In Scotland, Parents Unsure They Can Photograph Their Own Kids

I recently had a first hand experience of the hysteria surrounding photography in the UK.

I was walking past a guy with my camera round my neck, casually talking to my sister when he screams out at me, "no pictures, no pictures - I know my rights, you can't take my picture unless I say so"! I pointed out that my hands were nowhere near my camera, I had no intention of taking his picture and until he shouted at me I hadn't even noticed him. He then calmed down.

However, to keep things in perspective, I should point out that this is only the third incident of this type I've encountered in umpteen years of photography.

John
 
It seems that most of these stories come from US, UK and Australia. I wonder how things are in other/non-english speaking countries? Having traveled to Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, Holland, Germany, etc. I have never had a problem with me having a camera while visiting there. Maybe I look too much like a tourist and people have different attitude toward tourists. So I wonder how things are there?
 
Krosya said:
It seems that most of these stories come from US, UK and Australia. I wonder how things are in other/non-english speaking countries? Having traveled to Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, Holland, Germany, etc. I have never had a problem with me having a camera while visiting there. Maybe I look too much like a tourist and people have different attitude toward tourists. So I wonder how things are there?
Click to expand...
A woman in Shanghai chased me with a pot of boiling water because she thought I was photographing her. Luckily I could run faster than her.
In Senegal I was thrown in a village jail for taking a photo of a building while a woman was sweeping in front of it. She stole my hat and when I chased after her she ran to the police and told them I was photographing her. Long story short, I pulled out the unused roll of film in my backup camera and exposed it, then they let me go.
Those are the only bad experiences. In small villages in countries like Chile, Ecuador, Viet Nam, Nepal etc. people seemed to really love having their picture taken, even if they couldn't see the photo!
 
people are just being stupid. I mean seriously, they're ok with being observed and monitored at every step they take, they're ok with their data being exploited for commercial reasons and then they're afraid of taking photographs of their own child. go paranoia!
 
paulfish4570 said:
what has happened to the warrior soul of the scots? just how far can the nanny-state mentality go?
Click to expand...
Its not 'The Nanny State' but the hysteria of the free media that feeds the paranoia of over protective parents with lurid stories to sell their rags.
I am a former newspaper photographer...Peter 32 on Flickr.
 
Inciting fear and paranoia is the best way to get an otherwise apathetic electorate in to the polling places on voting day to vote in stalemated democracies. Otherwise a politician has to take a position on actual issues. Most of the actual issues have to do with problems requiring systemic reforms (economy, health costs, education, employment) that will only yield positive results in the long term and are inherently disruptive in the short term, thus creating a number of dissatisfied people one way or another no matter how successful the solution actually is. Since most elections will occur way before any positive evidence appears, taking a real stance on a real issue just doesn't pay political dividends.

And as Parsec1 says - it sells papers and gets people to watch TV. Randolph Hearst knew this just as well as anyone.

Photography is an easy target. So are teenagers.
 
Last edited:
hey bill: my health insurance is a benefit of my job, and my wife's job; it is part of our pay, in effect. we chose to accept the benefit. no one made us do so. i do not understand your health-care rant.

uwe, intriguing citation. in my post, the point i was co clumsily trying to make is this: i do not want - or need - government invervention in my health care. surely when dementia has advanced in me sufficiently, i would want my bride and children making prayerful decisions about my health ... 🙂
 
paulfish4570 said:
hey bill: my health insurance is a benefit of my job, and my wife's job; it is part of our pay, in effect. we chose to accept the benefit. no one made us do so. i do not understand your health-care rant.

uwe, intriguing citation. in my post, the point i was co clumsily trying to make is this: i do not want - or need - government invervention in my health care. surely when dementia has advanced in me sufficiently, i would want my bride and children making prayerful decisions about my health ... 🙂
Click to expand...

Paul,
Ok, that's fine with you then.
But there are millions of people in your country who cannot afford health insurance.

