I am a photographer - NOT a paedophile [Archive] - AusPhotography:: Australia's Premier Photography Forum::

markdphotography

13-08-2017, 2:25pm

I drove for 2 hours to Brisbane yesterday with 3 photography projects in mind - Marvel Comic Exhibition, Narcisus Garden at the Art Gallery (chrome balls in the water exhibit) and car trails.

Between project 2 finishing and project 3 starting, I called by Southbank and saw a water park. I decided to stop and take a few IR mono images and rather than use a long lens and hide, I used a wide angle lens and was "in full view" and mindful that none of the images had naked or scantilly clad children. After taking a few images I was spoken to by 2 Security Guards arrived and informed me that 3 parents had complained about me taking pictures. Once asked I stopped and packed up my gear. I gave them a business card and asked that they pass the information on to the complainants if they had any concerns. After they left I remembered the publicity that Ken Duncan had for some years and "Goggled" the title of this thread. I found the following article by Susie O'Brien which I condensed below.

Not every man with a camera is a paedophile, says Susie O’Brien

Extract from an article by Susie O’Brien, Herald Sun May 8, 2015 11:51am

Not every man with a camera is a paedophile. .....................................................

Try to remember this next time you see a man take a photo in a public place.

Sadly, we live in a world where just about every male adult with children is seen in a suspect light, every person with a camera is a potential paedophile, and every stranger is a criminal.

It’s no wonder people increasingly say they wouldn’t stop to help a distressed kid anymore for fear of having their motives questioned.

Through social media people are causing panic by posting photos and personal details of suspected paedophiles online — in some cases without any evidence that the person had committed, or is likely to commit, a crime.

Even though many people freely share the most intimate details of their own children’s lives on social media, they are up in arms at the thought of someone else whipping out a camera in a public place or idly chatting to a child at a playground.

All this paranoia means children are increasingly living sheltered lives indoors, spending their time on computer screens rather than actually experiencing the world.

Ironically, children at much more at risk of harm in their own home from someone they know than a stranger.

Sadly this is not the first time that this issue has arisen for me. Some years ago I was photographing the sunrise at Dickey Beach (the wreck). As the sun came up, a group of school children (teeenagers) walked onto the beach. A techaer with the group told meto stop taking photos of them. I politely told him to get his students out of my photos - the best way to prevent photos being taken. I was breaking no law and had as much right as them and as courtesy they should stop walking into my images.

On another occassion, I was photographing (blurred images) people riding a walking over the Goodwill Bridge in Brisbane at sunset. A cyclist brushed passed me and yelled "paedohile" . The people in the image could not even be identified. With some of them stopping to take selfies and post on social media.

Having recently purchased a drone, I am surpried at the people who have made remarks about photographing their back yard yet they are not concerned about neighbour using a camera to photograph them?

Why don't people just stop and think before saying exactly what jumps into their head. I reckon that there are are a far greater number of males with cameras that do the right thing.

I think I may have to purchase a tshirt with the slogan below on it.

Glenda

13-08-2017, 3:13pm

Sad but true. I was photographing my grandchildren at our local water park once and I had a guy come over and start asking advice about buying a dslr. I guess if my husband had been the photographer that day it may have been different. Although, even as a female I feel uncomfortable photographing children I don't know nowadays. Some true statements in that article, generally, children are more at risk from someone they know than a stranger, and it constantly amazes me what some parents post on social media about their children. I wonder what the reaction would have been had you been using a phone to photograph the scene. For some reason people see them as normal and innocuous whereas a dslr is seen as intrusive.

tandeejay

13-08-2017, 5:08pm

Wouldn't a pedophile be more likely to try and hide the fact they were taking photos? So someone with a big DSLR would be far less likely to be one? :confused013

nardes

13-08-2017, 5:14pm

Sorry to hear of the rather sad tale, it seems that there is little you can do to alleviate the fears and concerns of others, whether they be rational or irrational.

Maybe wearing a T-shirt identifying you as a photographer is the only way - shame that the photography community would have to go to such lengths.

Cheers

Dennis

markdphotography

13-08-2017, 6:20pm

Wouldn't a pedophile be more likely to try and hide the fact they were taking photos? So someone with a big DSLR would be far less likely to be one? :confused013

Yes that is what I thought also.:D

Mary Anne

13-08-2017, 6:59pm

I feel for you Mark as I know exactly what you mean. So why pick on Males with a camera.
There has to be Paedophiles out there hiding under the guise of Female and most people think nothing of that.
Its sad that Society has gone this way, its not a very nice world out there is it.

Though if you wear a shirt like that, sadly a Paedophile could wear one too :nod:

Cris

13-08-2017, 7:10pm

I always take my other half with me, seems to stop the interference. Cant figure out why, she's only 5'2".:lol:

markdphotography

13-08-2017, 7:25pm

Though if you wear a shirt like that, sadly a Paedophile could wear one too :nod:

Yes just as a paedophile could take their partner with them. I have problems with the situation for several reasons.

Firstly - every one is innocent till proven guilty - just look at the treatment that other get that are charged with a crime - in my case definitely no charges. I would be happy to provide a name, address and details and even get a "Blue" card.
Secondly - I have done nothing wrong and been found guilty by inuendo.
Thirdly - if we stopped all things that are unsafe, we would have no more cars on the road, no knives in our kitchensor even no mobile phones as they distract people while using them just to name a few. My guess is that more a killed or bullied by mobile phones than are hurt by paedophiles.

Look I am not negating the seriousness of the issue BUT the unreasonable paronia is just ridiculous. I have a grand daughter also and seeing what other people share on the internet it iust ridiculous guilty by association with a camera statement.

Have a look at the images on the camera, record the name and address, ask the people if they spoke to the photographer.

Geoff79

13-08-2017, 7:54pm

Some true stuff in there for sure. It's a bit different for me as I'm always taking photos of my own kids, but even then I always feel very self conscious about what parents of others kids are thinking, should I be shooting snaps at a playground or beach or something public like that.

To avoid issues I make sure other kids are never in the pics I take of my two, but then again, other parents don't know that unless they review the pics. But sometimes other kids in the pics can't be avoided, though, and I always have it in the back of my mind that someone might approach me one day with issues relating to my presence.

