Picture the scene, first day back at school and running a bit late. you're walking you're normal route to school and you notice a few other children walking alone also late for school. As you're walking, you notice a man in his late 60's early 70's taking photo's of the kids walking to school alone.

Would you see this as suspicious? Would you inform the police and would you expect them to tell you he's quite within his rights to do this?

If its not illegal, why would the police suggest we could see a solicitor about this? They said if he was taking pictures of an adult, they would be able to act upon it.

I am not saying this gentleman had an ulterior motive for doing this, but for the police to say he is allowed to do this and get away with it leaves me highly concerned, especially as he lives directly opposite a family centre where very young children are playing outside most of the time.

.......................

I'm going to inform the family centre across the road first off, make sure they are aware of it. Not sure the schools will be able to get thep olice to do anymore than we already have, if its "not against the law" according to them :rolleyes:

..................

I'd be taking that further, Schools have to ask if pictures/film can be taken of a child. Pretty sure there is some law against taking pictures of a child without parental consent.
Speak to school prehaps get them to call the police also. It's a good job I did not see him, he would still be parting with bits of said camera now..

Nope, no law to stop you photographing what you like in public. Apart from maybe the Official Secrets Act.

There's no wonder that photographers are worried about the paranoid times we live in is there.

Well it's in the schools best intrest to be aware of any potential threat to the pupils, they will be obliged to inform parents and at least speak to the police. the more pressure the police get the bigger the chance they will speak to this weirdo

You might be right, but will you publicly apologise to this guy if he happens to be a photographer of some sort? Because the leaps you are taking are truly huge at the moment.

......................

........................

We had something simular here but the school acted upon information given. I think being informed is helpful and protective of children.

Look, as a parent if I saw some old bloke taking pictures of my children without seeking my prior consent I would be livid and be wanting to make sure any copies of said photos were desposed of.
I am very aware through first hand experience of the dangers dodgy adults can be to minors. you may think I am a paranoid parent, I am glad I am aware of the dangers of dispicable adults or I may well be a child light now.
Luckily because I as you call me, am a little paranoid I was able to stop my child(with the help of the police) getting into a situation that could have proved deadly.
Now do not dare tell me that being a tad wary of old blokes taking pictures of children on the way to school is paranoid.. It's the normal response of a caring concernd parent.
Remind me again how many children have you got??
Remind me again why it's relevant.

You are paranoid. And if in your lividness you did anything to get the photos destroyed you would probably be guilty of common assault.
Stranger danger is the least prevalent, are you quite so paranoid with your family, particularly male relatives, they are the ones most likely to somehow harm your children.
And I say that as an uncle to three girls.

No!! I would be asking him why he was taking pictures of my child without my consent..
Infact, lets think about this..If you had a lovley 9/10 year old daughter who came home and said an old man was taking photos of her walking to school alone..
Would you A) tell her to not worry hes only a photographer
or B) make sure you walked to school with her and speak to old man to see what the hell he was playing at....

First of all, I probably wouldn't invent a law that makes his behaviour illegal.
Secondly I wouldn't publicly call him a weirdo, nor would I try to drum up some sort of lynch mob.
I might, as you suggest, speak to the person, but it wouldn't involve me being livid and dare I say irrational.

Maybe I've got it all backwards, but I find that approaching things in a calm and rational manner, without the hysterics and media fuelled paranoia to be a better way to deal with things.

I would be a little concerned, but not overly worried to be honest. My children are fully clothed when going to school, so they're not gonna be "indecent" photos. I'd mention it to school just in case, and so parents can be a little more vigilant about letting their kids walk alone, but other than that i think there's little you can do. I understand what you're saying Cyclone and to a point, i agree, but maybe you could have been a little less antagonistic in the way you worded your post...

[.......................

Remind me again why it's relevant.

You are paranoid. And if in your lividness you did anything to get the photos destroyed you would probably be guilty of common assault.
Stranger danger is the least prevalent, are you quite so paranoid with your family, particularly male relatives, they are the ones most likely to somehow harm your children.
And I say that as an uncle to three girls.

