Photographing children - how do you navigate the ethical risks?

so go get your own ! or get a puppy ;)
 
cambsno said:
I just don't see why people would want to take pics of my kids and just don't like it.
Click to expand...

Back in the 80s when I was a regular member and on the committee of my local camera club we had regular photo competitions in which there was always loads of shots of kids in the park, on the beach or just playin g in the street were displayed.

Many were members kids but most were fantastic captures of kids laughing and playing.

It was inevitable to find those pictures amongst the winners.

I can understand your retinence about people taking pictures of your kids but such interaction is part of your kids socialisatoon and being part of a bigger society. Sometimes you need to loosen off the fear of others and build outwardly confident and smiling children whilst, as a parent, staying on guard.

S
 
ghoti said:
.
Paedophiles are few and far between, despite what tabloid England would lead us to believe.
Click to expand...

250,000 or 1/200th of the population according to Scotland yard, show an unusual and unhealthy sexual interest in children

applied to TP that would imply around 800 members
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
I have two young kids. When strangers take an interest in them I mostly find it nice and heartwarming.
Click to expand...

Depends on context. If someone came up and explained I wouldn't mind. If they were just taking pics then I would not.
 
big soft moose said:
250,000 or 1/200th of the population according to Scotland yard, show an unusual and unhealthy sexual interest in children

applied to TP that would imply around 800 members
Click to expand...
What was their sample group? Do you have the original study?
 
it was a study carried out by the Met Paedophile investigations unit in 2000, headed at the time by DCI Bob McLachlan

I don't have a copy to hand, but i'm sure you could find one if you wanted (discussing it here is only going to lead to the same semantic crap we always have about statistics and meanings of the word paedophile and child for which I somewhat lack the arsed )
 
cambsno said:
Depends on context. If someone came up and explained I wouldn't mind. If they were just taking pics then I would not.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't care. We'll probably have to just agree to disagree.
Firstly, I don't think there's a significant risk that someone taking a pic of my kids has a sexual motive.
Secondly, given that my kids are never doing anything indecent in public I think the risk of their actual, quantifiable sexual exploitation from a casual photographer is even less.
Thirdly, if someone really wants to draw third-party sexual pleasure from seeing your kids in a public space, how are you going to stop them.
It's just not a concern for me.
 
ghoti said:
I wouldn't care. We'll probably have to just agree to disagree.
Firstly, I don't think there's a significant risk that someone taking a pic of my kids has a sexual motive.
Secondly, given that my kids are never doing anything indecent in public I think the risk of their actual, quantifiable sexual exploitation from a casual photographer is even less.
Thirdly, if someone really wants to draw third-party sexual pleasure from seeing your kids in a public space, how are you going to stop them.
It's just not a concern for me.
Click to expand...

taking photos is often part of the sexual predator's MO prior to abduction (that's from an FBI study entitled innocent images)

yes sexual predators are fortunately very rare - but they do exist, so as a parent are you really okay with the idea that someone could be preparing to abduct and abuse your child ? or even just fantasising about it

(and the idea that because they aren't doing anything indecent and are presumably modestly dressed, they won't attract one such is flawed - these people are deviants and don't think the same way you and I do , some may be drawn to modest dress because corrupting innocence is part of their thing)

reading into how these people think is an eye opener , even if it does make you want to :puke:
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
it was a study carried out by the Met Paedophile investigations unit in 2000, headed at the time by DCI Bob McLachlan

I don't have a copy to hand, but i'm sure you could find one if you wanted (discussing it here is only going to lead to the same semantic crap we always have about statistics and meanings of the word paedophile and child for which I somewhat lack the arsed )
Click to expand...
Police studies are not noted for their scientific rigour. They serve more to support the ongoing funding of the police.
 
ghoti said:
Police studies are not noted for their scientific rigour. They serve more to support the ongoing funding of the police.
Click to expand...

yeah sure - you know more about the occurrence of paedophilia than the head of a unit who spend their lives investigating it , silly me

(faced with logic like that there's no point in discussing it further and i'm done with this thread - I just hope you never find out the truth of the matter the hard way)
 
big soft moose said:
taking photos is often part of the sexual predator's MO prior to abduction (that's from an FBI study entitled innocent images)

yes sexual predators are fortunately very rare - but they do exist, so as a parent are you really okay with the idea that someone could be preparing to abduct and abuse your child ? or even just fantasising about it

(and the idea that because they aren't doing anything indecent and are presumably modestly dressed, they won't attract one such is flawed - these people are deviants and don't think the same way you and I do , some may be drawn to modest dress because corrupting innocence is part of their thing)

reading into how these people think is an eye opener , even if it does make you want to :puke:
Click to expand...
For the same reasons I want my kids to play outside and explore the woods and countryside as I did as a child, I want them to have a sensible and rational approach to adults who speak to them. The vast majority of whom are unlikely to be paedophiles.
This doesn't mean I think they should freely engage with all and any adults they meet. In the same way I encourage them to encounter rivers, trees and woods while making sure they know not to get into danger.
As a parent I want to protect my children while also offering them the chance to find the physical and social limits of their world. It's a fine line. But shielding them from every situation that may be harmful - however unlikely - will not be doing them a service in their preparation for the real world. In my opinion.
 
big soft moose said:
yeah sure - you know more about the occurrence of paedophilia than the head of a unit who spend their lives investigating it , silly me

(faced with logic like that there's no point in discussing it further and i'm done with this thread - I just hope you never find out the truth of the matter the hard way)
Click to expand...
I don't know more about it at all. But I've certainly encountered police studies that are methodologically lacking.
I'm just asking for specifics on the study.
What did they measure? What were their definitions and parameters? From where did they draw their sample group?
These are not unreasonable questions.
 
ghoti said:
But shielding them from every situation that may be harmful - however unlikely - will not be doing them a service in their preparation for the real world. In my opinion.
Click to expand...

I agree - but that wasn't my point , we were talking about why parents might not like strangers with cameras photographing their offspring.

as I said earlier its a matter of common sense - if someone takes one picture in passing who really cares - but if someone starts following your kids around taking lots of pictures :thinking:

it could be because kids are delightful and cute etc - it could also be because he's a dirty noncing ******* - but are you going to take the risk , or are you at the very least going to go and talk to him and make sure everything is on the up and up
 
Is there any single subject that you are not an expert on Pete?

Just curious.
 
big soft moose said:
I agree - but that wasn't my point , we were talking about why parents might not like strangers with cameras photographing their offspring.

as I said earlier its a matter of common sense - if someone takes one picture in passing who really cares - but if someone starts following your kids around taking lots of pictures :thinking:

it could be because kids are delightful and cute etc - it could also be because he's a dirty noncing ******* - but are you going to take the risk , or are you at the very least going to go and talk to him and make sure everything is on the up and up
Click to expand...
I think we're talking about an extreme situation here. How often do people 'start following around' specific kids?
I don't believe this is the kind of thing the OP had in mind.
 
fracster said:
Is there any single subject that you are not an expert on Pete?

Just curious.
Click to expand...

about the same as you i'd imagine Ade

interestingly I never claimed to be an expert in this - I said the DCI McLachlan was the expert - there is a 'slight' difference there, but hey why let the facts stand in the way of a pointless personal attack
 
ghoti said:
I think we're talking about an extreme situation here. How often do people 'start following around' specific kids?
I don't believe this is the kind of thing the OP had in mind.
Click to expand...

how do you get the sorts of shots shown earlier without following them about /concentrating on them to capture the right moment, you don't get shots that good by just strolling past
 
ghoti said:
I don't know more about it at all. But I've certainly encountered police studies that are methodologically lacking.
I'm just asking for specifics on the study.
What did they measure? What were their definitions and parameters? From where did they draw their sample group?
These are not unreasonable questions.
Click to expand...

Child Sexual Exploitation estimates in this country haven't changed since the mid-seventies; ie 1 in 10 children will be affected by it at some stage in their lives.

Until recently that was usually at the ands of a family member, family friend or someone well known to the child (ie a teacher). That's changing.
 
DemiLion said:
Child Sexual Exploitation estimates in this country haven't changed since the mid-seventies; ie 1 in 10 children will be affected by it at some stage in their lives.

Until recently that was usually at the ands of a family member, family friend or someone well known to the child (ie a teacher). That's changing.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. That may be the case. I don't know.
What are the particulars of the evidence?
 
Last edited:
On a recent trip to a country park in Scotland with my family me and my daughter were taking pictures from a bridge, at the other side there was a group of children playing and been a bit stupid near the water. I saw a bird in a tree and decided to photograph it, it was on the same side as the children were playing. A family walking across the bridge and one of the young boys said why dont you take some pictures of those dafties down there to which I replied I cant just take pictures of children. the woman who was with them gave me a filthy look and physically pushed the children in her care away looking back at me until they were out of sight and continued with the filthy looks every time she saw me.
I could have kind of understood if I was some random man on my own with a camera taking picture of kids but I had my 12 year old daughter with me.

The sad fact is society has changed and some times I wonder if its for the better :(
 
markyboy1 said:
The sad fact is society has changed and some times I wonder if its for the better :(
Click to expand...

No there have been idiots and irrational people since time began.

We used to burn people for witchcraft, and also thought it was ok to enslave people because they were black.

People are just stupid and irrational in different ways.

I do agree with Pete though... Certain things are fine. I love to be left alone generally... However if someone oversteps the line a severe beating should be dispatched. Thats not me talking about beating up people taking photographs... It's people taking photo's of young kids on the toilet on the sly.
 
Cagey75 said:
Is that right? Well my experience of Turkey is my camera went missing until i called the cops in the hotel. The point?? There is none. Try taking pictures down the back alleys of Turkey willy nilly of . . . Anyone! You'll come across some resistance i can tell you. I wish people would just stop talking silly. Did your friend go about taking pictures of kids a lot?
Click to expand...

Im not talking silly as far as I know:shrug:
He's Turkish so presumably knows what it's like there
He's not a friend as such just someone I got chatting too
 
On a similar vein, I watched a program on TV called Married to the Job- about senior female Police officers, one comment made me so angry

Coming from a senior police office in the child protection unit- when she stated to a collegue-and on camera

I see a middle aged man with a camera I automatically think paedophile :bang::bang:

These people above all need educating me thinks :eek:

Les (y)
 
big soft moose said:
plenty here to get you started http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/resourcesforprofessionals/sexualabuse/sexual_exploitation_research_wda85130.html

and for an overview

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/resourcesforprofessionals/sexualabuse/statistics_wda87833.html

I hope you have a strong stomach
Click to expand...
There are masses of statistics here. Where's the bit where it says 1 in 200 adults have a sexual interest in children?
Not that this is a huge figure anyway, but it would be nice to see how it was arrived at.
 
Due to the world we live in now where you cant breathe without offending someone and you find out tv and charity icons are pedos it just really ismt worth the hassle.

I had a friend who took pictures of his kids in the garden went to boots to have she shots printed upto collection the police where waiting. Think logically if this individual where that type of person do you think theyd have openly went to get the shots printed?

Stick to landscapes without people in lol
 
barratt1988 said:
I had a friend who took pictures of his kids in the garden went to boots to have she shots printed upto collection the police where waiting. Think logically if this individual where that type of person do you think theyd have openly went to get the shots printed?
Click to expand...

Did this really happen? Boots called the police when they found photographs of children in a garden, and the police were waiting when he went to collect them?
 
barratt1988 said:
I had a friend who took pictures of his kids in the garden went to boots to have she shots printed upto collection the police where waiting. Think logically if this individual where that type of person do you think theyd have openly went to get the shots printed?
Click to expand...
What were they doing in the garden? The photo's would have had to have evidence (or at least a strong suggestion) of something criminal for the Police to get involved.

Similar thing happened to Julia Somerville
Click to expand...
Yep, and it wasn't that many years before this incident that Boots included naked children in their adverts.
 
HMansfield said:
What were they doing in the garden? The photo's would have had to have evidence (or at least a strong suggestion) of something criminal for the Police to get involved.


Yep, and it wasn't that many years before this incident that Boots included naked children in their adverts.
Click to expand...

playing in a pool. you know the type that sell everyday to normal people.
 
barratt1988 said:
playing in a pool. you know the type that sell everyday to normal people.
Click to expand...

To be fair, you just said that your friend "took pictures of his kids in the garden". I couldn't even begin to understand why Boots would be suspicous about this, or why the police would follow it up.
 
LCPete said:
Im not talking silly as far as I know:shrug:
He's Turkish so presumably knows what it's like there
He's not a friend as such just someone I got chatting too
Click to expand...

There are people from outside Ireland who believe that we have leprechauns and we're all overly friendly drunkards who sit about eating potatoes all day ... :D

there's even some within the country who are blind to what goes on and think there's no crime to speak of in Ireland. I wouldn't like to chance that notion down a dark alley in sub-urban Dublin carrying pricey gear ...

As for this thread ... a lot of nonsense being said I think, from all-round. Those who are defending something they have little or no experience of, most who don't even have kids of their own - and slating others for being un-educated ... etc ... and then the over protective, overly paranoid.

I think it's a vicious circle debate, with no right or wrong answers. I just say how 'I' would go about things. I wouldn't start taking pic's of someone else's kids near a beach or park ... because I don't 'need' to. Are those images so important I'll risk a confrontation? rightly or wrongly? NO. That's the simple answer for me.

If I want pic's of kids in action, going about their business, at play, whatever, I'll photograph my own kids and/or their friends.

They are of the times ... I don't need stranger's kids to create an image of kids at play in these times.

Those without kids should thread more carefully, as they clearly do not understand it from the other side.

That's me done for this one at least. I see no point in carrying on any debate here. It'll be never-ending.
 
Cagey75 said:
Those without kids should thread more carefully, as they clearly do not understand it from the other side...
.
Click to expand...

You're suggesting that those without thier own kids don't have anything valid to add to the "debate"? Seriously? Now that is the kind of attitude from parents that really does burn.
 
Sadly this subject will raise many different viewpoints and counterpoints.

We have, as a society, a point where the reporting of paedophile activity is constant and often builds the idea that the incidence is huge and there is some person determined to do harm to our children on every street corner. The largest incidence of late has been that of the grooming of under age teenage girls by gangs of men preying on such children , most of whom were either 'troubled' or from broken homes to the point that they were in the care of local authorities. The recent cases saw the men jailed for their actions where the children were plied with drugs, raped, prostituted, scarred with cigarette burns and given alcohol. Another such case is starting in Coventry following Oxford Blackburn etc.

This thread started on the subject of photographing children and slipped, inevitability, into the dark world of child pornography and thence the "data" and "metrics" from Police sources of the numbers of adults sexually interested in children.

The 'gang' related cases I mention above will be included in those datasets as will the actions of gangs who use the rape of teenage girls to enforce their control of estates where drugs are the currency of choice.

In the big wide world of constant information and headlines everything is reported and from that a feeling that those of us with children and grand children of all ages must be extra vigilant against the "paedos".

The reality is that there have always been threats against our children. I have lived through what is still being reported 50 years on, that of the Moors Murders committed by Ian Brady and the late Myra Hindley. Disgusting hunters of children. (Brady was a keen photographer).

I think that wrapping our children in cotton wool denies them the socialisation that free play gives and long term their own personal development alongside their peers.

As parents we need to be ever watchful of their safety, learning to live without fear but to be aware of things that could do harm.

With my own children and grand children that has worked fine.

As photographic subjects some of the best pictures I have seen relay the fun, happiness and innocence of children. I wa and am watchful of those taking photographs of children and apply simple precautions. Once registered I watch for that person to reappear. In over 35 years of parenthood and now as a grandparent, I ha only ever once had to speak to a photographer about my calling time on their over attention. SHE stopped straight away.

My bottom line is this - if you as a photographer are asked not to take pictures of other people's children then STOP immediately without argument and certainly without unecessary verbal pomposity or aggression. The children do not need to experience it.

For parents - asking someone to stop is not a first step on a
pathway to administering a "severe beating" to the photographer. No laws have been broken so you could end up with a criminal assault charge or worse. If you feel threatened - ring the police.

For those of us in the middle ground and comfortable with photographers - be watchful but not complacent.

In terms of paedophile activity - I had a guy working for me who found that his best friend had been raping his daughter for over 5 years. She was 7 when he started. At the time (10 years ago) the studies showed that most paedophiles were either known to the family, part of the family or friends of the family. I have no doubt that this is/has changed/ing. Family breakdowns and a growing underclass added to the internet's intrusion into every aspect of life. This will not be repaired easily so a subject that will not be off the hesdlines ever.

Steve
 
big soft moose said:
250,000 or 1/200th of the population according to Scotland yard, show an unusual and unhealthy sexual interest in children

applied to TP that would imply around 800 members
Click to expand...

See you've googled the telegraph report from 2000
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1379946/UK-has-250000-paedophiles-says-police-study.html

Actually there are just over 41000 registered sex offenders in the uk.

Other figures:
There were 2,926 children in the UK on child protection registers or the subject of child protection plans under a category that included sexual abuse on 31 March 2012
6% of all the children on child protection registers or the subject of child protection plans in the UK were under a category that included sexual abuse on 31 March 2012
17,186 sexual crimes against children under 16 were recorded in England and Wales in 2011/12.
32% of all sexual crimes (53,664 sexual crimes in total) recorded in England and Wales in 2011/12 were sexual crimes against children under 16.

The NSPCC provide upto date figures.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
As for this thread ... a lot of nonsense being said I think, from all-round. Those who are defending something they have little or no experience of, most who don't even have kids of their own - and slating others for being un-educated ... etc ... and then the over protective, overly paranoid.
Click to expand...

Actually I take exception to this and as I'm the one most strongly advocating the right to photograph then I guess Those who are defending something they have little or no experience of, most who don't even have kids of their own is aimed at me.

You don't know anything about me yet can make that judgement? Then having declared it say you're out because people disagree with your view and wish to discuss it?

How are attitudes ever changed without discussion?
 
big soft moose said:
how do you get the sorts of shots shown earlier without following them about /concentrating on them to capture the right moment, you don't get shots that good by just strolling past
Click to expand...

Kite flying shots? About 30 secs at most for a sequence of 5 or 6 shots that included about 10-15 secs of walking into a good position.

Again, I don't see the issue
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top