Anyway, playing devils advocate, I guess I could understand a protective parent being a little uncomfortable about a lone male taking photos in an area heavily populated by children, when the specifics aren't known to them (ie. lens, photographers intentions etc). I'm definitely not saying the above story is okay, and it's sad that the world has come to this, but I can definitely see both sides to the story. Obviously if the facts were known to everyone (maybe if the shirt was being worn, lol) we could all just get along, but people do love making a nice, general and sweeping assumption. [emoji6]

Again on the flip side, I'm also amazed by what people post about their kids on social media. I personally find it ridiculous on many levels. My wife lives on Facebook but has never posted a pic of our kids on there.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

markdphotography

13-08-2017, 9:21pm

Anyway, playing devils advocate, I guess I could understand a protective parent being a little uncomfortable about a lone male taking photos in an area heavily populated by children, when the specifics aren't known to them (ie. lens, photographers intentions etc). I'm definitely not saying the above story is okay, and it's sad that the world has come to this, but I can definitely see both sides to the story. Obviously if the facts were known to everyone (maybe if the shirt was being worn, lol) we could all just get along, but people do love making a nice, general and sweeping assumption. [emoji6]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I now have a little grand daughter and I tried to see it from the parents perspective overnight - I really did and even spoke to my daughter about it. She posts images (and so do we) of our grand daughter on FB and apply the same rules as adult images. Now I know they they did not know if the images were infrared, all children were fully clothed, the adults were there taking images on their phone and I did not approach any kids or parents. The security guards could have looked at my images on the card, not all images were of kids. If the parents had of taken the same images would that be OK? I will bet that the complainants did not get any feedback from the security guards after speaking to me. They will feel they have stopped a paedophile and done a great commuity service.

Mind you this is the same rule that does not allow parents to take images of their kids at surf and swimming carnivals which is also a crazy rule. As the journalists article states I will bet that more children are abused both physically and sexulally by people they know but we have not banned pregnacy or parenthood.:D

Geoff79

13-08-2017, 11:33pm

I now have a little grand daughter and I tried to see it from the parents perspective overnight - I really did and even spoke to my daughter about it. She posts images (and so do we) of our grand daughter on FB and apply the same rules as adult images. Now I know they they did not know if the images were infrared, all children were fully clothed, the adults were there taking images on their phone and I did not approach any kids or parents. The security guards could have looked at my images on the card, not all images were of kids. If the parents had of taken the same images would that be OK? I will bet that the complainants did not get any feedback from the security guards after speaking to me. They will feel they have stopped a paedophile and done a great commuity service.

Mind you this is the same rule that does not allow parents to take images of their kids at surf and swimming carnivals which is also a crazy rule. As the journalists article states I will bet that more children are abused both physically and sexulally by people they know but we have not banned pregnacy or parenthood.:D

Yeah, definitely don't get me wrong that I am "siding" with the people who complained. If it was me, I certainly wouldn't have... nor would my wife, or in all honesty, probably anyone we know. But in this often irritating, and stupidly politically correct world we live in, I can definitely understand how this happened. ;)

Out of curiosity, how were the security guards with you? Did they give you the impression they thought you could be a genuine concern? Or did they come across more like "these people have complained and even though we know you're not doing anything wrong, we've got to be seen to be doing our job" kind of thing?

markdphotography

13-08-2017, 11:43pm

Yeah, definitely don't get me wrong that I am "siding" with the people who complained. If it was me, I certainly wouldn't have... nor would my wife, or in all honesty, probably anyone we know. But in this often irritating, and stupidly politically correct world we live in, I can definitely understand how this happened. ;)

Out of curiosity, how were the security guards with you? Did they give you the impression they thought you could be a genuine concern? Or did they come across more like "these people have complained and even though we know you're not doing anything wrong, we've got to be seen to be doing our job" kind of thing?

There were 2 and 1 did most of the talking. While not wanting to look at the images on the camera (I offerred them my business card which they took) they did not harass me. To be fair to them they did not escort me away as I packed up my camera gear immediately. On saying that they were also probably watching from their security camera and could see I was complying with their request. Here is one of the images.

Geoff79

14-08-2017, 12:05am

Very nicely captured shot. Loving the water portion of it. Good to hear the security guards weren' too over-the-top about it.

markdphotography

14-08-2017, 12:10am

Very nicely captured shot. Loving the water portion of it. Good to hear the security guards weren' too over-the-top about it.

Thanks. This little guy was just keeping himself entertained catching the water sprays that went on and off and it was hard to capture the enjoyment he was having but this comes close. I think the parents would have liked it if they had a chance to see it.

Cage

14-08-2017, 12:12am

Your post reminded me about something that happened to me a few years ago.

I was walking along the street not far from my home when I saw a little girl, probably about three years old, coming down her driveway on a dinky. When she hit the street, right in front of me, she fell off, grazing her knee. She was laying on the road howling, and my immediate reaction was to pick her up and comfort her.

As I was bending down to pick her up the thought crossed my mind that at any second the door of her house was going to open, and an angry parent was going to see their daughter in a strangers arms, crying her eyes out.

So what did I do? I picked up her dinky and ushered the distraught child off the road to her house. I had to knock several times on the door before her mother answered, and the look on her face, that 'what the hell have you done to my child look' sort of made me feel in some way justified in my actions, fleetingly.

I still have guilt feelings about allowing peoples misconceptions stopping me from acting like a normal, caring human being.

Nick Cliff

14-08-2017, 8:07am

I can see both sides of the problem and I try to avoid photographing people in public places as a rule myself.
I wonder if the parents that post photos of their children on the internet could have some legal problems in the future. I do not know how Australia leans on these issues.
Women can have problems too Cage doing the right thing. My wife once hastily grabbed a girl running to cross a road to join her mother as a dark colored car sped around a corner, she held the child until the car passed while the parent was understandably upset and swearing at my wife who then let the child proceed safety with no thanks from the mother for possibly saving the child from serious injury or death, only a stony silence. That child will now have a memory of having been restrained by a stranger rather than possibly saved sadly.

cheers Nick

Roane Photo

18-08-2017, 8:48pm

rellik666

18-08-2017, 10:08pm

I've been away from the scene recently as I've now got two young children and I'm sorry but I'd be pretty upset if you were taking photos of my kids. I'm very protective of my photos of my kids. Maybe overly so but I don't care what your intentions are with the photos the only photos I want out there are ones I have some kind of control over. I do post photos on FB but for my friends only and they are few and far between. I understand that they are people in a public place but it's not about you the innocent person taking candids it what you choose to do with that image that I have no control over. I'm not paranoid I just don't want my kids images in places I don't know about if I can help it. Personally I never take photos of other people's kids. As I assume everyone feels the same way.

As far as the other side of sneaky photos and paedophiles I'm definitely more aware of the iPhone shot than someone obviously taking shots with a proper camera.

I'm not having a go but asking you to see it from the other side. People in general are fair game but I think some restraint is needed with kids, especially young kids.

markdphotography

18-08-2017, 11:03pm

Unfortunately the best way to avoid situations like this is simple, don't take pictures of other peoples children unless you have prior permission to do so. I will take pics of teens and adults in the public places but will not ever take pics of children for fear of this exact thing happening. Someone has said that "it's not a very nice world out there" I totally disagree, I believe the world is a beautiful and amazing place we just have to modify some of our behaviors because of the behavior of a few spoiling it for us, not a big deal compromise is something we all have to do to get along in this wonderful world of ours.

