Photographing Children - Joe Duffy Show

crusher000

Just an add on, but at my local play ground any adult isn't allowed into the playground if they're not accompaning a child ? Why is that I wonder ?

DaireQuinlan

crusher000 wrote: »

Just an add on, but at my local play ground any adult isn't allowed into the playground if they're not accompaning a child ? Why is that I wonder ?

Pandering to fear mongering and sensationalism.

crusher000

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Pandering to fear mongering and sensationalism.

Your so right as the world is really a pleasent place and safe to rear your child the majority of the time. Tapping into peoples fears is a great ploy. Next time I go to the playground I'll leave my child un attended go to the shops and all will be well when I return. Social services need not worry as I will leave her with a contact number labelled to her coat. Hopefully whilst I'm away she will be photographed multiple times and her iimage will appear at photo exhibitons and competitions nationwide winning vast amount of awards for the photographers because at the end of the day it's people with phones I need to watch out for at playgrounda and it's them I need to be accousting not people with their lenses in through the fence.

Tallon

crusher000 wrote: »

For the love of God. So all evils that fall upon a child is due to bad parenting. "People are too sensitive when it comes to the idea of peadophiles. If parents were more vigilant in looking after their kids and bringing them up with cop on they wouldn't end up getting hurt!!! "

If parents didn't bring children to the pool they won't drown. Christ all might . If it's my child I will protect them and if I take offence at a photographer taking photos of my child I will. It seems from some of the posts here that allowing someone unknown to you take a photo of your child has more rights than you the parent showing concern over said action. It's a free country and take pictures all you want but if I don't want my child for what ever reason to be photographed it's not going to happen. Find a new subject matter from a parent that doesn't mind.

It's not the parent 'showing concern' that's the issue, it's the way in which they Show such concern!

Just because you aren't comfortable with something someone is doing, doesn't give you the right to abuse them either verbally or physically!

crusher000

Tallon wrote: »

It's not the parent 'showing concern' that's the issue, it's the way in which they Show such concern!

Just because you aren't comfortable with something someone is doing, doesn't give you the right to abuse them either verbally or physically!

Two sides alright, i agree . Scenario 1 I over react to someone that I take offence too innocently photographing my child and am 100% in the wrong. Outcome my child is safe.

scenarion 2 . I leave it be and don't do anything and somebody sees photo of my child whomever it maybe and draws their attention towards her. May not even be the person that took the photo. So they then know where photo was taken. Start to hang around this area and ............. Something happens to my child. I then live in the if only I did.....

I'd rather over react and be wrong than to do nothing and suffer. That's all. I'm not proclaiming my view is right,but for my child I will put myself into places and situations that may not be comfortable in order to protect my child. When it comes to kids , protecting parents will often act irrationaly and without thinking. Are they wrong ? Probably. Have they the safety of their child at heart ? Absolutely.

Tallon

crusher000 wrote: »

Two sides alright, i agree . Scenario 1 I over react to someone that I take offence too innocently photographing my child and am 100% in the wrong. Outcome my child is safe.

scenarion 2 . I leave it be and don't do anything and somebody sees photo of my child whomever it maybe and draws their attention towards her. May not even be the person that took the photo. So they then know where photo was taken. Start to hang around this area and ............. Something happens to my child. I then live in the if only I did.....

I'd rather over react and be wrong than to do nothing and suffer. That's all. I'm not proclaiming my view is right,but for my child I will put myself into places and situations that may not be comfortable in order to protect my child. When it comes to kids , protecting parents will often act irrationaly and without thinking. Are they wrong ? Probably. Have they the safety of their child at heart ? Absolutely.

There's my point! Why would you Over React? Why not just... react?

You can ask someone what they're doing without being a dickhead

CabanSail

crusher000 wrote: »

scenarion 2 . I leave it be and don't do anything and somebody sees photo of my child whomever it maybe and draws their attention towards her. May not even be the person that took the photo. So they then know where photo was taken. Start to hang around this area and ............. Something happens to my child. I then live in the if only I did......

To be fair, that is an extremely far fetched scenario.

Kenny Logins

SinisterDexter wrote: »

Anybody stop to think that he may have been working for an insurance company taking photos of a 'guy' who has 'back issues' and is claiming off the insurance. He wouldn't want to be showing what he was really taking photos of, incase the other guy went and told the target.

Just my quick thoughts on the situation.

On second thought.... He may have been the target, no wonder he would be angry!

smash

Tallon wrote: »

Doesn't matter how you feel, there's nothing you can do about it, and the tog is perfectly allowed to take one of you or your child

Again. Have respect for your subject!

Tallon

smash wrote: »

Again. Have respect for your subject!

What about when the subject approaches you in an aggressive manor, threatens you, makes a scene about you being a peado, then grabs you and won't let go because he's making a 'citizens arrest'?

Do I still have to have respect them?

All hypothetical... of course!

Edit: and ffs, can people stop editing my posts when quoting them to make it look out of context!

Smash, read my whole post that you have just edited above

Winty

magicbastarder wrote: »

tog is short for photographer, bots is probably short for the botanic gardens.

Is TOG not short for Terry's Old Gits from the Wogan breakfast show on BBC radio 2

smash

Tallon wrote: »

What about when the subject approaches you in an aggressive manor, threatens you, makes a scene about you being a peado, then grabs you and won't let go because he's making a 'citizens arrest'?

Do I still have to have respect them?

All hypothetical... of course!

Edit: and ffs, can people stop editing my posts when quoting them to make it look out of context!

Smash, read my whole post that you have just edited above

You're missing the point. Your statement was "Doesn't matter how you feel". These threads have come up time and time again and there are two general rules that most people agree with:

1: Use common sense
2: Have respect for your subject

By disregarding someone's feelings just because you want a photo, you don't have respect for them!

Tallon

smash wrote: »

You're missing the point. Your statement was "Doesn't matter how you feel". These threads have come up time and time again and there are two general rules that most people agree with:

1: Use common sense
2: Have respect for your subject

By disregarding someone's feelings just because you want a photo, you don't have respect for them!

It wasn't a statement, it was a post... there is a few more sentences after "Doesn't matter how you feel" and if you quoted me correctly, you would see the context!

smash

Tallon wrote: »

It wasn't a statement, it was a post... there is a few more sentences after "Doesn't matter how you feel" and if you quoted me correctly, you would see the context!

Adding "The problem arises when someone takes offence and deals with it in a childish manner..." doesn't dismiss the fact that you don't care how your subject feels.

A major role of a parent is to guard their children, if they feel under threat for their children they will lash out. So by using common sense and having respect for your subject you can easily stop this happening.

breffni666

pullandbang wrote: »

Anyone catch the hullabaloo on Joe Duffy at lunchtime? Apparently guy in playground in Stepehns Green with his daughter spots a tog outside the railings with his camera pushed through said railings, snapping away at the kids.
He approaches the tog and confronts him only to be told by the tog to mind his own business, that he's an Irish citizen and can photograph who he likes as it's a public area. Refuses to show the images to the dad or to delete them. Dad approaches park ranger only to be told that there is nothing he can do about it and that the Gardai will tell him the same.

If this was in the UK the ****e would be kicked sideways out of him and his camera taken from him. Why do we not care about children in this country?

Tallon

smash wrote: »

Adding "The problem arises when someone takes offence and deals with it in a childish manner..." doesn't dismiss the fact that you don't care how your subject feels.

A major role of a parent is to guard their children, if they feel under threat for their children they will lash out. So by using common sense and having respect for your subject you can easily stop this happening.

I'm done debating this with you since you don't have the capabilities to quote a post!

jpb1974 said he didn't feel comfortable having a camera pointed at him, I said it didn't matter as the tog is allowed!

How can you not see past that?

Again, the problem only arises when people decide to be judge, jury and executioner all themselves, instead of informing the correct authorities or even raising there concerns with the tog respectfully

Tallon

breffni666 wrote: »

If this was in the UK the ****e would be kicked sideways out of him and his camera taken from him. Why do we not care about children in this country?

Erm, then whoever did would be arrested, charged and probably be in prison, while the photographer would be at home, with his camera back, having a cup of tea

Same law applies in the UK.

