Posed as 'tog to lure girls

[Kym]

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news...-1226519141898

A MAN who posed as photographer has been arrested in Newcastle for allegedly sexually assaulting two teenagers.

Detectives arrested the 21-year-old man on Sunday after investigations into separate assaults against two girls, aged 13 and 14.

He was charged with three counts of aggravated sexual assault and one count each of aggravated indecent assault and intimidation.

Police will allege the girls were contacted via social media by a man claiming to be a photographer looking for models.

It is alleged the man requested naked photos of the girls and arranged to meet them for a photo shoot. One girl was allegedly sexually assaulted at Maitland and the other at Charlestown.

The man was refused bail to face Newcastle Local Court on Monday.

This cannot be good on any level. I hope they lock him up for a long time

[ricktas]

Agree. It will not do photographers any favours and only extend the distrust that some already have.

[Ezookiel]

He requested naked photos, but at least one still then met with him? I assume he also obviously arranged to meet them without parents or others present, so how on earth did the girls not smell a rat?
I don't think there's anything more despicable than someone that exploits and takes advantage of the naivety, lack of judgement, and innocence kids of that age have. I hope they throw the book at him (after putting the book into a bag full of bricks perhaps?).

[arthurking83]

......
I don't think there's anything more despicable than someone that exploits and takes advantage of the naivety, lack of judgement, and innocence kids of that age have. I hope they throw the book at him (after putting the book into a bag full of bricks perhaps?).

Ditto!
Not just the book .. but the whole damned book case, wall and while they're at it, the entire library too!



..... And what is it with kids and their inability to learn from others mistakes!

It's not as tho this is the first incidence of internet predation on the young(esp females!!) .. and yet they're still out there unwilling to believe that this can happen to them.

[fess67]

Agreed not good. The only positive is they chose to say 'photographer' indicating that it was a ruse and he was not actually a 'photog'. That said, I agree, the public are conditioned to believe that people (men) with cameras are suspect. I know I have walked away from many beaches once I see kids. I am doing nothing wrong but there is a suspicion within society and articles like this do nothing to help.

Note, I did say (men).....it is a simple (unfair) fact of life that a guy with a camera cannot do what a woman can when it comes to kids and being in public. Sad but that is how it is.

[Warbler]

Note, I did say (men).....it is a simple (unfair) fact of life that a guy with a camera cannot do what a woman can when it comes to kids and being in public. Sad but that is how it is.

Was photographing young children, mostly girls, recently when a woman came up to me and said, "Can pedophiles order photos off your website?" "Depends on how many of your relatives you give the password to", was my response. Didn't see her again, and was happy not to. My photos were no more than "stand-up in front of a backdrop in costume" shots. How do you respond to the paranoia and prejudices of young mothers these days?

What I should have said was, "How many would you like?"

[Analog6]

This type of ruse was around long before the Internet, but social media makes it much easier for these slimebags to prey.

I don't know what the answer is for genuine photographers shooting in public, it is easier for women, although they can just as easily be perving. Varrying business cards may help a bit but the public paranoia is huge, fostered by the 'stranger danger' campaigns (much over-rated) and media.

[ameerat42]

I hereby to register my general accordance with the disparagement heretofore recorded.

But this:

...How do you respond to the paranoia and prejudices of young mothers these days?...

instanced by Warbler, is equally deserving of opprobiium!!! (See here if uncertain.)
(Am???)

[Warbler]

Haha! Merely stating a fact. I only ever get this from young mothers, and they only ever do it to male photographers. Blaming the victim of discrimination much? This is what's wrong with our PC world. And I don't mean the magazine about computers.

[mongo]

this is bad news in every possible way bar one - it shows there are still bad people out there ready to take disturbing advantage; two young people have been seriously affected; the public paranoia has been heightened (perhaps for understandable reasons); the genuine photographers will now have to bear the brunt of the irrational portion of that heightened paranoia. The only good bit is that they have taken one of the bad guys off the streets. Wait for the fallout !

[Ezookiel]

It's not just when taking photos where kids are, it is everyday life where kids are, that men have to be mindful of what they do and how they act, or get suspicious looks from people assuming the worst. I was in the food court of our local shopping mall recently, when a young girl got bored while Mum chatted to a friend, and started entertaining herself by doing some kind of dance to a song in her head, and as she twirled away in the most delightful way, I just SOOO wanted to watch as it was absolutely enthralling and captivating. The total lack of inhibition as she danced away oblivious to all around her was just delightful, but apart from a quick little glance, I felt I had to avert my eyes and look elsewhere, because a male watching a young girl closely in a public place would most likely be seen by others as perverted. It physically hurt to feel that I had to miss seeing such joyous expression of life, just to avoid being falsely accused - even if only in people's minds - of some kind of evil. It kind of makes me hate the world we are creating around ourselves at times. I would just about guarantee that no-one would have raised a single eyebrow had a woman sat there watching the girl dance. It's not something we're going to be able to change though. Not that I can foresee at any rate.