Shane - that could easily be reversed and parents who are concerned about people taking photos of their kids in public - don't take them into a public place. What I was doing is not illegal or agaainst the law, it is against a fear or phobia that people have. Children like adults and teenagers, take more natural photos when captured in a candid moment rather than a posed shot. Children display a real different feeling of sponteneity, playfulness, intrigue and so many other traits.

This fear or phobia is part of a wider issue and it is the growing number of phobias, homophobia, islamaphobia and cameraphobia is another manifestation of social media news cycle. This rule even goes as far as not allowing parents to take photos of their own children at some sporting events as other children may be photographed.As the journalists points out, children are far more likely to be abused - emotionally and physically by someone they know.

I understand that most rules are made to protect the majority from stupid actions by the minority and in this instance this fear is a developed country first world fear. Some years ago I travelled overseas, took photos of families and children, got their name and address and when I got home sent prints I had taken to them at no charge. Thay had no photos at all of their children

Just like all muslims are not terrorists, all people with cameras who are taking photos of children do not have bad intentions.

Taking this rule to the extreme, imagine if no one was allowed to take photos of other children, I am sure that adults without children or mature people would miss out on a lot of happiness.

Just like banning cars as a result of car accidents, stopping other people from taking photos of children in public places will not stop paedophilia. Portrait competitons would not include photos of children but nothing is more common than the lack of common sense.

Roo - I understand you are not having a go and I have looked at it from the other side. I respect your opinion (and all other opinions), I am expressing mine and hope that you can see it from my perspective also.;)

rellik666

18-08-2017, 11:14pm

Mark L

18-08-2017, 11:27pm

Don't take children out to a public space in case someone wants to take a photo?
Don't take a good looking candid photo of a kid in a public space because ..... ?

Roane Photo

18-08-2017, 11:41pm

Shane - that could easily be reversed and parents who are concerned about people taking photos of their kids in public - don't take them into a public place. What I was doing is not illegal or agaainst the law, it is against a fear or phobia that people have. Children like adults and teenagers, take more natural photos when captured in a candid moment rather than a posed shot. Children display a real different feeling of sponteneity, playfulness, intrigue and so many other traits. Totally agree with you about it not being illegal and that it is a fear and or phobia but it is not a baseless fear and or phobia and as such I respect parents decision to not have there children photographed by a total stranger who may or may not mean any harm, if you want to take pictures of someones children then simply ask their permission, it really is that simple. If you are in a place with a high number of children then don't take the pictures as you may or may not upset some of the other parents.

This fear or phobia is part of a wider issue and it is the growing number of phobias, homophobia, islamaphobia and cameraphobia is another manifestation of social media news cycle. This rule even goes as far as not allowing parents to take photos of their own children at some sporting events as other children may be photographed.As the journalists points out, children are far more likely to be abused - emotionally and physically by someone they know. Again totally agree with you, in fact this has happened to me when wanting to take pictures of my granddaughter at her school play when I was politely asked to stop taking pictures or leave.

I understand that most rules are made to protect the majority from stupid actions by the minority and in this instance this fear is a developed country first world fear. Some years ago I travelled overseas, took photos of families and children, got their name and address and when I got home sent prints I had taken to them at no charge. Thay had no photos at all of their children

Just like all muslims are not terrorists, all people with cameras who are taking photos of children do not have bad intentions. We are not talking about other countries, we are talking about Australia and the fears that Australian parents have. No disrespect intended.

Taking this rule to the extreme, imagine if no one was allowed to take photos of other children, I am sure that adults without children or mature people would miss out on a lot of happiness. Well that would be when parents would take their kids to a professional photographer to get portraits etc done, so would be a good thing for us photogs lol

Just like banning cars as a result of car accidents, stopping other people from taking photos of children in public places will not stop paedophilia. Portrait competitons would not include photos of children but nothing is more common than the lack of common sense. Well again I agree with you on the lack of common sense but as I said this is the world we live in and we must make compromises until others see sense.

markdphotography

18-08-2017, 11:51pm

I do understand but I think you have slightly missed my point. In my case I'm not worried about paedophiles but the ease of photo availability in a digital world. It's not like having a film, it's too easy for photos to go viral for want of a better word. I don't want pics of my kids out there. End of. I feel the percentage of people with bad intentions is so low (although I did recently have a bad experience with some people with an iPhone acting very suss) but what happens to that photo you took, where will end up when you just innocently share it on here or on photo site.

Roo - I am not having a go at you either but many years ago a boss I worked for had a foolproof way to stop shop lifting - do not open the doors each morning. Just the solution is not practical. Online stores have little or no shop lifting but they have other problems. You are right in a digital world - no one can control the dynamics of the content. All that you can do is try to control how you interact with it. While I am not FB giru, images you share with friends can be seen by friends of their friends and so forth and so on.The best way to stop that is never to share a photo.

In the film days as you quoted, unless you printed the images yourself, you never had complete control over the images, they could be copied in the lab, lost in the post, lost or misplaced by friends or family. To take things to the extreme, living as a hermit on an island with no access to the digital world would stop your concerns about images being shared but that would have other problems. Mobile phones, the internet and even Facebook are all recent innovations in respect to the history of the human race. There is no doubt technology is becoming faster and more people are connected globally. I thought long and hard about sharing that image (on the day I took around 600 images and probably less than 20 at the water feature). Some photos were taken at the Marvel Exhibition that was full of children and thousands of images taken others who attended. Some were taken on the walks (almost impossible to avoid people on any day). I was not asked to stop taking photos there nor was anyone else. I shared that photo as an example of my attempts to capture the sponteniety of the little boy playing with the water. At this stage no other picture has been shared at all. I decided to keep all inc ase I had a problem in the future and I was contacted.

While I am not sure, I suspect that the people who complained about me were not given any feedback to allay their concerns. I am reasonably confident that they feel they have done a community service and may have even told their family and friends about this weird old guy taking photos at Southbank. I posted this so that the records could be set straight and to encourage other people to consider the actions of other photographers if they encounter them in the future. Walk up to them and ask them about their photos, do it in a friendly and enquiring manner. I would have been happy to send them a copy if there was something they liked. I have done it previously will continue to share images if asked in the future.

Roane Photo

19-08-2017, 12:16am

I posted this so that the records could be set straight and to encourage other people to consider the actions of other photographers if they encounter them in the future. Walk up to them and ask them about their photos, do it in a friendly and enquiring manner. I would have been happy to send them a copy if there was something they liked. I have done it previously will continue to share images if asked in the future. Mark again with respect, you spoke about how things can be easily reversed, I am still confused as to why you think it is the parents duty to go to the photographer and ask them anything, after all the photographers is the one taking and I emphasize taking the pictures, so is it not polite and respectful of the parents feelings for the photographer to first ask or at least immediately after taking the images to approach them and explain what you are doing and tell them if they are not happy with it that you will delete the images in front of them so they know you no longer have a copy ?

markdphotography

19-08-2017, 12:43am

Mark again with respect, you spoke about how things can be easily reversed, I am still confused as to why you think it is the parents duty to go to the photographer and ask them anything, after all the photographers is the one taking and I emphasize taking the pictures, so is it not polite and respectful of the parents feelings for the photographer to first ask or at least immediately after taking the images to approach them and explain what you are doing and tell them if they are not happy with it that you will delete the images in front of them so they know you no longer have a copy ?