Doesn't mean you can go kicking the shít out of people!

magicbastarder

gsxr1 wrote: »

So its the parents fault now that there is freaks around stalking children. Dear god .

A DINGO TOUCHED MA BAYBEH

jpb1974

1: Use common sense
2: Have respect for your subject

That's sums it, and it ain't rocket science.

I won't be contributing to this thread any further.

Tallon

1: Use common sense
2: Have respect for your subject
3. Have respect for the Photographer

DaireQuinlan

crusher000 wrote: »

Your so right as the world is really a pleasent place and safe to rear your child the majority of the time. Tapping into peoples fears is a great ploy. Next time I go to the playground I'll leave my child un attended go to the shops and all will be well when I return. Social services need not worry as I will leave her with a contact number labelled to her coat. Hopefully whilst I'm away she will be photographed multiple times and her iimage will appear at photo exhibitons and competitions nationwide winning vast amount of awards for the photographers because at the end of the day it's people with phones I need to watch out for at playgrounda and it's them I need to be accousting not people with their lenses in through the fence.

Daily mail much ?

smash

Tallon wrote: »

I'm done debating this with you since you don't have the capabilities to quote a post!

I quoted the relevant parts of your post. Here's the last line if you really want it: "You do realise you're on camera about 90% of the time you're outside, right?"

Which again, has nothing to do with your original point of "Doesn't matter how you feel, there's nothing you can do about it, and the tog is perfectly allowed to take one of you or your child"

Tallon wrote: »

jpb1974 said he didn't feel comfortable having a camera pointed at him, I said it didn't matter as the tog is allowed!

How can you not see past that?

Because my point is about having respect for the people you're shooting and using your common sense. Who cares if the tog is allowed? If the subject or their guardian doesn't want to be photographed then you're not respecting them are you? It can actually make people feel violated. But sure forget about that, now you have a photo which you can store on your flickr account for no apparent reason other than you wanted to take the photo.

Tallon wrote: »

Again, the problem only arises when people decide to be judge, jury and executioner all themselves, instead of informing the correct authorities or even raising there concerns with the tog respectfully

The word tog is being thrown around too much here as if holding a camera in your hand gives you the right to do what you want and ignore what others feel. At a playground etc, a guy with a camera is just a guy with a camera. Nobody knows if he's professional and planning on selling the photos or if he's just a creep. Especially if there's no interaction and he's peering through a fence with a big zoom lens. And this is where common sense comes into it.

If you were walking down the road with your girlfriend and I started taking photos of her chest or ass and said "She's in public, I can do what I want" would you accept it?

Tallon

smash wrote: »

I quoted the relevant parts of your post. Here's the last line if you really want it: "You do realise you're on camera about 90% of the time you're outside, right?"

Which again, has nothing to do with your original point of "Doesn't matter how you feel, there's nothing you can do about it, and the tog is perfectly allowed to take one of you or your child"


Because my point is about having respect for the people you're shooting and using your common sense. Who cares if the tog is allowed? If the subject or their guardian doesn't want to be photographed then you're not respecting them are you? It can actually make people feel violated. But sure forget about that, now you have a photo which you can store on your flickr account for no apparent reason other than you wanted to take the photo.


The word tog is being thrown around too much here as if holding a camera in your hand gives you the right to do what you want and ignore what others feel. At a playground etc, a guy with a camera is just a guy with a camera. Nobody knows if he's professional and planning on selling the photos or if he's just a creep. Especially if there's no interaction and he's peering through a fence with a big zoom lens. And this is where common sense comes into it.

If you were walking down the road with your girlfriend and I started taking photos of her chest or ass and said "She's in public, I can do what I want" would you accept it?

Being perfectly honest, she'd probably pose for you since she's not a bubble wrapped idiot who thinks your a peado!

I don't know what your interpretation of the word tog (photographer) means... but in short, it means, the person with the camera who takes photos

If your granny took photos of a kid at a playground with a point and shoot camera, she is a Tog!

breffni666

Tallon wrote: »

Erm, then whoever did would be arrested, charged and probably be in prison, while the photographer would be at home, with his camera back, having a cup of tea

Same law applies in the UK.

Doesn't mean you can go kicking the shít out of people!