I don't agree at all. What reason could there be for taking photos of children? Of course not all taking pictures of children is suspect but the school didn't know about this, so why was he there? I've heard of several incidences of dangerous men hanging around schools and it is better safe than sorry.

......................

.......................

I would be a little concerned, but not overly worried to be honest. My children are fully clothed when going to school, so they're not gonna be "indecent" photos. I'd mention it to school just in case, and so parents can be a little more vigilant about letting their kids walk alone, but other than that i think there's little you can do. I understand what you're saying Cyclone and to a point, i agree, but maybe you could have been a little less antagonistic in the way you worded your post...

Could have maybe, but paranoid parents make me livid :P

................

Because untill you have the responsibility of your own children I really do not think you could comprehend to be perfectly frank, the love for a nice or nephew is totally different to your own child, when you have one you'll know.
Stock argument for a parent who isn't being reasonable. As if the rest of us don't get given brains until we manage to procreate.
I am not paranoid I am a very aware parent who wants to keep her children safe, and subsequently has managed to do so.
And to be honest the comment that my male reletives are more likley to abuse or harm my children is insulting and low.
Unfortunately it's true. 9/10 children are abused by relatives or close friends of the parents.
And again your stranger danger is NOT the least prevalent this I know sadly, and was confirmed by the police lady working with us as becomming far, far more common in her own words.
Maybe you can twist 1/10 into not the least prevalent, I can't.
I'm sorry but an old man taking photos of lone schoolchildren is dodgy to say the least, if you think thats o.k your a fool man

Lone? With other children and parents on the street, an odd choice of word.

well it's a good job your not a parent then isn't it.. because if your not worrying about your childs saftey your not doing your job right.

If you're paranoid you're not doing it right, children need room to grow up, not to reach 18 wrapped in cotton wool because you're scared of the boogie man.

Where exactly have I invented a law? I said I was pretty sure,
You were wrong. I never said there was any definate law, anyway from what I understand of photography a parents consent must be gained to take pictures of a child. so if this guy was a photographer he would know not to take pictures of random children.
You're still wrong.
So we can presume this guy was not a photographer, leading us back to why is he taking these pictures of LONE children walking to school in the first place

He clearly was a photographer, he's got a camera and is taking pictures, that's all you need to be a photographer.

Maybe he's looking for candid shots (means not posed) in order to put them in a catalogue or portfolio. Maybe he just takes photos for his own enjoyment.
If (and there's no suggestion that he is) was some kind of paedophile, he'd be pretty stupid to stand in public taking photos and maybe it escaped your notice but the children were fully dressed.

I don't agree at all. What reason could there be for taking photos of children? Of course not all taking pictures of children is suspect but the school didn't know about this, so why was he there? I've heard of several incidences of dangerous men hanging around schools and it is better safe than sorry.

Heard about it from whom? And in what way is a camera a danger?

I spent the last week taking photos in NYC. I'm sure if I look I'll have got some children in there. It didn't mean I was stalking them, or that I even wanted them in my shot, I was after tall buildings and central park and the statue of liberty. Thankfully the NYPD aren't as ready to comdem as you lot, or there'd be a lot of shot tourists.

Did I mention lynch mob??? where in my posts do I mention lynch mob??? or publicly calling him a werido. for gods sake I have not seen the man yet, and if I were do you think I would be marching up there all guns blazing
You called him a weirdo on here, how much more public do you want to make it? And I extrapolated from your 'drumming up support' to the lynch mob, call it artistic license.
I said I would ask him what the hell he was playing at.. did I comment in what manner I would ask the question? No..
I can imagine that it would be in a manner like your posts are. Aggressive, confrontational, asking him "what the hell do you think you're doing" as you said is hardly a picture of reasonableness is it.
You are making presumtions, incorrect ones at that,
That's rich, given what we're discussing. For every assumption (I think you mean) that I've made, you've made several more that are potentially far more serious.
you do not know me and have no idea how I react to a situation, I could be livid inside, but you'd never know.. and I am pretty certain the photos would be deleted without me having to commit common assualt.
Do you think.
I expect most photographers, or even innocent amateurs would tell you exactly where to take your deletion.
And my paranoia as you call it is far from media fulled, I know first hand of the dangers children face from adults. so do not patronise me in suggesting it is.
So it's fuelled by an anecdote is it, you certainly aren't taking notice of the actual statistics surrounding the issue.

if i would have seen this man i would have confronted him and made him show me the photos and delete all of the ones of the children, if he would not i would have called the police because to me there is no need to take photos of children on there own in the street. if it was for something not dodgy and he could show proof of this if he asked some parents walking there children to school if he could take photos of there children they may have let him take them.

i also think it should be made illegal to intencely take photos of children in public with our parents permission

if i would have seen this man i would have confronted him and made him show me the photos and delete all of the ones of the children, if he would not i would have called the police because to me there is no need to take photos of children on there own in the street. if it was for something not dodgy and he could show proof of this if he asked some parents walking there children to school if he could take photos of there children they may have let him take them.

i also think it should be made illegal to intencely take photos of children in public with our parents permission

As the police have already told the op, he's done nothing wrong. If you tried to demand to see or delete the photographs you are risking committing common assault.

So you think that no one should ever again get a photo of their child in the park, or at school, or with friends, or playing football.
And that anyone in most public places would be unable to take photographs as well. Or maybe you'd like children banning from being outdoors?

Cyclone - I haven't read all of this in depth but I can honestly say that you do get a different perspective on things when you have your own children. This is not a reply that parents just churn out to give them the upper hand in any discussions it is the truth. Until you have your own children you really do not understand the depth of feeling involved. I do not think for one minute that there is a pervert on every corner & I am not paranoid at all but I would be concerned as to why a stranger was taking photo's of my kids, no matter how innocent, without my permission. I would certainly ask for an explanation & I would let the school know.

Heard about it from whom? And in what way is a camera a danger?

I spent the last week taking photos in NYC. I'm sure if I look I'll have got some children in there. It didn't mean I was stalking them, or that I even wanted them in my shot, I was after tall buildings and central park and the statue of liberty. Thankfully the NYPD aren't as ready to comdem as you lot, or there'd be a lot of shot tourists.

From a school I worked in, from schools that friend's children have attended, where parents have been given warnings about dangerous men approaching children. As I said yesterday in another thread my mother's cousin was abducted raped and murdered aged 8 on her way to school in the late 60s.
The OP said he was taking pictures of the children, not just taking pictures of the area. Places like schools and carehomes contain a lot of children and abuse has taken place in and around them. Sure it's not a huge proportion of the abuse that takes place but it's still a possibility. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying it definitley was anything but just to be safe rather than sorry, also out of interest what would another reason be?

Heard about it from whom? And in what way is a camera a danger?

I spent the last week taking photos in NYC. I'm sure if I look I'll have got some children in there. It didn't mean I was stalking them, or that I even wanted them in my shot, I was after tall buildings and central park and the statue of liberty. Thankfully the NYPD aren't as ready to comdem as you lot, or there'd be a lot of shot tourists.

I didn't say dangerous cameras, I said dangerous men, and you've just started a thread about misinterpreting posts!

As the police have already told the op, he's done nothing wrong. If you tried to demand to see or delete the photographs you are risking committing common assault.

So you think that no one should ever again get a photo of their child in the park, or at school, or with friends, or playing football.
And that anyone in most public places would be unable to take photographs as well. Or maybe you'd like children banning from being outdoors?

no ovcourse you can take photos of your own children . i mean should be illegal to INTENCELY take photos of children in public places that are not your own.

Cyclone - I haven't read all of this in depth but I can honestly say that you do get a different perspective on things when you have your own children. This is not a reply that parents just churn out to give them the upper hand in any discussions it is the truth. Until you have your own children you really do not understand the depth of feeling involved. I do not think for one minute that there is a pervert on every corner & I am not paranoid at all but I would be concerned as to why a stranger was taking photo's of my kids, no matter how innocent, without my permission. I would certainly ask for an explanation & I would let the school know.

I don't doubt that parents feel strong emotions.
That probably makes them the worst possible judges of correct behaviour in any situation like this as some of them become unable to act rationally.

Asking for an explanation isn't unreasonable. Demanding that they deleted is.

Like I said, maybe he wants candid shots. Children are full of life and energy, they jump about and stuff, maybe that looks better in a street photo than a load of adults walking head down on their way to work.

Maybe he'll put the photos in his portfolio, maybe he takes childrens pictures for a living (or wants to) or maybe he's just documenting life in the naughties for people to look at in 80 years time.
I've seen photos of crowds of Victorian children going to school, maybe they were all asked, but most likely not as children then were seen and not heard. If the police had taken the photographer away that bit of history would be gone.

As the police have already told the op, he's done nothing wrong. If you tried to demand to see or delete the photographs you are risking committing common assault.

So you think that no one should ever again get a photo of their child in the park, or at school, or with friends, or playing football.
And that anyone in most public places would be unable to take photographs as well. Or maybe you'd like children banning from being outdoors?

This bloke was not a parent so why are you trying to make out he was by saying 'their child'? Neither was he simply taking general photos in a public area, he was taking photos of other people's children for no known reason.

no ovcourse you can take photos of your own children . i mean should be illegal to INTENCELY take photos of children in public places that are not your own.

How are you ever going to police that, or if it ever made it to court prove that it was an intentional shot of a child and not something else in the photo.

Dafoot (I think, apologies if I got it wrong) has commented before on feeling odd and getting odd looks when taking his niece to the park, and he's a photographer, think how hard it would be for him to take photos of her if such a law existed. He'd had every emotional parent in the playground shouting at him and calling the police.

This bloke was not a parent so why are you trying to make out he was by saying 'their child'? Neither was he simply taking general photos in a public area, he was taking photos of other people's children for no known reason.

Because laws like that don't only apply to 60 year old guys on the street.

If it's illegal to photograph other peoples children, then you couldn't photograph your own if they were with friends, or in the park.
You couldn't take a photo in the city centre because children would be in.
Virtually all photography in public would be illegal. It's a stupid idea, and the suggestion was made for a stupid reason.

I didn't say dangerous cameras, I said dangerous men, and you've just started a thread about misinterpreting posts!

Yes, you said dangerous men.
So since this wasn't as far as we know a dangerous man, what's your point?
Does a camera make someone dangerous? No. End of story, there was no danger, he's not dangerous, nothing more to discuss.
(See it wasn't misinterpreted, I just considered the bigger picture and the consequences of your statement).

Incidents such as this lead to this situation (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=394133) :suspect:

Being the known busy body that I am, I'd have either gone over and asked this bloke what he was up to, and taken a snap of him on my phone, or rung the police to see if there was a car doing nothing in the area for an officer to come breathe down his neck - just to be on the safe side

I don't believe in getting hysterical, but in an age where we don't know everybody in our community now, which makes anonymous activities much easier, I do think random strangers shouldn't feel that they have gone unnoticed

Afraid you'll have to find someone else to argue with about how all photographers are evil paedo's, I'm going to bed.

I don't doubt that parents feel strong emotions.
That probably makes them the worst possible judges of correct behaviour in any situation like this as some of them become unable to act rationally.


errr.....hellooooooo! Mum of 5 here! I'm very protective over my kids, but i don't think I'm irrational in my thoughts. I think this thread has become a slanging match, bet you didn't expect that when you wrote the original post did you peaches? :rolleyes:

Next time I have a day off I'm going to the nearest school with a camera. I won't even turn it on, but winding up some parents will be amusing.

Yes, you said dangerous men.
So since this wasn't as far as we know a dangerous man, what's your point?
Does a camera make someone dangerous? No. End of story, there was no danger, he's not dangerous, nothing more to discuss.
(See it wasn't misinterpreted, I just considered the bigger picture and the consequences of your statement).

Actually he could have been dangerous without his camera. The dangerous men I refered to before did not have cameras. They were dangerous. This man could have been.

How are you ever going to police that, or if it ever made it to court prove that it was an intentional shot of a child and not something else in the photo.

Dafoot (I think, apologies if I got it wrong) has commented before on feeling odd and getting odd looks when taking his niece to the park, and he's a photographer, think how hard it would be for him to take photos of her if such a law existed. He'd had every emotional parent in the playground shouting at him and calling the police.

I had just got to the end of this thread when you mention me... :suspect::D

Indeed I have commented on feeling concerned about the odd looks I've had from parents when I am using my camera even vaguely near children (regardless of whether relatives/friends or not).

It can be quite intimidating.

For the record, there currently is no law to prevent you taking pictures of anything in public areas.

I don't recall who stated this person was actively taking pics of the kids, but how do you know that he was taking pics soley of the kids?

Rather than getting irate and angry, try approaching the man and talking to him in a civil manner. Many Most people would delete pics if they realised they somehow caused offence/concern.

If the chap with the camera gets aggressive, then is a good time for Police to get involved. Outside school there will be plenty of witnesses should anything happen so you need not get too worried about talking to him.

Next time I have a day off I'm going to the nearest school with a camera. I won't even turn it on, but winding up some parents will be amusing.

If you think worrying people about potentially harming their precious children is amusing I am seriously concerned about your sense of humour.

As the thread continues can we remember to try and keep it civil please?

Because laws like that don't only apply to 60 year old guys on the street.

If it's illegal to photograph other peoples children, then you couldn't photograph your own if they were with friends, or in the park.
You couldn't take a photo in the city centre because children would be in.
Virtually all photography in public would be illegal. It's a stupid idea, and the suggestion was made for a stupid reason.

IT's not just about the photos. This man was acting suspiciously outside a school.

would he have been so blatant if he'd had something to hide?

would he have been so blatant if he'd had something to hide?

could have been a rubbish disguise. But I'm not saying it was anything, just that it's not unheard of and there's no harm in being careful.

Can I ask... parents... have you ever taken a photo of your kids, perhaps with their friends on or near school grounds?

Can I ask... parents... have you ever taken a photo of your kids, perhaps with their friends on or near school grounds?

No I haven't and I can only imagine doing so maybe on his first and last day or something in a posed situation, but my eldest is only at pre-school. I didn't think this man was a parent though and the snaps were not with their knowledge or consent by the sound of it.

IT's not just about the photos. This man was acting suspiciously outside a school.
Suspicious in what way? because he was taking photos he was suspicious?
In which case it is about the photos.

...there's no harm in being careful.
Absolutely not and I don't think anyone would criticise you for wanting to look out for your children. However, it had been suggested on this thread that (I forget by who) that they would have been angry and demanded he delete his photos.

That isn't being careful, that's being agressive. A calm chat with a person in that situation may have put parent's mind at rest and alerted him to what he may not have realised was offending the parents.

There is an assumption he was taking pics of the kids, without seeing the pics you (not addressed at any individual) couldn't be sure.

Most photographers I've spoken to are more than happy to show their images and chat to people.

Suspicious in what way? because he was taking photos he was suspicious?
In which case it is about the photos.


Absolutely not and I don't think anyone would criticise you for wanting to look out for your children. However, it had been suggested on this thread that (I forget by who) that they would have been angry and demanded he delete his photos.

That isn't being careful, that's being agressive. A calm chat with a person in that situation may have put parent's mind at rest and alerted him to what he may not have realised was offending the parents.

There is an assumption he was taking pics of the kids, without seeing the pics you (not addressed at any individual) couldn't be sure.

Most photographers I've spoken to are more than happy to show their images and chat to people.

Call me paranoid but a lone older man hanging around a school without offspring for no obvious reason is suspicious. Taking photos of children who have no obvious connection to you is also suspicious and if not dodgy then certainly foolish.
I don't advocate an aggressive confrontation either, I'm just saying that these fears are not completely unfounded. I hope the OP is completely wrong, but believe as a mother and teacher that it would be irresponsible to ignore it.