That is the most practical solution for numerous reasons and the parent is the person who has the concern not the photographer, the person with the child may not have the authority to give permission, the parents may not always be standing right next to the child and may be supervising from a distance so who is the correct poarent in a public place, thirdly the photographer is obvious - he is the one with the camera - parents don't wear labels with parent/guardian on it along with their child's name. Some parents may be less concerned about photos than others and another point is they are in a public place, permission is not required to take any photo in a public place - on private property that is a totally separate issue. A model/child release is not required for candid and personal shots and in some instances for competiton images.

I don't expect to change the your mind of anyone else's mind, what I do hope is that some people will consider the topic raised and be less concerned about having their photo taken in a public place.:)

Roane Photo

19-08-2017, 1:05am

As I said I am not disagreeing with you as to the legality, in fact I totally agree and have done extensive research and made inquiries as to the legality of taking pictures in public places and Australia has no laws preventing you from doing so (as you have said). And again you do not need to change my mind as I am almost in total agreement with you, I am just saying that IF you know who the parents are of a child you are about to or already have taken pictures of I feel that it is much less likely to be a problem if you were to approach them, obviously IF you do not know who the parents are then that is a different situation and then it is up to you to make the call on whether or not to risk the wrath of unhappy parents. :) I do not feel the same about taking candid pics of teens and adults and just merrily click away, I have only ever been approach in that situation a couple of times and I explained what I was doing and some have asked if they could have copies and I obliged and emailed them the next day.

ricktas

19-08-2017, 8:51am

I think people also need to realise.

1. Paedophiles do not want photos of kids clothed and doing normal kid stuff.
2. The vast majority of children exposed to something bad have it done so by someone known to them or their family.. not strangers!
3. Paedophiles who snatch children they do not know are rare, but they are mainstream media fodder. William Tyrell (possibly) and Daniel Morcombe. But almost every day children are removed from their parents due to abuse within the family, or close associates.
4. People are overly paranoid about paedophiles being 'everywhere' in their community. This is not the case.
5. I agree that where children's parents are identifiable, it is easy to ask and explain before taking any photos.
6. There are no laws re photographing children in public that differ from photographing adults in public.

My guess is that everyone posting in this thread has never personally known someone who has been convicted of paedophilia against a child unknown to them, but possibly there are members who know of someone who has been convicted of abuse, within a family, where they knew their victim. As photographer we need to be careful not to also fall into the media portrayal that everyone who is a stranger is a possible paedophile. Your concerns need to be focused on people you know, more than a stranger.

I have never posted this next statement on the internet before. It is part of who I am and really it is not anyone else's business. I think I am in a position to talk about paedophiles more than most in this thread, with first hand experience of what happens. But I do not let it define who I am as a person. I am a victim of a paedophile who was a stranger. In fact, since this happened to me in the 1970's there have only been about 4 cases of paedophiles who abused kids not known to them, in Tasmania. A paedophile who takes a child not known to them is rare..very rare. Yet there are hundred of cases in Tasmania alone of kids being abused by someone known to them, family, a family friend, neighbour etc. We all need to be more aware of this, and as photographers, educating people should become part of that. People need to be more afraid of someone they already know, than someone they do not know. If you want to know more about the person involved in my case, click here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ryan_O%27Neill).

The best thing we can do as photographers, is talk, communicate, and educate. If you can explain why you are where you are, and what the purpose of the photos are for, most reasonable people will understand. However there are people in our society that have been abused, know someone who has, is hiding from a violent ex-partner etc and that have genuine reasons for not wanting their children photographed, and we need to respect that too. Having good verbal communications skills, is something photographers need when confronted about this by a parent.

Roane Photo

19-08-2017, 10:12am

Thanks Rick for being so brave and telling us about what happened to you.

The best thing we can do as photographers, is talk, communicate, and educate. If you can explain why you are where you are, and what the purpose of the photos are for, most reasonable people will understand. However there are people in our society that have been abused, know someone who has, is hiding from a violent ex-partner etc and that have genuine reasons for not wanting their children photographed, and we need to respect that too. Having good verbal communications skills, is something photographers need when confronted about this by a parent. This quote says it all, it is about communication :)

ricktas

19-08-2017, 10:35am

Thanks Rick for being so brave and telling us about what happened to you.

This quote says it all, it is about communication :)

Sorry, but bravery has nothing to do with it. Every one of us has things in our life that partially define who we are. Some define their entire lives around a single or few events. I see doing that as the wrong way as it traps them in a place of being a victim. People use drug use, criminal behaviors, death of a family member etc as an excuse. It is not about being brave in the slightest. Parents confronting a photographer and accusing them of being a paedophile for photographing their children is not about bravery, it is about insecurity, mostly unfounded insecurity. We as a society are creating fears, that are misdirected in most cases. No wonder there are so many people that are often defined as 'broken', as we do not have rational discussions on so many topics.

I do not see myself as being brave for disclosing something that happened to me. It doesn't define who I am as a person, and nor should it.

markdphotography

19-08-2017, 12:54pm

I think Rick summed up the reason for the post supported by examples of his own circumstances which I thank him for. This is exactly what the journalist stated. I did not have the ooportunity to speak to the parents they were not identifiable and maybe that was becouse of my focus/aperture on the subject, nor did they speak to me. The two security guards were very good, they did not ask for any proof of ID, to see the camera or anything, I offered all that information. I reckon they get lots of these calls per day. Probably they could see by the amount of gear that I had in my backpack that I was a serious photographer and no doubt I had been identified on the close circuit TV (which I have no problems with) as this will work for me as I did not break any laws. I thought for a while before posting this thread but as it was the third time (over several years admittedly) recently other photographers including women have had similar experiences, I wanted to start a discussion about the subject. I did not expect everyone to agree with me, I did look at it from the parent's perspective and discussed it with my daughter. The "I am a photographer not paedophile" line was taken from another high profile photographers have had and rather than wear a costume into parliament, I chose a photographic forum to discuss the topic.

Thank you to all those who have contributed, hopefully discussion will make more people aware of the situation from both sides.

I do look forward to the day when I can take photos of children in public and people are less concerned about my actions although I suspect that will be a long way in the future.

rellik666

19-08-2017, 1:12pm

markdphotography

19-08-2017, 1:30pm

You see I think the difference from my perspective is that if it was my kids I would have confronted you and asked you not to take photos of my kids. Not judged you for doing so just asked you politely not to. I have done this many times in the past.

