Let me call myself an Old-European.
There was the question how to react. In one of the first posts Adrian Twiss wrote that he changed his kind of photography because he did not want to be tapped on his shoulder. My answer is, let them tap on our shoulder. If we cant make people be sensible again, they wont keep it at tapping
Back to children. Think of what I wrote about that hurt child. Isnt that bad enough?
Meanwhile, in a possibly related thought, there is an article in the Washington Post today about concerns that children no longer know how to play outside in an unsupervised fashion http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...06/18/AR2007061801808.html?hpid=moreheadlines. Am I the only one who sees a correlation between the extreme risk aversion encouraged by popular media and the decline of unstructured play?
The simple solution is to send them to a summer camp where they spend the whole time outside.Meanwhile, in a possibly related thought, there is an article in the Washington Post today about concerns that children no longer know how to play outside in an unsupervised fashion http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...06/18/AR2007061801808.html?hpid=moreheadlines. Am I the only one who sees a correlation between the extreme risk aversion encouraged by popular media and the decline of unstructured play?
Am I the only one who sees a correlation between the extreme risk aversion encouraged by popular media and the decline of unstructured play?
Fortunately summer camps are little known outside the United States. I'd have hated them. When I was a boy, I wanted to be the one who decided what to do and when, rather than being bossed about by adults the whole time in an essentially institutional setting.The simple solution is to send them to a summer camp where they spend the whole time outside.
Fortunately summer camps are little known outside the United States. I'd have hated them. When I was a boy, I wanted to be the one who decided what to do and when, rather than being bossed about by adults the whole time in an essentially institutional setting.
I believe, too, that summer camps emphasise the 'team spirit', an attitude which I despise when it is whipped up for its own sake: it creates a 'them versus us' mentality which is the root of at least as many ills as it purports to cre. I've always liked Michael Winner's definition of 'teamwork', which is 'a lot of people doing what I tell them'. I am more than willing to work with others to some useful end, even in a subordinate capacity, but I refuse to join a group of others in doing something pointless such as chasing a ball around. This is why I fenced at school, instead of playing rugger or cricket.
Cheers,
Roger
The real question, already stated or hinted at is: What's changed in terms of actual risks, say, in the last 10-20 yrs max that justifies our change of behaviour and attitude towards the threat?
The real question, already stated or hinted at is: What's changed in terms of actual risks, say, in the last 10-20 yrs max that justifies our change of behaviour and attitude towards the threat?
Dear Antje,Wouldn't our children be safer far away from home then, playing in the woods?
Antje
At least over here, that sort of crime has been declining for many years, and it still is. Statistically, btw, most victims are abused by family members or close friends of the family. What do we make of that? Wouldn't our children be safer far away from home then, playing in the woods?
Antje
I was mostly kidding.Fortunately summer camps are little known outside the United States. I'd have hated them. When I was a boy, I wanted to be the one who decided what to do and when, rather than being bossed about by adults the whole time in an essentially institutional setting.
I believe, too, that summer camps emphasise the 'team spirit', an attitude which I despise when it is whipped up for its own sake: it creates a 'them versus us' mentality which is the root of at least as many ills as it purports to cre. I've always liked Michael Winner's definition of 'teamwork', which is 'a lot of people doing what I tell them'. I am more than willing to work with others to some useful end, even in a subordinate capacity, but I refuse to join a group of others in doing something pointless such as chasing a ball around. This is why I fenced at school, instead of playing rugger or cricket.
Cheers,
Roger
but there has been a much greater focus now on crimes committed by family, friends and "trusted adults" such as teachers, priests etc.
I was mostly kidding.
This isn't news to any of us who work in the social services. The actual incidence of strangers abusing children randomly has always been very low. Most people believe otherwise, a fact which usually results in massive denial on the part of other family members when a child discloses abuse.
At risk of taking this thread slightly askew, I've had an encounter today that gives me pause at photographing children. While at a nearby park that had a fountain, there was a group of children playing and splashing water at each other. I though the spontaneous nature of the moment was worth capturing so I took a couple of pictures of the kids at play.
Unfortunately, a few glares from local bystanders cured me of any desire to continue my picture taking and I slunked away, shamed by my fellow park patrons. Frankly, I was surprised that it seems to be such a taboo to take pictures of kids. I guessed the children's rough age be either late pre-teens or early teens in age and didn't think it would have been an issue.
It seems we've reached a point that picture taking of young folk is tantamount to being a pedophile.
Although I think the whole situation here in the U.S. is over blown, I am always shocked to see what kind of pervs really are out there.
Here's a good example:
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article1857190.ece
I DON'T recommend doing a search for her name. It turns up some seriously twisted stuff.
I think the answer is a pretty clear NO. If someone can explain how a shot of a child running a 50m race or playing football makes them 'vulnerable' to sexually motivated phtographic exploitation I would be interested to know; not the tired old theory but examples. Paedophiles are extremely cunning and banning photography only denies parents and normally interested parents the pleasure of children, aprticipation in important events and the photographs to help cherish those memories. All this over sensitive and usually illogical 'protection' BS has become an end in itself as people battle one another to show just how 'concerned' and 'seriously they take the issue' without the first idea of what they are really combating and therefore what is effective and what is not. Its like security provision. Some people decide what the threat has to be to fit in with their own notion of what they want to do about it. When presented with contrary facts they tend to show little interest when their bubble is burst and their sense of enjoyment/fulfilment/gratification destroyed.
The random 'stranger paedophile' scenario is pretty rare (ie stranger let alone parent taking photos). I was under the impression that it is normally someone the kid knows or someone who gains access to the child and cultivates them. One only has to be aware of the childs activities and movements to deal with 99% of scenarios aside from the handful of 'stranger abduction scenarios'.
The irony here is striking. The teacher advoctes convoluted 'pleasure destroying' procedures for taking a few snaps of the kids when the teacher/scout master/music teacher represents far more of a threat to the children then the other parents as they have the time alone and unmonitored access etc. I cannot take pics of my kids playing footy but the teacher can watch them undress in the locker room and take a shower? This is ALL part of 'we are more responsible' offialdom assuming an ill deserved monopoly on responsibility. Again I am not sorry for being beligerant, but how DARE teachers tell me that I cannot take photos of a sporting contest when they have access to MY children that I cannot possibly monitor and precedent shows that those in such roles frequenly abuse them?
I think parents need to take back responsibility and tell over protective schools, councils, politicians etc where to shove it! Some measures are helpful (such as only nominated people being able to collec kids from school) but this photo stuff is plain lunacy.
I am a teacher AND ...Any photography or videography of young people needs permission because of this (it's also an issue with the break up of families - some parents have court orders against them preventing access to their children and a photo can let them know where the child is !) and if you watch TV footage of schoolkids on TV you will NEVER see faces shown.
Not my rules - I can't take the risk of comforting a child by placing a hand on their shoulder without another member of staff being in full view - but that is unfortunately the way of the world.... God I feel better for getting that off my chest (soapbox anyone !)
Cheers CJB
Not my rules...
Yes they are, really. If you don't fight them (for example by refusing to enforce them) who will? When I was a teacher I several times refused to enforce pointless, stupid, arrogant rules, though the ones about photography didn't exist in those days (30+ years ago).
Cheers,
Roger
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?