Here in Germany, basically everybody is entitled to health care and those who work pay for it. That's not socialism, that's solidarity - a very New Testamental approach... 😉

Cheers,
Uwe
 
jke said:
Inciting fear and paranoia is the best way to get an otherwise apathetic electorate in to the polling places on voting day to vote in stalemated democracies. Otherwise a politician has to take a position on actual issues. Most of the actual issues have to do with problems requiring systemic reforms (economy, health costs, education, employment) that will only yield positive results in the long term and are inherently disruptive in the short term, thus creating a number of dissatisfied people one way or another no matter how successful the solution actually is. Since most elections will occur way before any positive evidence appears, taking a real stance on a real issue just doesn't pay political dividends.

And as Parsec1 says - it sells papers and gets people to watch TV. Randolph Hearst knew this just as well as anyone.

Photography is an easy target. So are teenagers.
Click to expand...

Oh, you cynical fellow.

Pity you aren't wrong.

Cheers,

R.
 
Where does this paranoia of photographing children come from? Luckily, it's not something that interests me anyway but I'm glad that's so. When I was in school, we had a pro take photographs every couple of years, the photos being sold to interested parents. I doubt the pro had or needed police clearance, as would be required nowadays (assuming it were allowed at all). Having your photo taken was compulsory, as I recall, or at least I don't recall an opt-out! How things have changed. I don't think anyone came to harm from this "activity".

I feel sorry for younger people today and kids especially, being "protected" from everything with the remotest chance to harm. Not that us adults fare that much better, with dire warnings on cups of coffee saying they're hot drinks (never have guessed that!). We get nannied to be aware of slippery footways in the wet, warned not to fall between trains and the platforms and so the list goes on. Where will it end? When the human race can no longer think for itself? Life is terminal and one continuous risk!

Oh and of course, we're "protected" almost at every step in the UK by CCTV, which is of dubious deterrent value in many cases. "Oh look, there's the guy stealing my car" on some blurry rain-washed image.
 
Last edited:
As long ago as 2003 I was at the Fitzroy Pool in Melbourne with my two children, 10 and 6. They were the only ones in the shaded toddlers' pool, quite a beautiful set up. The pool attendant approached me and told me I could not take a photo unless everyone in the photo had given permission and I signed that I had their permission. I told him we were the only ones there and that the children were mine and I had brought them and was the only adult there and the daughter (10) was the spitting image of me etc. Nevertheless I had to sign. So I signed one paper consenting on behalf of my son, one on behalf of my daughter, and one in my own right attesting to the fact that I had permission. It was actually almost amusing and the pool attendant's heart wasn't in it but rules are rules and he had probably just done some sort of zealous in-service. I got some great photos. I have had no trouble since, either with my own children or anyone else's.
 
wgerrard said:
As for health care choices... well, I'm perfectly happy to let you make your own health care choices in perpetuity, so long as you are legally prevented from receiving any care at any facility receiving any public funds or compensation, and prevented from receiving any care at any facility that would recoup the cost by increased billing to paying customers or that would result in similar increased insurance costs. Either you pay for your care out of pocket or rely on private charity, or you don't get the care. I'm not willing to spend my money to allow you to have that kind of "independence".
Click to expand...
Isn't the whole point of insurance (ignoring the profits of the insurance company), in general and indeed in healthcare, that the majority pays for the misfortune of the minority? There were mutterings in the UK a while back about trying to deny smokers healthcare for smoking-related illnesses. Tip of the iceberg, had it got further. What next, drinkers? Sportsmen and women? Drivers accept risk of collision, do we deny them care because they had a mishap on the roads (their choice to be there, after all)? You could find grounds to deny almost anyone healthcare if you tried.
 