I totally agree that people that are going to hurt kids are the most likely known to them and their families. As I've stated most of my concerns are not about paedophiles. I am sorry you went through that Rick and thank you sharing your perspective.

One thing you do have to remember though is that times have changed and there are a lot more people around with gear. I don't know but it has become harder to distinguish a professional from an amateur and therefore someone wishing to do harm. On Ricks point about clothed children, I believe the original post was about taking pictures on Southbank in Brisbane. I would be very wary about being seen taking photos there as it as swimming pool and water park, a lot of young children in swimming attire there.

Hi Roo and if you had of asked I would have respected your wishes.

As I mentioned previously, this was not at South Bank Beach - it was closed. I was there in April and took some discrete shots with my wide angle lens -

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4442/36213364841_340dd7c71e_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Xb3XHk)_DSC1252-Edit (https://flic.kr/p/Xb3XHk) by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/100053981@N04/],

In that instance I was mindful of other people but it is almost impossible to get a shot showing the beach and the city without people in it at anytime of the year. It would be impractical to ban all photos at South Bank Beach.

In this instance the child had more clothes on than the sunbaker (albeit the subjects/concept was totally different) and this was at the water feature. Did you see the picutre I posted in this thread - sunsmart swimming attire.

Brian500au

19-08-2017, 2:05pm

I think part of the problem today is not so much worrying about the person taking the photos, but more to do what is going to happen to those photos. This applies to both adults and to children. Today due to social media your look is your brand - and you should be in control of your brand. This is very true when applying for jobs. The first thing a prospective employer does now is google your name to get an overall picture of who they plan to employ.

Young adults (and older adults) need to moderate their profile on social media. This is difficult to do if you are not in control of your own images. How many times has a politician or high profile business person been bought down by skeletons in the closet. This will happen more and more in the future as old photos come to surface because they were posted on social media by themselves or by other persons.

As a general rule I do not take photos of people without their permission. Although the photo above is a great photo, due to the people laying on the beach I would not take out my camera. If I was in their position I would not appreciate somebody taking my photo without my permission - I have no control over where you will post it (and therefore I have lost control of my brand).

On a side note, on one of my many visits to Cambodia I have photographed many smiling children. In cases like this I always make my intentions obvious and in doing so seek their permission (although one may argue they are not old enough to give me permission). In many cases I have photographed parents with children or have asked permission to photograph their children.

In one particular case I photographed some young children swimming in a creek in a village in Cambodia. The smile on a dark skinned child laughing and having fun was worth a million words. Once I returned home I deleted all but a couple of the photos. The reason being the children were scantly dressed (some younger ones had no costume). This is totally normal in Cambodian children and nobody bats and eyelid, but I just felt here in Australia if somebody noticed shots of scantly clad children on my hard disk this could only lead to undue suspicions and unnecessary explanations.

We live in the society we live in today - there are laws and there are unwritten rules. Unfortunately photographing people without their permission is not against the law, but it is against most peoples rules - maybe call it respect for our fellow human being. There are times when it is totally unavoidable (after all we are all photographed in shopping centers, banks, service stations, security cameras etc).

My opinion is you do not have the right to photograph somebody just because it is not against the law. If in doubt don't do it. If you want to take a photo of a scenery and you feel it might offend people who are in the photo either politely seek their permission (simply by nodding and showing your intention) or do not do it at that very moment. There is plenty in this world you can photograph without having to seek somebodies approval.

Just my 2c worth.

bobt

19-08-2017, 2:41pm

I have found that people seem to be getting a little less #### about my taking photos of kids. I take quite a lot because my grandkids are playing sport a lot, and I take lots of photos, as do all the other parents/grandparents. I don't much like taking them at swimming events but in general I take photos of them wherever they are.

If you get accosted by a woman who presumes that you are a paedophile simply because you have the right equipment, ask her if she's a prostitute. I rest my case.

markdphotography

19-08-2017, 4:43pm

I think part of the problem today is not so much worrying about the person taking the photos, but more to do what is going to happen to those photos. This applies to both adults and to children. Today due to social media your look is your brand - and you should be in control of your brand. This is very true when applying for jobs.

Thanks for your 2 cents worth Bob but with respect unfortunately not a practical solution/option for many other people other than you for several reasons. A bit like closing shops to stop shop lifting as mentione earlier. In small number of instances some people may need to be more midfulof their social media profile/content but the perecentage at a guess would not be measurable in respect to the total social media postings.

If an emloyer does not emply you only because of your social media profile - you probably did not want to work for them in any case. Googling a person's name maybe a tool in the application process but any savy employer would just not use social media to hire someone. In fact any company uses a wide range of tools wjhen making a recruitment decision.

Applying what you said there would actually be no photos of people without permission so as such no photos of people on the news, selfies would no longer exist unless you stood at an isolated location, no photos at public events, football matches, celebrations etc etc. As people we relate to images of other people so if you did not have permission to take the photo, it could not be shared as it may end up somewhere that you cannot control. MIT released some information about images of people in 2011 which is still true today I am sure see - http://news.mit.edu/2011/memorable-images-0524 under the heading - We tend to remember pictures of people much better than wide open spaces.

I would also suggest that most people are not concerned with their brand (and don't need to be), companies are concerned not but not all, some self employed are but once again if you are doing the right thing - social media is not a negative in relation to marketing your brand - what people think of it is possibly but you do not have control over that. As I mentioned previously, earlier that day I visited the Marvel Exhibition, Marvel do not seem to be worried about the brand/image of their property - maybe they use the addage any publicity is good publicity.

A fear of social media is also be a phobia just like islamaaphobia, homophobia and many other social and cultural phobias in my opinion. The fact is social media is here to stay and you work with it but trying to stop people using is a bit like stopping the analogue to digital photography evolution.

When my children were growing up I taught them about rights and agrred they had lots of rights. BUT with all rights comes responsibility, there is not right that does not have a responsibility attached to it. I was exercising my right to take pictures of people in public in a responsible manner. I can control that BUT I cannot control what or how other people react to that nor should I try.

I have been a keen photographer for almost 30 years and have tens of thousands of images on my computer. Some are scenes, objects, animals and even cemeteries and some with people. No one has anything to fear from these images even though a small number are shared on the web.

I respect your opinion but certainly do not agree with it. If we all stopped taking images of people in public, the world would be a much lonlier place.

Brian500au

19-08-2017, 7:14pm

I respect your opinion but certainly do not agree with it. If we all stopped taking images of people in public, the world would be a much lonlier place.

This subject is an emotive topic and I have to agree with a lot of your points.

