Sure, that'll happen, and next week i'm entering the Mr Universe Competition

It sums up our obsession with wanting to label someone a paedo when people throw the accusation that he "took pictures of children vandalising his flowers".

Were these kids naked or something? If they weren't then I can't imagine pictures of a bunch of kids fully clothed are going to be hot property amongst the kiddie porn community.

I remember we had a bit of hysteria like this a few years ago on this forum when there was an incident at Salford where a guy had his camcorder and was filming the under 11s match before the Super League game kicked off, people on the forum were saying this was disgusting and how scary that sort of person could be around in the family game. I remember having this argument then and being told by someone that I wouldn't understand as I'm not a parent. If I remember rightly this guy just got a 'caution' for it because he hadn't requested permission from the club.

There are vids all over youtube of kids playing sports like "6 year old Dutch kid with skills like Maradona", does this count as indecent porn....?

In fact if you go round my grandads he's got some old cine film of my mum and uncles on Bournemouth beach in the 1960s running around in various states of undress. Should I be reporting him?

I suspect that what all this paedo labelling is about is a primal desire to commit a horrendous crime against another person like burning them to death. You're generally not allowed to burn people to death but if someone is labelled as a paedo it provides social justification. I doubt they killed him really because of wanting to protect local children but because they felt free from the shackles of morality and had a chance to label him outside the law and so got to carry out their own sadistic fantasy.

Well it completely depends on the context of taking the pictures. If they were 15 year olds damaging his stuff and he was spotted taking pics of them clearly doing that then it is ludicrous to jump to the conclusion that he was doing it for his gratification. But if there was just a couple of 8 year old's talking and playing 10 feet away from his flowers and he was hiding behind curtain taking pics of them then it's a completely different situation.



You don't need to be in a child porn community to get your kicks from kids.



Again, context is important. If it was a parent filming his kid on his kids big day playing in a SL stadium that's one thing. But if the guy had no ties whatsoever to any players and was just filming for "the rugby" then I would be suspicious.



Clearly not. But if some guy was taking a video of an unrelated 6 year old whose skills were more Carlton Palmer than Maradona then one would ask why he was choosing to taking videos of him.



No, because he's your ****ing grandad. But if your grandad was asking your best friend over for special filming sessions then yeah, you probably should. Your grandad would want film of you because you're his grandson, but what reason would he have for taking film of your friend?

Why would it be different?

He had decided not to be confrontational, but was making sure he had evidence.

And if it's "different" to be photographing younger children – because then everyone assumes he's a perve – why do they assume photographing older children is somehow "different"? Why not assume he perves over 15-year-olds?

It is utterly ludicrous the way in which photographing a child has suddenly become evidence of perversion. It's paranoia and downright stupidity. And the mainstream news media has played a role in this, whipping up fear and with it, that hysteria.

Indeed, why do you feel the need to question what nobody else (anywhere) seems to be questioning: that his garden was being vandalised, and turn it into a 'maybe it wasn't and he was just using it as an excuse'?

Are you actually trying to illustrate how the current hysteria works?

Thats pretty much it - the feeling among parents that there is a pervert on every street who "wants" their children is widespread and manifests itself in the many anecdotes and press reports of amateur photographers being questioned in town and city centres when taking what used to be called "candid" photos of passer-by's or even just of buildings when people happen to be in the way - some of whom then find themselves explaining to police officers why they are taking those photos and then being asked to delete the photos under some sort of vague terrorist act (which doesn't exist) - the irony being of course that apparently deleting a photo on a digital camera does nothing of the sort but simply hides it from view.

We look back now at photographic collections of street scenes and "candid" photos of crowds of children playing (for instance) and call these photos important historical documents and social commentary, you can only imagine that in thirty years time anyone who wants to look at public photography from the 2000's will have to have police background checks before being allowed into the locked archives.

That's how it appears. A spokesperson for the vigilante murderers. Strange.

There's a good photo in the Sir Titus Salt in Bradford of a load of raggedy urchins getting ready for a charabanc trip probably in the '40s or '50s. Most people would look at it with a nostalgic smile. I'd find it sad that someone would view it thinking "Which nonce took that?"

I took this candid some years ago at Millennium Magic, Cardiff:

[url=http://s27.photobucket.com/user/Mintball/media/Wire-Dragon_zps215c7983.jpg.html[/url

I took this as well:

[url=http://s27.photobucket.com/user/Mintball/media/Jack_zps23c03b07.jpg.html[/url

In neither case did the subject see me – indeed, I was careful to avoid it.

I don't usually photograph children – simply because that's not a subject area I'm particularly interested in. But this shot struck me straight away as rather charming and the child is not easily recognisable.

Perhaps someone will be able to explain why one would apparently be okay and the other could ever be accused of anything else?

The title of this thread was made quite deliberately. Humans never seem to learn from history, do they?

From the hysteria and mob mentality of witch burnings, to that of Nazism, to McCarthyism and to things like this.

Read the examples. One was of 15 year old's damaging his stuff. The other was him hiding behind his curtains filming 8 year old kids and using the excuse that they were "apparently" damaging his stuff.

One is a valid reason, the other isn't.



If 15 year old idiots are damaging your stuff and you accuse them of it then they'll lie and said they never did it. An 8 year old is going to run away as soon as you open the door.



On your bus ride tomorrow morning you see a guy on the bus with a camera taking pics of women who are on the street. Is this guy a ****ing weirdo who worries you? Now, if instead of taking pictures of kids instead of women, isn't this weirdo someone who you are going to report to the police so they can talk with him?





As I said earlier, the flowers were either vandalised or they weren't. You decided that the "apparent" vandalism was actual vandalism.

The police didn't say what photos he took, merely that they weren't indecent. The pictures that he took were important. If his pictures showed kids damaging his flowers then both the vandalised flowers and his pictures exonerate him. If he has a couple of pictures of young kids and the flowers are untouched that's completely different.



No. I think that one shouldn't react to one hysteria by creating another.

Excellently put.

Can't agree with that.
Either could seem valid to a really timid or shy bloke, it's not unknown for grown men to be irrationally afraid of kids (such as 8 yr olds) in a group, or even afraid of them running off and telling their parents, there could be all sorts of reasons for being secretive about taking the pictures.

It's all beside the point anyway, which is that vigilantism is extremely dangerous and unjust mob rule.

As a quick guess, I'd say there are probably 50 people in Huddersfield who have convictions for sex offences against kids. (I have no idea of the numbers -it's purely a guess.)

I'd guess there are about 200 parents who have your lunatic fears of kiddie fiddlers down every street.

It does the country no good to whip up the fear of child abusers. But equally it does no good to perform similar exaggerations over the state of paranoia that the country is facing.



I don't do it as often as I'd like to do it, but I do take pictures of buildings. This year I've taken pictures of buildings in New York, Manchester, Leeds, Bradford and London.

I have only ever been questioned once when taking a picture. And that had nothing whatsoever to do with people in my pictures, it was simply a case of a nondescript supermarket building that I was taking pictures of to possibly model for Google Earth. The supermarket manager asked me what I was doing, didn't particularly understand why I was taking pics when I gave my explanation so asked me not to do it. I shrugged my shoulders and just figured I wouldn't model the 5hitty building then. The supermarket has since gone bust. I hope the div is still out of work.



Have you ever met someone who has been given genuine hassle over taking pics? I doubt you have. Maybe basic questions from a security guard, that is all. But I bet you have read articles about this terrible new wave of photographer hassling in a magazine or online article, and now here you are spreading it.



No, we're all going to be in jail because we're all convicted of child sex offences because we've looked at a child.