Children at sports events

[Adrian Twiss]

Kids at sports

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 can’t make people be sensible again, they won’t keep it at tapping…

Back to children. Think of what I wrote about that hurt child. Isn’t that bad enough?

Would were it that simple. Around where I live the tap on the shoulder is followed by the swift kick in the grillocks. Sadly the knuckle draggers hit first and ask questions later.

 

[pentaxuser]

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?

Are there more paedophiles out there now? If so how has this come about? Have we just simply spawned them and if so how? It's difficult to believe that if X% of any generation has such tendencies then in the space of one generation it is now X+ % such that the threat has grown massively.

Certainly we are now tuned into the signs of increased paedophilia but is this a real or largely imaginary increase?

If we are told something often enough or fed "information" enough, we come to believe it and act accordingly.

I find it worrying how few years it takes to change people's perception through "information" and more chillingly to make people forget that it was not always so, even within their own recent memory which has been effectively erased.

pentaxuser

 

[DBP]

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?

 

[copake_ham]

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?

No, you're not the only one at all. Certainly the fear (warranted or not) that many parents have has resulted in the concept of "play dates" and structured recreation.

Other contributory factors include the generally structured lifestyles that many families (particularly the "upwardly mobile") have created wherein everyone, parent and child, has a "schedule of events" that has to be organized. Also, newer suburban developments tend to create isolated environments with little public space. Ever notice how few "modern suburbs" have sidewalks? Think of it, how many kids nowadays bicycle to school?

One poster queried whether there has been an increase in pedophilia or just greater awareness. Does it matter? I'd hazard to guess it's just greater awareness but that doesn't change the situation from what it's become.

And it cuts both ways. Just as we've seen instances where pedophiles take advantage of new "venues" such as the Web - so we have seen victims do the same. Look how quickly the world became aware of the tragedy of the 4 y.o. British girl who "disappeared" while on on holiday with her parents in Portugal. Within a few days - a web site was set up, celebrities pledged their "help" etc.

Face it folks, this isn't the 20th century anymore. The days of blocks full of baby boomers playing on the front lawns and backyards etc. are gone.

 

[reub2000]

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.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Am I the only one who sees a correlation between the extreme risk aversion encouraged by popular media and the decline of unstructured play?

No, you are not the only one. The RSA Journal had a couple of articles on it, two or three issues back, and recently the BBC has been getting more interested: for example, talking to young mothers outside the gates of a primary school about their own childhood (walked to school . . . had to be home before dark when I went out playing . . . building dens in the woods) and the fact that they regarded it as 'irresponsible' to let their own children do the same thing. That was in Birchington in Kent -- I noticed because I used to live there -- and I also know that nearby, maybe 10-15 miles away, there is (or was, a couple of years back) an old cinema converted into a prison for kids: sorry, a 'safe play area' where their parent pay to have them locked up...

One other thought on this thread is that at school sports days and football matches, it would be a bit odd if strangers turned up, but equally, on public sports grounds, or in the street, it is a a bit odd to ban them.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

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

 

[Tom Stanworth]

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

Absolutely. All the things that get my skin crawling

• Summer Camps
• Timetabled Play
• Play dates
• 'Team Building' and the notion that everyone has to be a 'Team Player'.
• Fastidious hygeine and widespread hypochondria
• Lack of school field trips
• Governments that tell us what is good for us (and imposes it without asking)
• Social services, councils and schools that do the same

I might be only 31 but I really am looking to resist where I can and bury my head in the sand where I cannot. No wonder so many children (and parents) now go to shrinks. People are losing their ability to function independently, make decisions (and accept that THEY have to accept the possible negative consequences), take responsibility, accept and generally cope with the adversity life throws at them.

Its one thing I very much respect about Continental Europeans; they GET ON WITH IT.

Heaven help the west, really. I work in the east and the contrast in vigor is startling. When are sitting in our living rooms endlessly debating whether it was right for C4 to show a shot of the car Diana died in (despite the fact that pictures of car wrecks and pile ups on the motorway involving normal people feature in the daily papers) we know that we have serious problems. To me, our namby pambying is akin to Nero playing the violin when.....

 

[Antje]

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?