When my son was playing football I often stood on the sidelines with my DSLR and 300mm white lens and photographed him. In this case parents knew me (well his team member parents did). I felt comfortable and was never questioned in anyway. Quite often parents would come up and ask me to photograph their child also (although my interest was in photographing my own son). He then moved on to rowing and I used to find a comfortable spot on the Yarra and once again set up a telephoto lens and photograph him. In the second instance one of the couches approached and ask me what I was doing? Before I had even had a chance to explain he told me if I don't move on he would call the police. Once I had the chance to explain to him my son was rowing he was ok with the whole situation. I could understand his concern, and I am glad we come to a mutual understanding. It really come down to what was the purpose of the photos - he was quick to understand they were family treasures.

In another instance I was asked to photography my niece's basketball grand final. I was reminded (via a loud speaker announcement) I needed to get permission from both coaches before I could fulfill this request. Once again no problems and the results were shared with both teams.

I suppose in all cases above I was not out of place and not truly a stranger. I don't think in any instance I would get the same reception if I decided I wanted to get some great photographs through the fence of the local primary school. I don't think there is a specific law stopping me from doing it - but by doing it I think you are only inviting trouble.

In the end I think there is a time and a place to photograph people - just be sensible about it and try to see the other person's point of view. There have been many cases where an image has been stolen from social media or via a repaired hard disk and used inappropriately elsewhere.

bobt

19-08-2017, 7:18pm

I have never posted this next statement on the internet before. It is part of who I am and really it is not anyone else's business.

Not anyone's business indeed, but it does illustrate that these issues impact people throughout the community, and one can never assume that the person next to you is not a "victim" (for want of a better word). I disagree that this is not a "brave" thing to have told us, because I think it is. Opening up publicly to personal issues, and potentially exposing oneself to public assessment is always a brave action and I applaud that sort of courage.

The issue of paedophilia is one of those fraught conversations because our views on the subject can be coloured by our life experiences. Protecting children is (or should be) an instinctive reaction, but assessing the risk is something that isn't easy. Mothers are universally protective of their young in most species (leaving aside guppies who eat their young for lunch). However, that instinctive maternal (and paternal) desire to protect their young needs to be tempered with a realistic assessment of the risk. That's where I think society sometimes falls down, and in the rush to be seen to be doing the right thing, too often that risk is exaggerated. No parent wants to be seen as doing too little to protect their own, and that's when photographers become the unwitting victims of suspicion and over zealous parenting.

markdphotography

19-08-2017, 9:18pm

markdphotography

30-08-2017, 12:09am

Just came across this today on a photo blog and think it is a good idea. Maybe if we all went out and did this and got all other photographers to do the same thing we may change their idea about photographers in a public place.

Taking 30 Street Portraits of Complete Strangers in 2 Hours - https://petapixel.com/2017/08/17/taking-30-street-portraits-2-hours/?mc_cid=200fda8ad2&mc_eid=48c101d630

Hours - https://petapixel.com/2017/08/17/taking-30-street-portraits-2-hours/?mc_cid=200fda8ad2&mc_eid=48c101d630[/QUOTE]

I want to work with this idea to improve the image of photographers (male and female) as well as improve my photography and people skills (hopefully). How to do this is something I have been pondering this for a little while.

At present I have registered the domain www.streetmeet.com.au (http://www.streetmeet.com.au) and have set it up and adding some images from various events I have photographed - Brisbane Zombie Walk, History Alive 2017 and 2016. As I capture more images they will be uploaded to the website. I will get some business cards printed and give to strangers when I ask them if I can take their photo. The two hour time period will be less important but the key thing will be to take photos of complete strangers.

Here is the catcher - how can you help?

If I set up a Flickr Group, photographers can upload images to Flickr Group. I can install an Ap that will upload the images from the Flickr Group to the Street Meet website (that is what happens now with my images). This site appears to be working alright now and figure it will be better to have more than just my images on the streetmeet.com.au site.

It will be a real challenge to ask strangers to take their photo but worth a shot for a while and see how it goes.

:tog:

Dan05

31-08-2017, 11:57am

This topic is one of the main reasons I restrict my photography to cars mostly. If I have pictures of people or kids they are people I know very well.

It's disappointing that I need to take this stance, however people are irrational and are only getting worse.

I agree with the views of photographers in here that are just trying to take the best picture they can.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

William W

06-09-2017, 11:18pm

I am a photographer - NOT a paedophile

Your profile states you’re located in NSW.

I suggest that you attain a “Working with Children Check” reference number from the NSW Government’s Office of the Children’s Guardian. (https://www.kidsguardian.nsw.gov.au/child-safe-organisations/working-with-children-check)

I understand that document is recognized interstate, throughout AUS. I have found it a very useful document overseas, too.

That’s what I would give to the Security Guards, not necessarily a business card.

It was your choice to pack up your gear and move on, based solely upon the Security Guard's report "3 parents had complained about me taking pictures": prima facie that probably wouldn’t have been my choice.

*

https://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18407193-lg.jpg
Four Girls - Greenhills Beach, AUS 2007

I sent a digital copy to one of the girls and got a reply that they all loved it.

*

https://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18420327-orig.jpg
Little Girl and her Dog - Venice 2012

Mum and Dad were inside the house when this was made. I called them out to show them the photo; made a few more of the whole family. Sent them a few of the files and got a nice 'thank you' note.

***

Notwithstanding my absolute agreement with the opinions contained within Rick’s commentary, specifically and definitively the need for street photographers to be good communicators:

it is also my opinion that a default buckling under to irrational societal pressure, is definitely not the best course of action and doing so will lead to a poorer society.

WW

Mark L

07-09-2017, 12:26am

I agree with what William says. Especially his last sentence.

WWCCheck is $80 and lasts for 5 years. It is a very easy process these days.
I had to renew mine for H.S.C. supervision work this year and was a bit surprised at how the whole thing has been streamlined. All done within 24 hours.

markdphotography

07-09-2017, 10:04am

Your profile states you’re located in NSW.

I suggest that you attain a “Working with Children Check” reference number from the NSW Government’s Office of the Children’s Guardian. (https://www.kidsguardian.nsw.gov.au/child-safe-organisations/working-with-children-check)

I understand that document is recognized interstate, throughout AUS. I have found it a very useful document overseas, too.

That’s what I would give to the Security Guards, not necessarily a business card.

It was your choice to pack up your gear and move on, based solely upon the Security Guard's report "3 parents had complained about me taking pictures": prima facie that probably wouldn’t have been my choice.

https://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18420327-orig.jpg
Little Girl and her Dog - Venice 2012

Mum and Dad were inside the house when this was made. I called them out to show them the photo; made a few more of the whole family. Sent them a few of the files and got a nice 'thank you' note.

***

Notwithstanding my absolute agreement with the opinions contained within Rick’s commentary, specifically and definitively the need for street photographers to be good communicators:

it is also my opinion that a default buckling under to irrational societal pressure, is definitely not the best course of action and doing so will lead to a poorer society.

WW

I did a similar thing when I was in Africa in 2006. Took the details of quite a few of the locals on the street and sent them photos when I got home. Cost me about $100 from memory and only wish I could have been there when they opened the envelope. Seems like the fear of photographers is more of a first world problem although it was many years ago when I was in Africa.

Thanks for the heads up about the Working With Children Check.

I have also set a goal to improve my street photography skills and started website streetmeet.com.au and will get some cards printed to give to people I photograph. Will be a good challenge.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree with what William says. Especially his last sentence.

WWCCheck is $80 and lasts for 5 years. It is a very easy process these days.
I had to renew mine for H.S.C. supervision work this year and was a bit surprised at how the whole thing has been streamlined. All done within 24 hours.

Yes applied online last night - just need to visit the Service NSW outlet and pay the money plus confirm my ID which I will do tomorrow.

William W

07-09-2017, 11:47am

I think it good that you moved on the WWC.

. . . Seems like the fear of photographers is more of a first world problem although it was many years ago when I was in Africa.

No. I don't think that's it.

I think it is a more general societal problem predicated on action and then irrational (emotive) reaction. That exists in many societies, not necessarily the more affluent.

(as one example) What I mean is - take a close read of Rick's post #27. It is data based content, from which a logically structured and formulated opinion is concluded.

On the other hand, (typically, but hopefully it will not happen here in this conversation) before I published:

"a default buckling under to irrational societal pressure, is definitely not the best course of action and doing so will lead to a poorer society."

I took about 30 minutes to choose between not replying at all, or simply publishing a reply which advised you to get a WWC.

The point being that, that sentence (above) was constructed very carefully and published as per its literal meaning.

The phrase "irrational societal pressure" means exactly the words as they are written . . . if you will: "societal dictates and rules that rely on bursts and blusters of emotion and then predicated by an illogical progression of thought, rather than an holistic view of data gathering and then predicated on sound sociological theory and practice."

I have had similar conversations before: it is way too easy for some folk to arc up at words such as “irrational” simply because they react emotionally to some words when the use of those words is simply for the articulate precision of their meaning.

***

As this is a WRITTEN forum, there is no option to gain benefit of the nuances of: intonation; timbre; voice; body language; demeanour and posture - the meaning of words and the careful choice of words is all we have to converse.

In the real world of 'street photography', we have many many more communications tools at our disposal.

Taking your Opening Post, deconstructing it and then playing through one only alternative scenario:

Firstly: it was only hearsay that three parents “complained”. The truth could range from no one made any comment to the Security Guards – one or a few parents asked the Security Guards if they knew the purpose of your photos – three parents were on the phone to the police and the Security Guards said that they would put a stop to the behaviour etc.

Secondly: if there was indeed a “complaint” what specifically was that complaint?

Thirdly: in the absence of a “complaint” (and even if there was a “complaint”) on what authority did the security guards ask you to stop the action of making photos?

Again - asking questions, is simply asking questions: but some people may react emotionally to being asked questions – that’s where the skill of good communication is necessary – and that skill combines the spoken questions and the nuances of: demeanour; posture; body language; timbre, tone and voice.

On the other side of the coin, simply packing up and moving on provides both credence and credibility to the “complaint” (if there was one) WITHOUT even addressing the complaint and its validity.

Thus most likely, simply moving on, will reinforce the parents’ view that you were indeed up to no good and moreover make them feel good that they protected their children from you.

It occurs to me that you then went away feeling upset or angry or a bit of both and subsequently felt the need to vent here on this forum to get rid of some of those feelings.

(probably more important to a (not) well functioning society): simply moving on when asked, most likely reinforced the Security Guards’ (probably subconscious) feeling that they did good . . .
BUT – moreover, reinforced their belief that they have the right to dictate a move on order, which is predicated solely on their opinion or whim and not on: law; logic or social mores.

For clarity, I am not “having a go” at you – but rather taking the scenario that you outlined and processing it through one other possible outcome and explaining part of the rationale for that.

For further clarity, I believe that I absolutely understand the reasons why you chose to react the way you did and pack up when the Security Guards asked you to: perhaps after this conversation, next time you might react differently in a similar situation.

Good luck with you Street Photography ambitions.

WW

- - - Updated - - -

*********************************************************************************

. . . Mind you this is the same rule that does not allow parents to take images of their kids at surf and swimming carnivals which is also a crazy rule. . . .

Missed that sentence the first time I read through the thread -

What "rule" is this?
And who made it?

*

I recall that Randwick Municipal Council tried this on by passing a by-law circa. 2005 pursuant to the swimming enclosures under their aegis.

I recall that it lasted about 48 hours before being rescinded. Funny that at the the School Swimming carnival held that very next day there was a group of four dads carrying cameras and video gear to capture their kids at the school swimming carnival – three of these dads were QCs and the forth an experienced journalist; also serendipitous that two TV NEWS crews arrived to film the Security Guards escorting these four blokes out of the swimming pool area.

Later, after the By-law was repealed, several high profile people were quite vocal on this topic - amongst those people were Ian Thorpe and Dawn Fraser.

WW

KevPride

11-10-2017, 3:50pm

Just a sober note, a WWC (working with children clearance) is only a document to state you have not been charged with an offence, not that you are not/ have not committed offences.

Plenty of recent cases of Child Service workers in the Welfare industry actually convicted of paedophile offences, they had clearances.

I think you have to be self aware particularly where you use you camera, if in doubt put it away.

In this day and age people have a right to be concerned at others activities around them.

markdphotography

11-10-2017, 11:38pm

Just a sober note, a WWC (working with children clearance) is only a document to state you have not been charged with an offence, not that you are not/ have not committed offences.

Valid point Kevin but it is better than no document but still not a silver bullet. Mind you I have not used it since I got it a few weeks ago. It is a letter rather than a card tht I will just keep in my camera bag.

Plenty of recent cases of Child Service workers in the Welfare industry actually convicted of paedophile offences, they had clearances.

I agree and there is probably facts to support this.

I think you have to be self aware particularly where you use you camera, if in doubt put it away.

I guess that is the point of the post. Just have a look around and you will see people with camera phones everywhere but use the Real McOy instead of a toy and everyone looks at you. Perhaps "if in doubt, be cautious"

In this day and age people have a right to be concerned at others activities around them.

The issue is that this fear of the camera has dragged on and not many seem to be standing up for it. While I don't expect itto become a plebiscite, more togs need to be talking about this subject and that is the only way we will change perception. Some people spedd, some take drugs, some rob people but everyone is not BAD. What happened to the premise of innocent till proven guilty. I reckon criminals have more rights that photographers.

On saying that all valid points Kevin that I respect so thank you for contributing.

