In Scotland, Parents Unsure They Can Photograph Their Own Kids

[wolves3012]

However, paranoia is unreasonable fear, in the absence of significant danger.

Not to be confrontational but the "significant danger" lies where, exactly? Those who have unhealthy interests in children will always find a way (covert camera, long telephoto or whatever) and those who photograph blatantly are seldom such people, I'd wager. Where exactly is the harm in a photograph of a child? Am I being naiive here? Somewhere, I seem to recall, there exists a photograph of me being bathed in the kitchen sink (as an infant, I stress!). Should I find the photograph and burn it, destroy part of my childhood from when I was too young to recall it?

 

[Peter_Jones]

Wasn't a (UK) newsreader arrested a couple of years ago because she possessed photos of her daughter in the bath ?


(Edit) - Julia Somerville, here's a link http://www.independent.co.uk/news/itn-newsreader-in-photographs-row-back-on-air-1580613.html

 

[wolves3012]

Wasn't a (UK) newsreader arrested a couple of years ago because she possessed photos of her daughter in the bath ?


(Edit) - Julia Somerville, here's a link http://www.independent.co.uk/news/itn-newsreader-in-photographs-row-back-on-air-1580613.html

I do recall that, vaguely. Even parents can be paedophiles but it's worrying that such things are automatically investigated, usually based on some "procedure" over which we have no say. I think I'm safe with my photo, since it's obviously rather old and of me. My father, who took it, is deceased!

 

[paulfish4570]

uwe, back to your scripture citation for a moment. that was the Lord coming down on job's friends who had been giving him shaky counsel. i don't see how that applies to my stand on health care. i am giving myself my own advice on the matter - prayerfully, of course. 🙂

and i think you misunderstand health care in the states. no one is denied basic health care if he or she does not have insurance. medicaid takes care of that. any hospital that has ever used a federal dollar is obligated to provide care under the hill-burton act of many years ago. state/county health departments also provide free vaccinations for children, for example, and free pre-natal care for expectant mothers. hospital emergency rooms are, in effect, first recourse medical care for many people too ignorant - or lazy - to take advantage of other medicaid providers.

the Bible clearly says for us to take care of one another. it says nothing about paying massive tax increases to a third party - the federal government - to do it for us ... 🙂

 

[semilog]

Even parents can be paedophiles...

It's a safe bet that the vast majority of sexual abuse is perpetrated by parents or other family members.

 

[Keith]

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.

That comment about teenagers is interesting and very astute IMO.

We constantly hear via the media about the threat of teenagers to society. The 'teenage/youth crime problem' is one subject that the damned politicians trot out here every time an election comes around ... and they need a few more frightened conservative minds to vote the worms back into power.

It's a frigging myth and the majority of the crime is being committed by their elders. Kids these days along with pensioners are being marginalised by society as the middle age middle class consumer driven vandals run amok with this planet's resources!

Whoops ... I'll get off my soapbox now!😱

 

[John Robertson]

I imgaine a scenario where a child is being given a birthday party by his/her parents with invited mates from school and play etc ... are the parents game to take photos of their birthday child during celebrations for fear of being repremanded for photographing other people's children.

Could it come to this?

When the hell are we going to get over this and accept that life has risks?

My son and another parent were told in no uncertain terms to stop videoing the school nativity play last Xmas by the headmistress.
both he and the other parent, went backstage and took their kids away home. The headmistress was almost apopleptic with rage. My son very firmly put her in her place. she is now at another school after complaints to the education authoroties.

 

[Rob-F]

Not to be confrontational but the "significant danger" lies where, exactly? Those who have unhealthy interests in children will always find a way (covert camera, long telephoto or whatever) and those who photograph blatantly are seldom such people, I'd wager. Where exactly is the harm in a photograph of a child? Am I being naiive here? Somewhere, I seem to recall, there exists a photograph of me being bathed in the kitchen sink (as an infant, I stress!). Should I find the photograph and burn it, destroy part of my childhood from when I was too young to recall it?

Yes, I think most of the child abuse cases I've seen have been incest related; though the perp is usually a stepfather, not a bio parent.

It seems we agree. I've defined paranoia as fear in the absence of any evidence of significant danger. Unreasonable fear, in other words. In recent times there seems to be a witch hunt for people who meant no harm. For anyone to be overly concerned in the examples you gave would be suggestive, IMO, of paranoia.

Of course, there are always people who butt in unnecessarily, out of self-righteousness or a misplaced sense of duty.

 

[mgd711]

what has happened to the warrior soul of the scots? just how far can the nanny-state mentality go?

We moved to the Philippines to avoid an overly repressive state! 🙂

 

[jpa66]

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!

Oh, I don't think that it's just people in general, but the entire government. As one post already said, those in power seek to distract a vast majority of people from serious issues that effect their lives ( jobs, healthcare, retirement, etc. ) by utilizing "trigger" issues and scare tactics. I've always been morbidly amused at people who, because of some inane "belief" or gut reaction, support politicians that legislate against their interests.