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

 

[David H. Bebbington]

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 change is that over this period we have developed a life style in which we are more isolated from our fellow human beings and so lose a sense of reality, which is then replaced by the impression we gain from TV shows which recycle police surveillance footage, recount the very worst cases of recent years, etc. Add in the cult of political correctness, which among other things seems to suggest that ANY contact between adult males and children to whom they are not related indicates criminal intent, and you're all set for mass hysteria!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Wouldn't our children be safer far away from home then, playing in the woods?
Antje

Dear Antje,

You're not supposed to THINK! Just to REACT!

Cheers,

Roger

 

[copake_ham]

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

It's interesting and simply coincidental, but an article just this past Tuesday in the NY Times confirms that this is the situation here too. Randomized child abuse crimes are down - but there has been a much greater focus now on crimes committed by family, friends and "trusted adults" such as teachers, priests etc.

Again, it's impossible to determine if there is a real increase in such crimes - or just more widespread reporting thereof. But, again, does it matter? Most people are going to behave in accordance with their perceptions - despite how many statistics you show them.

 

[reub2000]

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

I was mostly kidding.

 

[thebanana]

but there has been a much greater focus now on crimes committed by family, friends and "trusted adults" such as teachers, priests etc.

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.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I was mostly kidding.

My deepest apologies. This is always the problem with the internet...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

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.

Oh come on, the Madeleine McCann incident proves otherwise......(sarcasm)

I used to roam widely on my bike, playing wih friends in the woods, gravel pit, railway lines....maybe thats why I love the outdoors to the point of being unabl to contemplate a conventional office job. Damn. If only my parents had kept me locked up I might have done something useful with my life

Roger, you are old school. Judgement, acceptible risk, learning by your mistakes etc are all out of date concepts. I am sorry, but you have been outmoded by far more 'intelligent' concepts cooked up in university departments and imposed with puritanical zeal by people who know far better . I remember ditching a psychology subsidiary at university because the (social psychology) lecturer was talking claptrap. For each concept that needed explaining there was a 'desired outcome' .....and then ridiculous show of logic aerobatics required to get from 'eroneous common perception' to 'enlightened politically correct verdict'. If had been older at the time I would have laughed out loud. I took on the subsid hoping for enlightenment and thoroughly enjoyed the clinical and other aspects. Some areas were however, shall we say, somewhat less objective. I am sure it would have been impressively scientific and 'proven' to someone doing a performing arts degree but for someone studying a science some of it was as objective as Gen Melchitt at Captain Blackadder's 'Speckled Jim' trial. Sadly this same sort of agenda has woven its way somewhat further than university departments.

my word I am a miserable git. Sorry. Maybe I need couselling?

 

[filmbug]

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.

I think a few pictures of the bystanders glaring would be more interesting than pictures of kids splashing water.

Sometime in the early nineties when I was living in the east coast, I was taking pictures at a outdoor community event in a public park. There was a water fountain in the park and a group of kids were playing in the water in spite of a sign that said something along the line of "No wading allowed in fountain." As I was pondering whether it is worth a frame of Kodachome to capture something so cliche, a guy walked passed me with his kids and suggested that I should take a shot. He said he's got a shot of the same situation.

Last year, I was in the street-photography workshop at the conference. A participant suggested to the workshop leader that it maybe a good idea to go over to the park to photograph the kids in the wading pool. The workshop leader declined. He also mentioned that he's staying away from photographing kids on the streets nowadays due to the public perceptions.

 

[Terence]

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.

 

[copake_ham]

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.

The other day I was in a business meeting and someone idly mentioned that you cannot trust any photograph anymore. She noted that with PS one can be placed into or removed from an image such that no photograph can any longer be considered a record of what actually happened.

Sad times indeed.

 

[digiconvert]

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 have been involved in the scout movemnt for many years. I think the whole thing is crackers but in this mad compensation obsessed world in which we live where the VERY small minority of pretty repugnant deviants are depicted as commonplace by tabloids who want to boost sales there's always the chance that someone will complain !
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

 

[Sirius Glass]

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

See Posting #50 this thread. This is the same environment that my girlfriend deals with as a elementary school principle on this side of the Pond.

Steve

 

[Roger Hicks]

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

 

[Sirius Glass]

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

The problem is that a teacher or principal could loose their job, their credientals, and be both criminally and civilly liable for not enforcing the laws.

Steve

 

[AgX]

One gets bullied, the other gets a slap in his face and the third looses his job.

Actually we could end this thread here...

 

[BrianShaw]

Knowing, just by the thread title, that my blood pressure might rise... I read only postings #1 and 74. I'll make up my own middle and might even get a decent screenplay out of it!