Photographing Children - Joe Duffy Show

Tallon

breffni666 wrote: »

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.

I don't care what height you are, if you attack someone because they took a photo of your child, then you are a scumbag... plain and simple

mdebets

breffni666 wrote: »

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.

No, you don't. You are doing what you think will protect them, but in reality has no real impact.
If you really want to protect your children, you would not allow them to meet their family and friends and even don't get in contact with you, as family and friends are a much higher risk (80% vs. 3%) than any stranger to assault your children sexually.

OldNotWIse

gsxr1 wrote: »

Yeah yeah. Ye can huff and puff all the way the bank, but when you interfere with someones kids like the OP has described, expect a parent to kick up.

Why not just stop taking sneeky pictures of children and not stir a parents first natural reaction.

I would wonder if such a case did arrive in court, what the judge would rule on.

Side with a sneaky, possible pervert photographer
or side with a parent(s) who thought he was doing the right thing .

These days, with all the sick feckers out there. I bet nothing would be done, and the media would turn the photographer into an example.

A judge would follow the law. That's their job. They are their to interpret and apply the law, not charge people because they are "a bit weird" or "might be x,y,or z".

breffni666

Tallon wrote: »

I don't care what height you are, if you attack someone because they took a photo of your child, then you are a scumbag... plain and simple

I'll take that risk. If that is what makes me a scumbag then its something I will have to live with.
Its out of order in this day and age to take our cameras or picture phones where children are present,full stop. Its just not on anymore. Yes in the innocent past all was ok but we are more enlightened now are we not? Would you take your camera out at the swimming pool? Thought not! You know what would happen to you and this would be behaviour of reasonable people not scumbags.

smash

Tallon wrote: »

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

No thanks

Tallon wrote: »

Can you enlighten me on the differences?

I'm sure if you told a professional that you were a photographer, solely on the basis that you own a camera, they'd think differently. In the same way you wouldn't tell Wayne Rooney that you're a footballer just because you own a football.

Tallon wrote: »

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

He's someone who's shooting for the sole purpose to get himself off.

Tallon

breffni666 wrote: »

I'll take that risk. If that is what makes me a scumbag then its something I will have to live with.
Its out of order in this day and age to take our cameras or picture phones where children are present,full stop. Its just not on anymore. Yes in the innocent past all was ok but we are more enlightened now are we not? Would you take your camera out at the swimming pool? Thought not! You know what would happen to you and this would be behaviour of reasonable people not scumbags.

You sound like a model parent

Going to prison, while your children stay at home or in foster care

A true role model!

breffni666

mdebets wrote: »

No, you don't. You are doing what you think will protect them, but in reality has no real impact.
If you really want to protect your children, you would not allow them to meet their family and friends and even don't get in contact with you, as family and friends are a much higher risk (80% vs. 3%) than any stranger to assault your children sexually.

You must be a priest. That's the language they use as well. We all know where the dangers are, that does not mean there no dangers when you are out and about. That's a cop-out imo. The 3% you advocate have been the ones most trusted in society so they are even worse if that is possible than the 80%.

Kenny Logins

breffni666 wrote: »

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.

What danger? Somebody took a photo in their general direction.

OldNotWIse

gsxr1 wrote: »

So its the parents fault now that there is freaks around stalking children. Dear god . Your right about this thread being tripe.

Lets make this simple for the above member.

1.Dont take creepy pics of kids at a playground because it makes you look like a pedophile .

2.And don't get upset when a parent grabs you by the neck for being a creepy fecker who takes pics of their children playing in a playground.

If you cant see how the two statements worry people, then you may want to take a long look at yourself before the voices start telling you to do bad things.:rolleyes:

1. I dont. Mostly because I believe in my Father's sentiment- children are like farts...you can just about tolerate your own. I'm not really a huge fan of other people's kids. I mean, they are there and all and a fact of life but really, I could care less. (Though I make an exception for my godson, he's cool ) I'd be far more likely to ask a fellow dog owner if I could photograph their dog

2. If I did decide to waste my time photographing someone else's progeny that is my legal right, and if you grabbed me by the neck, whatever about being surprised (which is largely irrelevant) I would take a case against you for assault...and I'm pretty sure you'd be convicted, whether you agree with that or not.

breffni666

Kenny Logins wrote: »

What danger? Somebody took a photo in their general direction.

I stand corrected. If that's the case and it is just aimless photography then fine but really anyone taking out a camera other than the professionals doing professional work not personal pix is asking for trouble if they click anywhere near children.

mdebets

breffni666 wrote: »

You must be a priest. That's the language they use as well. We all know where the dangers are, that does not mean there no dangers when you are out and about. That's a cop-out imo. The 3% you advocate have been the ones most trusted in society so they are even worse if that is possible than the 80%.

You haven't read the link in my original post. The trusted in society are actually at 12%. The 3% are really just strangers off the street. So you try to battle a tiny problem (3%), but are totally oblivious to the larger problem (80%).

OldNotWIse

breffni666 wrote: »

I'll take that risk. If that is what makes me a scumbag then its something I will have to live with.
Its out of order in this day and age to take our cameras or picture phones where children are present,full stop. Its just not on anymore. Yes in the innocent past all was ok but we are more enlightened now are we not? Would you take your camera out at the swimming pool? Thought not! You know what would happen to you and this would be behaviour of reasonable people not scumbags.

I wouldnt take my camera out in the swimming pool...it'd get wet

Seriously though, you need to stop being so hysterical. Clearly (and thankfully might I add) none of you have ever been abused. Take it from someone who has...if you think taking a photograph of a child amounts to abuse then you are clearly living in a parallel universe. There are far worse things that some of us have been through. Get some perspective please.

breffni666

mdebets wrote: »

You haven't read the link in my original post. The trusted in society are actually at 12%. The 3% are really just strangers off the street. So you try to battle a tiny problem (3%), but are totally oblivious to the larger problem (80%).

Win the small battles first, the 3%, before moving onto the bigger problems, the 12% then onto the rest.

Tallon

breffni666 wrote: »

Win the small battles first, the 3%, before moving onto the bigger problems, the 12% then onto the rest.

Battles?

Are you gonna fight every single peado in the country?

First by attacking all the strangers, then the trusted, then turning to your family and friends?

mdebets

breffni666 wrote: »

Win the small battles first, the 3%, before moving onto the bigger problems, the 12% then onto the rest.

No, tackle the big problem first, otherwise, your child might already be abused, while you are sitting in jail, for beating up an innocent man.

breffni666

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I wouldnt take my camera out in the swimming pool...it'd get wet

Seriously though, you need to stop being so hysterical. Clearly (and thankfully might I add) none of you have ever been abused. Take it from someone who has...if you think taking a photograph of a child amounts to abuse then you are clearly living in a parallel universe. There are far worse things that some of us have been through. Get some perspective please.

Correct. Thankfully I am lucky in that regard. I am not hysterical and do not spend my time looking for dangers. As I said before I am just a concerned parent. Yes perspective but a bit like the legitimating of drugs lot of people now think hash is fine but in reality the cocaine problem has spiralled because of people lax attitude to the softer stuff, the same with photography. Make it sound all nice and innocent until a picture of your child appears on some sicos website never to be removed. The technology make the risks all the greater. I am not some loon as has been expressed here. Just careful but not to the point of paranoia!

breffni666

mdebets wrote: »

No, tackle the big problem first, otherwise, your child might already be abused, while you are sitting in jail, for beating up an innocent man.

You are right but the 12% are the ones in authority and will do everything to protect themselves. What to do? Challenge everyone?

mdebets

breffni666 wrote: »

You are right but the 12% are the ones in authority and will do everything to protect themselves. What to do? Challenge everyone?

No, give your children up to state care. There they are much saver than at home (12% vs. 80%).

breffni666

mdebets wrote: »

No, give your children up to state care. There they are much saver than at home (12% vs. 80%).

But they will probably die in their care!
Should really stop having children at all!

Tallon

Thread is kind of getting ridiculous now!

The fact is, the photographer is allowed to take photos.

If you ask him to stop or delete them politely, 99% of the times they will!

If you act like a asshole, the tog will probably not entertain you

If you're really that worried about it, go to the Gardaí with a photo or description of the tog

Don't get angry or aggressive towards someone on front of your or anyone's child as it will impact on their future

Be an adult!

Cienciano

We're living in a world that if a child gets lost, or needs help, they will be ignored. Because if you approach the poor thing a psycho parent will jump out and attack you because they think you want to have sex with their kids. What a sad world we live in

Tallon

This is worse imo

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/entertainment/film-tv/news/children-flee-in-terror-as-cinema-shows-paranormal-activity-instead-of-madagascar-3-16229358.html

Ghost Train

Tallon wrote: »

This is worse imo

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/entertainment/film-tv/news/children-flee-in-terror-as-cinema-shows-paranormal-activity-instead-of-madagascar-3-16229358.html

Little bit funny though, maybe not if your kid was there, surprised it doesn't happen more often

Tallon

Ghost Train wrote: »

Little bit funny though, maybe not if your kid was there, surprised it doesn't happen more often

It's hilarious tbf!

However, still worse than being photographed by someone

I wonder would some of the posters here go up to the projectionist and punch him?

Thoie

Having read the thread, I'm a little confused.

Are we using "being photographed" as code for "being attacked by wolves"? With all the talk of imminent danger, immediate protection, no time to wait for gardaí, it must be a wolf attack, right?

thebaz

Tallon wrote: »

Thread is kind of getting ridiculous now!

on and on and on

turns off boards

magicbastarder

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!

you really don't understand what's going on.
abused kids are usually abused by people in a position of trust - people who the parents themselves trust.
a complete stranger wielding a camera beside a playground is not someone in a good position to pull it off.

magicbastarder

Thoie wrote: »

Are we using "being photographed" as code for "being attacked by wolves"? With all the talk of imminent danger, immediate protection, no time to wait for gardaí, it must be a wolf attack, right?

are we talking about wolves or paedo wolves?
they're the worst kind of wolf.

CabanSail

This discussion is now going in circles. It's also straying away from the actions of the photographer.

Seems like a good time to end it.