Wouldn't cost me a thought. F***ers everywhere. Looking at Vincient Browne last night brought it all home. They are everywhere and they are after your children. Why do we sanitise this whole situation? IMO this behaviour goes right to the top of society so it doesn't get the bad press it deserves. Look at the states response to vulnerable children in the states care 200+ DEAD, yes DEAD in their care and still none gives a sh*t. Don't be fooled. Look at the BBC ffs, they've covered for Savile for years.
Just keep an eye on your children and do all you can to keep them safe and if you see something that looks wrong then challenge it EVERY time!!! Don't wait for the authorities because bad enough that they don't care worse is they are complicit when they get the chance!

Cienciano

crusher000 wrote: »

Just an add on, but at my local play ground any adult isn't allowed into the playground if they're not accompaning a child ? Why is that I wonder ?

Watch the Brass Eye "documentary" on paedophiles. Seriously! It's a comedy, but gives a real insight into the media frenzy about it. People will do and say anything if they're told it stops paedophilia.

Tallon

breffni666 wrote: »

Wouldn't cost me a thought. F***ers everywhere. Looking at Vincient Browne last night brought it all home. They are everywhere and they are after your children. Why do we sanitise this whole situation? IMO this behaviour goes right to the top of society so it doesn't get the bad press it deserves. Look at the states response to vulnerable children in the states care 200+ DEAD, yes DEAD in their care and still none gives a sh*t. Don't be fooled. Look at the BBC ffs, they've covered for Savile for years.
Just keep an eye on your children and do all you can to keep them safe and if you see something that looks wrong then challenge it EVERY time!!! Don't wait for the authorities because bad enough that they don't care worse is they are complicit when they get the chance!

Are you honestly advocating vigilante behavior because of some crap you saw on Vincent Browne?

You must be one of the people that listen to Joe Duffy too :rolleyes:

Do you answer the door to the postman at all? What if he's a peado and actually checking your house for children :eek:

ronan45

Last Halloween some kids came to the door trick or treating (which i think is great fun love giving out the candies and sweets)

Anyway one bunch of kids arrived dressed as ZOMBIE ROCK STARS They looked like a Mini Kiss band. I thought it was really cool. I went to take a piccy with my phone camera and the parents stepped forward and said "sorry I dont want their photos taken no offence but you know yourself in this day and age".
I quickly put the phone away and said Sorry i didnt even realise. put me off answering the door to trick or treaters lol. Last time Ill make that mistake :eek:
I was actually taking it to show the OH who had called to the door as she was ill in bed. But how and ever!

smash

Tallon wrote: »

Being perfectly honest, she'd probably pose for you since she's not a bubble wrapped idiot who thinks your a peado!

Seriously doubt it, and I doubt you'd be ok with it either.

Tallon wrote: »

I don't know what your interpretation of the word tog (photographer) means... but in short, it means, the person with the camera who takes photos

If your granny took photos of a kid at a playground with a point and shoot camera, she is a Tog!

I know what it's short for, but lets face it there's a difference between an actual photographer and someone who owns a camera.

breffni666

Tallon wrote: »

Are you honestly advocating vigilante behavior because of some crap you saw on Vincent Browne?

You must be one of the people that listen to Joe Duffy too :rolleyes:

Do you answer the door to the postman at all? What if he's a peado and actually checking your house for children :eek:

Don't listen to Duffy, watch very little Browne. I'm just a parent of 3 children who will do whatever it takes to protect them. Would you not do the same or would you "wait for the authorities to deal with it"? If you thought you children were in imminent danger would you run for the gards or deal with the issue there and then. I'm not advocating vigilante behaviour, I'm telling you what I would do, but I'm 6'2 and a big fecker so I can. You obviously don't have children.

Tallon

smash wrote: »

Seriously doubt it, and I doubt you'd be ok with it either.

Why do you doubt it? I'm after telling you I would be okay with it, and you can honestly ask her if you don't believe me. She's on Boards

smash wrote: »

I know what it's short for, but lets face it there's a difference between an actual photographer and someone who owns a camera.

Can you enlighten me on the differences?

Is a peado an actually photographer, or just someone with a camera?