[ameerat42]

It's not just...I felt I had to avert my eyes...would most likely be seen...as perverted...

Styoopifying, isn't it!? Yet we are asked to accept Geordie Shore (and unmentionable others of it's ilk).
Asked? Did I say "asked"? I meant we have it thrown in our faces. Boy! I can't switch the channels fast enough when...
Ummm!

[Warbler]

Sorry AM. I thought I was getting the same treatment as one male who complained to the EO Comissioner when Quentin Bryce was in the chair. It was widely reported at the time that QB made a notation on the complaint file that said "another frivolous complaint by a male".

No doubt the actions of this scumbag mentioned in the paper will just make it harder for all of us blokes with cameras.

[ving]

another dimwit giving togs a bad name... sheesh!

[ameerat42]

Sorry AM. I thought I was getting the same treatment as one male who complained to the EO Comissioner when Quentin Bryce was in the chair. It was widely reported at the time that QB made a notation on the complaint file that said "another frivolous complaint by a male".

No doubt the actions of this scumbag mentioned in the paper will just make it harder for all of us blokes with cameras.

No worries Warbler. Just to make it clear (to anybody who may have misunderstood) in my post above it was the comment to you from the YM that I was jumping up and down about.
Am.

[Allie]

Maybe if the mother of the two young girls had displayed a bit more active paranoia the teenagers would have been more aware and not got into that exploitative situation in the first place. I also regret that predators like these mean that bona fide photographers, and men in general will come under more scrutiny (I agree it is not fair) but surely the safety of children and other naive persons is at least as important as the perception and rights of the person holding a camera.

[WhoDo]

No doubt the actions of this scumbag mentioned in the paper will just make it harder for all of us blokes with cameras.

Yep, but add an order of magnitude for guys like me who enjoy their hobby in the same geographic area ... I might just as well restrict myself to macro for a while, not that I've ever had a hankering to photograph 13 and 14 year old kids as "models". I even get dirty looks photographing my granddaughter and I expect it's going to get worse rather than better in consequence of this episode.

[knumbnutz]

Hey guys,
This pretty normal for me. I take the blame, I used to shoot rifles and pistols but was told I was part of this evil mindset and that no sport really needed guns even though I just like going to the range and shooting targets as a challenge.
I also like motorbikes but then people say i must be a drug dealing outlaw bikie, even though I just like to go for a ride and enjoy some outdoor freedom.
Now people can see that even though "you" play fair and enjoy something legitimately, someone else's stupid or illegal actions can potentially ruin your enjoyment and participation of a genuine pastime.
We get tarred with the same brush and no matter how much you dislike it, it cannot be changed - ever.
Guilty by association.
This is how our society works, dumb it down to the lowest common denominator and take common sense out of the equation.

Cheers
Neil

[ameerat42]

We need an "I'm with you" button, Neil.
In the past there were books written about our present

[Ezookiel]

All these daily driveby shootings of houses are a figment of our imagination - it can't be happening because John Howard took all the dangerous guns away remember. So there's no such thing as a criminal with a gun. The news reports are lying. Oh sorry, did my sarcasm show through?

I also used to be a shooter. Was a bit of fun when out at the wife's Uncle's farm, and also loved the challenge out at the range occasionally when I didn't have much else to do. Just like a golfer wants to get that ball in that hole, I wanted to get that bullet into that bullseye. Nothing nefarious, or evil, and as a SSAA member, wouldn't even point a gun at someone, let alone fire it at them. But it was easier for the government to pick on the licenced gun owners than to actually try to do something about illegal firearms in criminal hands. Even sadder was that the rifle I owned cost me $500 and I got given $90 for it. And then my wife and I both got charged $45 in the buy-back levy. Gotta love that maths. But I can definitely relate to the sentiments Neil has expressed above.

At our daughter's school swimming carnival, it was at a public pool, and the pool was still being used by others at the time, and we were all told before hand that if we took photos, we were to do our very best to only get our own children in the shot, and if we had anyone else in the photo, we were supposed to ask them for permission. Because the announcement was made over the PA, it then meant everyone taking photos felt like all eyes were on them. At least they didn't blanket ban taking photos. I'm pretty sure that's been the case for other schools.