 

[Richard G]

jpa66, this distraction thing may indeed be part of it. I have been intrigued for years by the journalists' or news service owners' obsession with counselling. No matter how far away the disaster and how spectacular the phenomenon - earthquake or lava eruption - and no matter how short the news segment, we are always told that teams of counsellors were flown in from neighbouring countries. I just don't get that. Why is that news? Is it emotional voyeurism? Pretty poor effort. In my more paranoid moments I have wondered whether the share-holding news empire owners have a vested interest in promoting counselling, shown to be of dubious worth, or worse, in a mistaken conviction that this promotion will reduce time off from post-traumatic stress etc....Or do news empire owners tend to spawn counselling off-spring? Not Rupert, anyway. It sure suggest a conspiracy of some sort to me. Counsellors have now been called in to settle me down.

 

[Leigh Youdale]

the Bible clearly says for us to take care of one another. it says nothing about paying massive tax increases to a third party - the federal government - to do it for us ... 🙂

The Bible says a lot of stuff that nobody takes seriously any more and for good reason - it's no longer applicable since we moved out from being a quarrelsome nomadic Arabic tribe of sheep herders.
When was the last time anyone you know obeyed the injunction to "sell everything that they have and give it to the poor"? You can't cherry-pick the bits that you like and demand they be taken literally but ignore the rest.

 

[SimonSawSunlight]

Oh, I don't think that it's just people in general, but the entire government. As one post already said, those in power seek to distract a vast majority of people from serious issues that effect their lives ( jobs, healthcare, retirement, etc. ) by utilizing "trigger" issues and scare tactics. I've always been morbidly amused at people who, because of some inane "belief" or gut reaction, support politicians that legislate against their interests.

true, of course, I was just polarising a bit. but still, humans seem to be the only animals that usually become dumber in large groups...

 

[sig]

Woha, your son is a team player! I bet your grandkid was over the moon when he/she was not allowed to join the nativity play..... Ironic, taking your kid away home from the 'true' story of Christmas where the 'turn the other cheek' fellow was born.

My son and another parent were told in no uncertain terms to stop videoing the school nativity play last Xmas by the headmistress.
both he and the other parent, went backstage and took their kids away home. The headmistress was almost apopleptic with rage. My son very firmly put her in her place. she is now at another school after complaints to the education authoroties.

 

[sojournerphoto]

I generally take the 1Ds3 to the childrens shows and nativities. No other parents object, but they are all very happy to be given prints of their children taking part and enjoying the show. Lots of other parents take little digi point and shots that flash away throughout, albeit the flash range is not sufficient, and no one objects.

We're probably fortunate, but there is more than one side to this story.

Mike

 

[wolves3012]

The Bible says a lot of stuff that nobody takes seriously any more and for good reason - it's no longer applicable since we moved out from being a quarrelsome nomadic Arabic tribe of sheep herders.
When was the last time anyone you know obeyed the injunction to "sell everything that they have and give it to the poor"?

As a moral code, a lot of it is probably still loosely applicable. As an atheist I don't need it, however, to tell me right from wrong.

You can't cherry-pick the bits that you like and demand they be taken literally but ignore the rest.

Isn't that exactly what most bible-bashers and christian fanatics do? I notice some people on here insist on random biblical quotes in their signatures, which I think is inappropriate and might offend some.

 

[sig]

IMHO this is a minor problem in the real world. We take much more pictures today than anytime before, so how can this be a major issue? I have no problem with people using their cameras on a nativity play or in a kids birthday party, but different people have different personal borders, and there is nothing wrong in being a nice guy and respect that.

 

[dfoo]

Sure there is when it starts to impact your personal freedoms. Personally, I think while people have the right to complain to me, I also have the right to tell them where to go. Rights go both ways 😉

 

[Leigh Youdale]

As a moral code, a lot of it is probably still loosely applicable. As an atheist I don't need it, however, to tell me right from wrong.

Isn't that exactly what most bible-bashers and christian fanatics do? I notice some people on here insist on random biblical quotes in their signatures, which I think is inappropriate and might offend some.

1. Agreed for the NT. But some of the OT stuff is pretty questionable in terms of morality. Just as well we're not expected to take it all literally!
2. I agree - the 'preachiness' of some signatures is both inappropriate and bordering on offensive to any rationalist readers. Probably makes the poster feel virtuous though. Delusionally so. I wonder how they'd respond if I quoted Richard Dawkins in my signature?

 

[mgd711]

I notice some people on here insist on random biblical quotes in their signatures, which I think is inappropriate and might offend some.

I’m one off those people who finds it offensive. I’ve constantly having religion stuffed down my throat, living as I do in the only Christian country in Asia.

I’ve been kicked out off just about every photography forum here for my views, however I’ve mellowed a little and simply ask people not to discuss Religion and Politics here, after all this is a photography/camera forum and there nothing like religion and politics to start a flame war.