Steve Axford

12-10-2017, 11:27am

markdphotography

12-10-2017, 11:41am

Problem is, Mark, that society is currently changing from an attitude of denial when it comes to paedophilia (and sexual harassment, family violence, etc), to an attitude of awareness and non-acceptance. During that change there is inevitably a degree of over reaction. Given that there are still sections of society who would prefer to deny that there is a problem, it is not surprising that other sections can overreact at times. I think we have to be very careful with what we do as photographers and always be aware of how our actions may be interpreted. That's why I generally photograph mushrooms :)

I always try to be mindful of what I do and don't mind being asked or questioned. I am reminded of the quote "The meek will inherit the earth" - nothing could be further from the truth, the meek continue to be bullied by the loud and outspoken. This is not the first instance and it has been happening for over 10 years without any response - this time my meek decided to speek up. Somewhere between apathy and over reacting is a common sense approach. :)

Thanks for contributing Steve - all thoughts are appreciated.

The fungi will be enjoying the rain we are getting - left the roof off the Fungi Motel this morning when I left for work.

Cheers Mark

Steve Axford

12-10-2017, 12:20pm

Ah, but if we had a common sense society then we never would have had the problem to start with. What sane person could think that paedophilia was a good thing, or at least only a minor transgression? Yet, apparently many in the Catholic Church hierarchy thought that the good name of the church was vastly more important than any lives they destroyed along the way. Some apparently still think that way, and it isn't just the Catholic Church. There is a battle going on to try to change society's attitudes to this and unfortunately some innocent photographers can get caught in the crossfire. I'm not defending it. I'm just saying that I think it is inevitable given that we do not have a rational society.

The fungi will love the weather this next week.

mikew09

12-10-2017, 2:30pm

I havent read all in detail but the title says enough. It always sits in the back of my mind when I am taking a photo of kids to ensure there is nothing in the shot that can be misinterpreted as there is a most incorrect association that has started up over the last few yrs. Its dumb but it has been embedded in the mind of people these days.

When my job allowed me time to go out and enjoy taking some photos in my lunch break, some time ago now :-( I used to like taking photos of the old churches etc around the city. About 5 yrs back I was setting up in a grass area to take some HDR shots of this beautiful church. There was some people sitting on the lawn just in the frame of view (off which I would clone out later) and I thought it obvious I was not taking a photo of them that got a bit upset.

There was one bloke maybe 20+ and three lady's of the same age I assume siting far right of frame. The guy came over to me and very abruptly asked me why I was taking photos of the girls and him. "I'm not" I replied. He started getting more aggressive and I offered to show the photos on my camera so he could see obviously not what he claimed - they were even far enough to the edge of frame to be distorted. He offered up a few more choice words of what he thought I was of which I did take offence too and said "Listen, how bout I just delete all the photos and move to another angle. That seemed to defuse the situ - I was starting to wonder if he wasnt about to grab my camera and do the go ballistic thing.

Now, this guy and the girls were not park dwellers, drunk or whatever. Well dressed in business attire and obviously just having lunch outside the office - this brush we are now tarred with is accountable for some really dumb attitudes by people and has the effect of them not seeing common sense.

Honestly - people seem to just look for an excuse these days to have a angry attack.

markdphotography

12-10-2017, 3:11pm

Honestly - people seem to just look for an excuse these days to have a angry attack.

:th3:

nardes

12-10-2017, 4:33pm

I can mostly live with folks “jumping to the wrong conclusion” in their often incorrect (even poor) assessment of a situation, usually spawning a self-righteous rant that their perceived rights are somehow being trampled.:confused013

What disappoints me is the lack of self-awareness to admit they have made an incorrect judgement when the whole picture is explained to them, to allay their fears. It seems that few people have the humility and confidence to admit they may have got the wrong end of the stick and then offer an apology. The weapons of choice appear to be aggression and confrontation rather than understanding, situational reviews, etc.:confused013

What ever happened to respect, diplomacy, considering the other party, etc.:rolleyes:

It really is okay to be wrong and to admit it – life will carry on, usually for the better.:)

Cheers

Dennis

Mark L

12-10-2017, 10:22pm

Plenty of recent cases of Child Service workers in the Welfare industry actually convicted of paedophile offences, they had clearances.

Please post these recent cases of these clearances and convictions.
Suspect their clearances was not so after conviction.
I am doing H.S.C work again later this month and my https://www.kidsguardian.nsw.gov.au/child-safe-organisations/working-with-children-check simply wouldn't work with the slightest suspicion of wrong doing these days.
Some things have changed.

KevPride

14-10-2017, 10:58pm

Mark attached is a link to an article on this, SA had a Royal Commission into our State Child Welfare Dept after a series of employees charged and convicted of engaging in Child Porn/ Rape etc. Certainly hope things have now changed, my original comment was to show a Clearance is really only as good as the information they have available and really only proof of no convictions etc.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/south-australian-royal-commission-into-child-protection-finds-a-system-in-disarray/news-story/47b4c0e501cf0eb4984dc0439b8f3f8b

regards
Kevin

William W

17-10-2017, 1:23pm

. . . Honestly - people seem to just look for an excuse these days to have a angry attack.

IMO, better:

"Honestly - there are some people who seem to just look for an excuse these days to have a angry attack."

IMO the words are important. As Steve mentioned, during stages of societal change and becoming awareness, there will certainly be extreme views, in this case it is even more important to convey one's viewpoint accurately.

WW

achee

24-10-2017, 1:20am

It's a shame many (most?) people in our society are suspicious of strangers' intentions and are ready to jump to conclusions or 'have an angry attack,' but that's the society we have. It's generally not normal to approach strangers in public places and socially interact with them, as it might be in other (notably third world) countries.

I'd occasionally find myself shooting in populated public places, and although I know I'm perfectly within my legal rights to photograph strangers including children, I'd usually try to avoid singling out individuals or small groups to photograph. Also, I'd try to avoid appearing to do that. Why? Hardly from a fear of being called a paedophile, but mostly because it would feel rude. I feel like pointing a camera at a stranger is a bit like staring at them - if a stranger pointed a camera at me or my kids I'd feel like that isn't socially appropriate.

Actually, I reckon I'd be more accepting of a stranger pointing a DSLR at my kids than a phone camera. A DSLR suggests they are trying to create art, which I'm more likely to be fine with. A phone camera suggests they are trying to document the moment, which would make me question why.

markdphotography

21-11-2017, 12:19pm

I did a similar thing when I was in Africa in 2006. Took the details of quite a few of the locals on the street and sent them photos when I got home. Cost me about $100 from memory and only wish I could have been there when they opened the envelope. Seems like the fear of photographers is more of a first world problem although it was many years ago when I was in Africa.

Thanks for the heads up about the Working With Children Check.

I have also set a goal to improve my street photography skills and started website streetmeet.com.au and will get some cards printed to give to people I photograph. Will be a good challenge.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes applied online last night - just need to visit the Service NSW outlet and pay the money plus confirm my ID which I will do tomorrow.

Update

Had my WWC application approved - strangely it is not a card but a letter which is harder to show/carry. On saying that it is laminated and in my camer bag but not yet had a chance to use it for street photography for various reasons. It is on the one day list but I have set up the website so things are moving although slower than originally planned.

Mark