Last edited:
Uwe_Nds said:
Same as to the warrior soul of the U.S. of A. ;-)

I would not call it "nanny-state mentality", but rather psychopathic.
And it's not just photography.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting thread for a mental health professional. "Psychopathic" is the wrong diagnosis for a society that is living in fear, for those who are afraid intend no harm. Rather, they are afraid of those who are psychopathic (at least by western standards) in that they do not subscribe to our values, and mean to do us harm. Perhaps they are not psychopathic in relation to their own (sub)culture that endorses jihad and other crimes against humanity.

Several others have used the term "paranoia." That comes a lot closer. However, paranoia is unreasonable fear, in the absence of significant danger. But I think there could be circumstances when the degree of danger may be difficult for a person or persons to assess. So then it might be hard for an observer to decide if paranoia is at work, or whether (to use a word jke and others used), it might be good old-fashioned fear. Fear, after all, can be an adaptive life-preserving response.

So I can understand someone not wanting their kid to be photographed, especially if they don't know who is taking the picture. I think we can start calling it paranoia when there is no apparent rational reason to object to photography. I took a picture of the outside of an office building. A security guard came racing down the steps to ask if I had permission! She went away after I explained that it's legal to photograph things that can be seen in public places. She was even interested when I explained that all the--well, paranoia--about photography was being in part inspired by the then-current Bush administration's policy of management by fear. She even thanked me.

But when an unreasonable--or at least exaggerated--fear becomes this widespread, I begin to think that a better term might be something like "mass hysteria." That is something I know little about. I wonder if there are any sociologists in our forum who could comment about that.
 
Richard G said:
As long ago as 2003 I was at the Fitzroy Pool in Melbourne with my two children, 10 and 6. They were the only ones in the shaded toddlers' pool, quite a beautiful set up. The pool attendant approached me and told me I could not take a photo unless everyone in the photo had given permission and I signed that I had their permission. I told him we were the only ones there and that the children were mine and I had brought them and was the only adult there and the daughter (10) was the spitting image of me etc. Nevertheless I had to sign. So I signed one paper consenting on behalf of my son, one on behalf of my daughter, and one in my own right attesting to the fact that I had permission. It was actually almost amusing and the pool attendant's heart wasn't in it but rules are rules and he had probably just done some sort of zealous in-service. I got some great photos. I have had no trouble since, either with my own children or anyone else's.
Click to expand...

Just ridiculous. In the US, you are still on pretty solid ground taking a picture of anything in public, but that doesn't mean that angry parents or a cop in the area won't harass you about it. (And will even get the law wrong, which by the time it's all been cleared up, it's pretty much ruined your day.)

Usually it's the act of taking a picture that pisses people off - not the mere presence of a camera. In touchy places, I like the idea that some people use with AF cameras: use a cable release, so it looks like you've never taken a shot!
 
Rob-F said:
This is an interesting thread for a mental health professional. "Psychopathic" is the wrong diagnosis for a society ...

Several others have used the term "paranoia." That comes a lot closer. However, paranoia is unreasonable fear, in the absence of significant danger. But I think there could be circumstances when the degree of danger may be difficult for a person or persons to assess. So then it might be hard for an observer to decide if paranoia is at work, or whether (to use a word jke and others used), it might be good old-fashioned fear. Fear, after all, can be an adaptive life-preserving response.

So I can understand someone not wanting their kid to be photographed, especially if they don't know who is taking the picture. I think we can start calling it paranoia when there is no apparent rational reason to object to photography. I took a picture of the outside of an office building. A security guard came racing down the steps to ask if I had permission! She went away after I explained that it's legal to photograph things that can be seen in public places. She was even interested when I explained that all the--well, paranoia--about photography was being in part inspired by the then-current Bush administration's policy of management by fear. She even thanked me.

But when an unreasonable--or at least exaggerated--fear becomes this widespread, I begin to think that a better term might be something like "mass hysteria." That is something I know little about. I wonder if there are any sociologists in our forum who could comment about that.
Click to expand...

You are right. "Paranoia" was the word I was looking for.
And you are right: nothing's wrong with good old-fashioned life-preserving fear.

I like that expression. 🙂

Cheers,
Uwe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom