couple of hours, you must be harmless! :lol:


Jay
Crosswind Images (external link)
Facebook Fan Page (external link)

"If you aren't getting extraordinary images from today's dSLRs, regardless of brand, it's not the camera!" - Bill Fortney, Nikon Corp.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
thebishopp
Goldmember
1,903 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Indiana
     
Dec 12, 2008 17:24 |  #322

nphsbuckeye wrote in post #6866677 (external link)
This whole story begs the question: why would a person come out of his/her cave if he/she did not want to be viewed?

Don't know. Personally I don't have a problem with people "viewing" me while I am in public. I am a father and don't have a problem with people "viewing" my kid when we or he is out in public.

If they are taking photos I may ask or may not ask what they are doing depending on my mood. They may reply or not reply depending on theirs. Since I usually have my camera or my iphone I may or may not snap a picture of them.

In fact I may ask for a copy if I think it's a particularly cool photo of me of my kid for which I did not have my camera available.

In fact a pic of my kid throwing snow out onto a frozen lake would probably make for a cool pic and I woulld probably of approached the OP and introduced myself and struck up a conversation.

I am a big "innocent till proven guilty" fan and so don't go around thinking that everyone has some nefarious reason for interacting with me and mine. That being said, I am fully prepared (mentally and physically - it's important to be both) to defend me and mine from any "immediate" threat. Well, I probably should say "most" immediate threats, or maybe "most likely" immediate threats as I do not think I would be prepared if Godzilla came out of the ohio river and began laying waste.


"Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor even implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous." My Zen (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tiziano
Goldmember
Avatar
1,445 posts
Likes: 15
Joined May 2005
Location: Italy, Rome
     
Dec 12, 2008 17:35 |  #323

Originally Posted by tiziano

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

I would never hit an unarmed woman, Expecially for defending a camera. I would defend myself, holding her until she calms down or the police arrives...

thebishopp wrote in post #6866635 (external link)
As long as you would extend this to unarmed MEN then I would say it was OK.

If not then sir, then that is a sexist statement and beliefs such as those set back women's rights who knows how many years.

HAHAHA!
This is just too funny!!!
A grown man has to hit a mom with kids, otherwise he is a sexist person!!! :lol::lol::lol:

I was right... the world is really going in the wrong direction!

Anyway, let me recap, just to see if I get it right:
someone wants to hit the histerical woman with a police baton, and nobody has any objection.
One guy says he would not hit a mom with children, and he is the sexist bastard.
Ok. Let me ring Woody Allen. I'll sell this story to him...


Tiziano
Gear list

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CAL ­ Imagery
Goldmember
Avatar
3,375 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2008
Location: O-H
     
Dec 12, 2008 17:36 |  #324

thebishopp wrote in post #6866730 (external link)
Don't know. Personally I don't have a problem with people "viewing" me while I am in public. I am a father and don't have a problem with people "viewing" my kid when we or he is out in public.

If they are taking photos I may ask or may not ask what they are doing depending on my mood. They may reply or not reply depending on theirs. Since I usually have my camera or my iphone I may or may not snap a picture of them.

In fact I may ask for a copy if I think it's a particularly cool photo of me of my kid for which I did not have my camera available.

In fact a pic of my kid throwing snow out onto a frozen lake would probably make for a cool pic and I woulld probably of approached the OP and introduced myself and struck up a conversation.

I am a big "innocent till proven guilty" fan and so don't go around thinking that everyone has some nefarious reason for interacting with me and mine. That being said, I am fully prepared (mentally and physically - it's important to be both) to defend me and mine from any "immediate" threat. Well, I probably should say "most" immediate threats, or maybe "most likely" immediate threats as I do not think I would be prepared if Godzilla came out of the ohio river and began laying waste.

I don't disagree, but I'm not sure what that has to do directly with no expectation of privacy in public. If a person is shooting pictures without bothering someone, then the photographer should be left alone. However, if the photographer is in the way, then that's a different story.


Christian

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
44,268 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 3464
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Dec 12, 2008 17:38 |  #325

Maybe I am being naive about this, but having photos taken of a child at play in a public park, while fully clothed, would seem the epitome of innocent photography in action. In comparison, with a child in a swimming pool or running about in a swim suit or clad in a tight spandex gymnastics outfit or ballet outfit seems more apropos to be somewhat suspicious of someone -- who has no child participating in that activity -- who is taking random photos for perhaps unconventional purposes. This kind of incident (the OP story) smacks of 'profiling' and judging someone guilty with no evidence of ill intent. Paranoia at its worst!


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
thebishopp
Goldmember
1,903 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Indiana
     
Dec 12, 2008 17:43 |  #326

nphsbuckeye wrote in post #6866816 (external link)
I don't disagree, but I'm not sure what that has to do directly with no expectation of privacy in public. If a person is shooting pictures without bothering someone, then the photographer should be left alone. However, if the photographer is in the way, then that's a different story.

I agree with this and was not trying to say different, just how I view and would of handled it (in a way I believe would be the acceptable way if someone had an issue) if me or mine were the one's being photographed.

Woops, just a little different here: I don't think the photographer has a "right" to be left alone if he is in public just as his subjects don't have the "right" to stop him from taking pictures. It goes both ways you see?

I do believe the photographer has the "right" not to be assaulted either verbally or physically much like anyone else in public has the same right.


"Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor even implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous." My Zen (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
thebishopp
Goldmember
1,903 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Indiana
     
Dec 12, 2008 17:48 |  #327

tiziano wrote in post #6866811 (external link)
Originally Posted by tiziano
IMAGE NOT FOUND
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

I would never hit an unarmed woman, Expecially for defending a camera. I would defend myself, holding her until she calms down or the police arrives...



HAHAHA!
This is just too funny!!!
A grown man has to hit a mom with kids, otherwise he is a sexist person!!! :lol::lol::lol:

I was right... the world is really going in the wrong direction!

Anyway, let me recap, just to see if I get it right:
someone wants to hit the histerical woman with a police baton, and nobody has any objection.
One guy says he would not hit a mom with children, and he is the sexist bastard.
Ok. Let me ring Woody Allen. I'll sell this story to him...

Wow you really like to read into things don't you.

You assume I meant hitting somone with a baton, I assumed you meant defending yourself which may mean you would have to push her back or even engage in "fisticuffs" if she began trying to punch you.

In any case I would probably attempt to restrain either a female OR a male subject.

My response would depend solely upon the ability of the person I am trying to defend myself against (their training, physical skills, strength, intensity, etc. etc. etc.)

It's funny how you say we are the violent ones and you are the one making assumptions that weapons would be involved LOL.

By the way, have you ever tried to "hold" or "restrain" a woman who was really trying to hurt you? I remember one time in particular that it took 4 officers to hold down this one lady we were trying to arrest because one of the "old timers" didn't want to pepperspray her. She wound up scratching the face of one pretty badly and kicking another in the jewels before we got her cuffed, shackeled, and thrown into the back of the cruiser.


"Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor even implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous." My Zen (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Deckham
Senior Member
814 posts
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Dec 12, 2008 17:52 as a reply to  @ thebishopp's post |  #328

Wilt wrote in post #6865533 (external link)
You're both right, but I also have to side more with CyberDyneSystems' POV...if you were out in the woods photographing a bear cub while you were having lunch, and then the defensive mother comes charging out of the trees in your direction, that is the right time to scramble up the neaby rocky cliff to avoid the angry mother, rather that to defend your right to have lunch in your picnic spot and photograph the cub! :D If she was merely threatening, but not charging, that might be the time for standing your ground!

An analogy with a similarity, but not appropriate.
People are not bears. Neither should they act like bears - or any other wild animal.
Which is more the reason to remain calm and know your rights. We need to teach and demonstrate that photographers are not criminals.


Lulu Clake (external link)
Zenfolio  (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CAL ­ Imagery
Goldmember
Avatar
3,375 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2008
Location: O-H
     
Dec 12, 2008 17:58 |  #329

thebishopp wrote in post #6866859 (external link)
Woops, just a little different here: I don't think the photographer has a "right" to be left alone if he is in public just as his subjects don't have the "right" to stop him from taking pictures. It goes both ways you see?

Nope. Neither party is harming the other party.


Christian

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tiziano
Goldmember
Avatar
1,445 posts
Likes: 15
Joined May 2005
Location: Italy, Rome
     
Dec 12, 2008 18:07 |  #330

thebishopp wrote in post #6866905 (external link)
Wow you really like to read into things don't you.

You assume I meant hitting somone with a baton, I assumed you meant defending yourself which may mean you would have to push her back or even engage in "fisticuffs" if she began trying to punch you.

In any case I would probably attempt to restrain either a female OR a male subject.

My response would depend solely upon the ability of the person I am trying to defend myself against (their training, physical skills, strength, intensity, etc. etc. etc.)

It's funny how you say we are the violent ones and you are the one making assumptions that weapons would be involved LOL.

By the way, have you ever tried to "hold" or "restrain" a woman who was really trying to hurt you?

I assume you have stepped into a discussion without reading it all. Otherwise you would have known where the police baton and other weapons were introduced in the discussion.
Funny thing is that you are arguing with me, while we both say the same thing: that we would try to restrain the histerical mom.
I guess this a problem of today's society, we don't communicate, we don't listen to each other. Just like the crazy woman attacking without first asking anything.
Anyway, yes, I have been attacked by a drunk, violent girl. She was phisically fit too. I was able to restrain her. I got a lot of scratches on my arms. Scratches were not a problem. The problem was explaing them to my wife... :rolleyes:


Tiziano
Gear list

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

27,852 views & 0 likes for this thread
Accused of being a paedophile!!!
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is grannysclutter
816 guests, 229 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.