London Metropolitan Police loose the plot.

[Nick Zentena]

This is interesting, but not surprising. I mean if the same people tried to ban "bah-bah-black sheep"

Anti Japanese? Does this mean no war movies at all?

 

[Bob F.]

"However I'm now worried that the USA -> UK -> Eurore line in exporting insanity"

Hey, I resent that! The UK is perfectly capable of inventing its own insanity without US help thank you very much! ...

Forget it peeps: it won't happen, it's just posturing. Livingstone will do anything for publicity, but he won't pay for it, and neither will Mr Plod. The Met is even talking about stopping using the boards they use to request public help at scenes of serious crime because they feel it just makes people afraid of crime rather than being of any actual help.


Bob.

 

[Ole]

The UK is perfectly capable of inventing its own insanity without US help thank you very much! ...

That's viewed as "eccentricity", not insanity, by the rest of Europe. Now these recent "imports", however...

BTW, what are the politicians proposing to do about all the surveillance cameras in London? AFAIK London has the greatest surveillace camera coverage of the world - will they be banned too? Just in case a child wanders in front of one?

 

[leeturner]

Ole, that's just what I was thinking. In addition a large proportion of surveillance cameras are privately owned (night clubs, petrol stations etc.). What about speed cameras. If I get photographed speeding but have my children in the car .............................??? This is really going back to Bernie Grant days in Islington.

 

[Andy K]

I think we are missing the real issue here.

The problem isn't so much the proposal itself, the problem is the mindless hysteria it will whip up. It won't be long before we see stories of innocent photographers accused and hounded by 'the public', or even assaulted by a 'concerned parent'.

Accusations of paedophilic intent are serious, and is the kind of sh*t that sticks no matter how innocent the person.

The British are a great people, but sometimes they are dumb as rocks. All it takes is one headline from a hysterical Murdoch paper and the witch hunts will start.

 

[Stan. L-B]

A law that does not, or cannot work is, an ass.

 

[Pete H]

Ole, that's just what I was thinking. In addition a large proportion of surveillance cameras are privately owned (night clubs, petrol stations etc.). QUOTE]

So could everyone demand copies of images/video footage containing themselves under the Data Protection Act? Seems like a nice idea to swamp them with their own bureaucracy.

 

[Bob F.]

... not to mention Red Ken's very own Congestion Charge cameras....

Point is, it hasn't happened: and it won't happen - not in any meaningful way. It's all political posturing by a world leader in the game. The most you might see is a note attached to the information posters on park notice boards - and that won't happen until the next printing of new posters - and that will be in about 8 years time - and when was the last time you read a park notice board anyway?

I'm sorry, but there is a certain irony to the level of hysteria this is causing some people...

Anyway, how long does the average sign last on a London street or in a park before someone sprays paint all over it or tests its flammability qualities? About 24 hours on average...

Cheers, Bob.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I don't know enough about UK politics to know this, but in the US, much of the public concern about pedophilia comes from the right and tends to be focused on the gay community (the vast majority of whom are not pedophiles). This isn't to say that people of every political persuasion aren't concerned about pedophilia, but that the right uses the issue of pedophilia as another way to attack gay rights (and if they were really interested in protecting children they would shift the focus from gays to families, where most sexual abuse of children occurs).

Could "Red" Ken be using the issue to broaden his political base?

 

[Bob F.]

I don't know enough about UK politics to know this, but in the US, much of the public concern about pedophilia comes from the right and tends to be focused on the gay community (the vast majority of whom are not pedophiles). This isn't to say that people of every political persuasion aren't concerned about pedophilia, but that the right uses the issue of pedophilia as another way to attack gay rights (and if they were really interested in protecting children they would shift the focus from gays to families, where most sexual abuse of children occurs).

Could "Red" Ken be using the issue to broaden his political base?

Not really - it's apolitical here. Just a way for any politician, of any hue, to show how "concerned" they are. The "Red" bit BTW, refers to his previous life as doyen of the extreme left wing of the Labour party (now defunct).

Bob.

 

[benjiboy]

This brings to mind a report I read recently, in a newspaper,a lady who is listed in the local phone book, somewhere in Wales, as a pediatrician , had her house laid seige to by the local population in their ignorance.

 

[Rlibersky]

"Quote" According to a psychologist where I work, the crime of incest is so common in the United States, that it is STATISTICALLY NORMAL!! "Quote" (John Voss)

I can't let this go. If you actually have statistic that prove this from a reputable source I would like to see them. Otherwise I have a friend who has a friend that said everything said this way is made up of half truth and hurtful lies. Incest is not normal in America or I hope never will be. If the harden criminals in Our prisons will not put up with a convicted abuser.

Stop spewing crap without something to back it up. One mans or womans opinion is meaningless.

Sorry for the anger, I just get irked when something as horrible as this is spewwed out of the mouths of the ignorant.

 

[Andy K]

It may be horrible, and thoroughly unpleasant, but I just googled the incest incidence rates for the US, and it looks like jovo's psychologist was correct. I would presume from the study I just read that these figures may be similar for many countries.
It is truly sickening that these things happen in the modern world, in fact it is sickening they have ever happened at all.

 

[Bob F.]

This is about to get out of hand unless we are careful, so, I refer all to the second part of my signature...

Just 'cos someone wrote it down, does not mean it is true. And that goes double if it's written on a Web page...

Bob.

 

[Andy K]

You are of course correct Bob. Here's the page that came up when I googled 'incidence rates of incest in the United States'. It's accuracy is anyone's guess, but it does tally with jovo's earlier statement.

http://www.geocities.com/kidhistory/incestd1.htm

What it does say is that the majority of abuse is carried out by family members or people in the child's immediate social circle.
Which makes the hysteria about the stranger with a camera even less logical.

 

[gareth harper]

Please forgive being so particular, but there is a difference between 'loose' and 'lose' and they are typically turned around as in the title to this nice thread.

lose , verb, lost, losing.
v.t. 1. to not have any longer; have taken away from one by accident, carelessness, parting, or death.
Ex. to lose a finger, to lose a dollar, to lose a friend, to lose one's life.
2. to be unable to find.
Ex. to lose a book, to lose an address.

loose , adjective,
adj. 1. not fastened.
Ex. a loose thread.
(SYN) unbound, unfastened, untied.
2. not tight.

Ah, that felt better. Sorry, but thanks.

David, while loose could be used in the context of the thread title, I probably meant to use lose. Sorry.

Now while I appreciate good English, for example I love the writing of George Orwell (who seems allergic to semi-colons or something, so I‘m told), I'm an Industrial Instrument Technician, not a writer or any sort of expert on English. Yes my command of sadly the only language I really know is not very good.
However this is a photography forum. Generally, as I understand, such forums are for the posting of messages, it's an informal virtual world. I also, like I guess many people posting here, only have a certain amount of time to do so.
Nor do I think we should get too fussy about language, we certainly should not be frightening off people who's first language is not English, or those who have difficulties with the English language, or perhaps those who suffer from dyslexia. WE are here for film photography, first and foremost.

Meanwhile I have changed the title, so hopefully you will feel even better.

 

[gareth harper]

You are of course correct Bob. Here's the page that came up when I googled 'incidence rates of incest in the United States'. It's accuracy is anyone's guess, but it does tally with jovo's earlier statement.

http://www.geocities.com/kidhistory/incestd1.htm

What it does say is that the majority of abuse is carried out by family members or people in the child's immediate social circle.
Which makes the hysteria about the stranger with a camera even less logical.

Exactly Andy. In most cases of child abuse, whether it's sexual or otherwise, the child knows the abuser, and that person is usually a family member.

And the incident Bentley Boyd refers to really did happen. Nor was it that long ago that that dirty rag the News of the World was publishing numerous photographs of pedophiles, many innocent people got beat up as a result.

We've also had here in Scotland the completely ridiculous situation where people have been banned from filming or photographing children at Christmas nativety plays, including the parents of the children. In order to film or photograph at some of these school events you need written permission of every parent of every child in the play.

Meanwhile can somebody please tell me what harm I am doing to a fully clothed child by taking their picture in public. Nor do I imagine there is much, if any at all, demand from pedophiles for such pictures.

This is absolute madness, and dangerous madness at that.
Hopefully AP will have more detail on this next week and with luck it will be get it nipped in the bud.

 

[Rlibersky]

Originally Posted by Andy K
You are of course correct Bob. Here's the page that came up when I googled 'incidence rates of incest in the United States'. It's accuracy is anyone's guess, but it does tally with jovo's earlier statement.

http://www.geocities.com/kidhistory/incestd1.htm

This report is using ranges of 3 to 40% this is a ridiculess way of arguing any issue. If you read the study the extrapolate a lot of what they say.

This is also from the University of Incest. Could there be an agenda to thier choosing the higher number as factual. They don't give a pass to Europe either. Or for that matter anywhere in the world. If you read the study the extrapolate a lot of what they say.

By the way this is not an accredited institution or at least I couldn't find anything that gives that impression unless calling yourself a university of something automaticcaly qualifies.

Please try again.

 

[eric]

Proper big brother stuff.

Isn't London filled with camera survelance everywhere in public places? Privacy rights people condemed it (well, too strong a word). So it is okay for London officials to photograph everyone but not everyone else?

 

[Andy K]

This is also from the University of Incest. Could there be an agenda to thier choosing the higher number as factual. They don't give a pass to Europe either. Or for that matter anywhere in the world. If you read the study the extrapolate a lot of what they say.

Please try again.

Actually it is a document which is titled 'The Universality Of Incest' not University. Read it again. It goes on to describe various practices in India and also the western world. if you had read past the title you would have seen that.

I just took the first link that appeared in a google search. I was shocked at jovo's statement, so I decided to find out for myself.

Of course there is always the 'if I shut my eyes it won't be true' approach.

 

[Rlibersky]

Actually it is a document which is titled 'The Universality Of Incest' not University. Read it again. It goes on to describe various practices in India and also the western world. if you had read past the title you would have seen that.

Well you didn't answer the question of 3-40%. Does mean it is an accurate study? Seems more like a weather report to me.

So I took your advice and looked a little further here is what I found:

Child Abuse & Child Sexual Abuse ~ Substantiated

Composition of substantiated child abuse in 2000:
879,000 children were victims of child maltreatment.
Way to many
Neglect ~ 63%
Physical ~ 19%
Sexual ~ 10%
Hardly 40% but still way to many
Psychological ~ 8%

Victimization rates declined as age increased.
Rate of victimization per 1,000 children of the same age group:
Birth to 3 years old = 15.7 victims per 1,000.
Ages 16 and 17 = 5.7 victims per 1,000.

Except for victims of sexual abuse, rates
were similar for male and female victimization:
11.2 and 12.8 per 1,000 children respectively.
Rate of sexual abuse by gender:
1.7 victims per 1,000 female children
0.4 victims per 1,000 male children.

Rate of child abuse by race:
White = 51%
African American = 25%
Hispanic = 15%
American Indian/Alaska Natives = 2%
Asian/Pacific Islanders = 1%

The comparative annual rate of child victims:
decreased steadily from 15.3 victims per 1,000 children in 1993
to 11.8 victims per 1,000 children in 1999;
then increased to 12.2 per 1,000 children in 2000.
Whether this is a trend cannot be determined until additional data are collected.

Source: US Dept of Health and Human Services
I'm sure agenda driven,
Administration for Children & Families,
National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect, 2000.

These numbers suck and we should work to get them down to zero. Outlawing pictures of kids will not effect these numbers in any significant way. It also shows that this is not STATISTICALLY NORMAL in the US either.

No more to be said

 

[Jim Chinn]

Obviously the answer to the incest statistic is to turn all newborns over to the state to be raised. Then we can get rid of those nasty families, and middle age concepts such as marriage and get down to some real headonistic living.

 

[Andy K]

Way to many

How do you know? The people who wrote the report have done the research, have you?
I'm not looking for an argument here, I just posted a link because what jovo said shocked me, I never expected to find any confirmation.
Just covering your eyes and ears and shouting 'La la la', won't make the problem go away.

Now can we get back to the topic at hand please?

 

[arigram]

They have been chasing photographers and journalists for a long time... its not "the children" they fear for, it is the media they fear of...
A criminal nowdays is not one with a weapon, but one with a recording device.

 

[photobackpacker]

There is a movement afoot to "normalize" pedophilia. This has its roots in the work Kinsey did in the 50's and 60's. One of the more recent works came from a feminist writer named Judith Levine. Her book, Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex, I am ashamed to say, was published by the University of Minnesota Press. The forward to the book was written by Dr. Joycelyn Elders, Clinton Administration Surgeon General. She actually went on television to defend the book. After a few minutes of embarrassing to watch dialog the interviewer asked her if she had actually read the book. She admitted she had not......

Lawmakers don't seem to understand that a free society depends upon citizens exercising their free will in ways that contribute to the strengthening of society and regard for each other.

"The problem with normal is it always gets worse."
- Bruce Coburn, songwriter

"If laws prevented crime, we'd be the best behaved society in the history of civilization." - UNK