Back to the 1st post for a moment...something I just noticed...

They said if he was taking pictures of an adult, they would be able to act upon it.

I wonder what the Police would be able to do in this situation? :confused:
Far as I am aware, no law has been broken.

I guess he could be moved on if the Police were concerned for the reaction from folks going in/out of the School.

Call me paranoid but a lone older man hanging around a school without offspring for no obvious reason is suspicious. Taking photos of children who have no obvious connection to you is also suspicious and if not dodgy then certainly foolish.
I don't advocate an aggressive confrontation either, I'm just saying that these fears are not completely unfounded. I hope the OP is completely wrong, but believe as a mother and teacher that it would be irresponsible to ignore it.

I will certainly agree with the foolish bit.... looking at the reaction these threads always seem get from parents, any photographer with camera in hand so much as glances at a child he seems to be an object of suspicion at best and target for violence at worst from parents.

I don't think I would ignore it myself if I were in the position as a Dad, but I suspect after a friendly chat with the chap my concerns would be laid to rest or I would be calling Police.

.....I'll refrain from going with what I was going to say.

The camera he was using was not a digital one, so pictures could not have been looked at.

He was taking pictures of the children because he moved the camera as the child was moving.

It was my partner that was taking my son to school, if it was me I would have confronted him.

Today I shall be warning both the local schools and the family centre he lives directly opposite

IT's not just about the photos. This man was acting suspiciously outside a school.

Maybe that's the nub of the thread. Taking photos in the street is not IMO suspicious.

The camera he was using was not a digital one, so pictures could not have been looked at.

He was taking pictures of the children because he moved the camera as the child was moving.

It was my partner that was taking my son to school, if it was me I would have confronted him.

Today I shall be warning both the local schools and the family centre he lives directly opposite

So despite the fact that he could take photos out of his window if he wished, you all think he's such a stupid weirdo that he came out on the street to do it.
Won't you feel stupid now if there's an explanation, maybe one of the children walking on the street was his grandchild.

Maybe one could have been, but not the 3 others he took photo's of after that one had passed

The camera he was using was not a digital one, so pictures could not have been looked at.
I'm not trying to be argumentative... just wondered how you know that?
No way of knowing unless you approach the person with the camera and have a chat.

Today I shall be warning both the local schools and the family centre he lives directly opposite
Probably worth making them aware he is about, but equally saying you will 'warn' them makes it clear to me you have decided he was up to no good - without anyone having tried to talk to the guy.

I would rather appear paranoid and worried than keep quiet and something happen.

As for the type of camera, my OH walked right past him, watched him wind the film on

I would rather appear paranoid and worried than keep quiet and something happen.
And I doubt anyone would deny you that right. I'm torn between hating the suspicious society we are becoming and the need to protect children from people who have less than honorable intentions.

My problem with all these threads is the *assumption of guilt* without attempting to ascertain whether it is a valid fear by the simple act of talking to the stranger.

Number of times I've seem people with 'string em up' responses makes my blood boil - that assumption of guilt. I had a discussion with a chap a while back that had made up his mind that the only reason one would put pics of kids online is if you were a paedophile. Again - assumption of guilt, there are plenty of innocent reasons to put images online.

As a parent putting pics online for family/friends to see you make those images available to the world to see. Some of those may be more risque than anyone could get standing outside a school.

It just seems like twisted logic to me - man outside school taking pics is evil, but putting pics online (that the very same man may well see) of kids by the parents is fine :confused:

As for the type of camera, my OH walked right past him, watched him wind the film on
That does of course mean he has to go to a shop to get them developed.... the developing labs look out for iffy content and will report to the appropriate authorities if in doubt (there have been numerous cases of labs reporting photogs for what turn out to be innocent images as well as catching the less innocent guys).

Not always DF, you can develop your own pics at home, my Grand dad did for years when he did wildlife shots

Indeed you can. I used to play with home developing (B&W) when I was using film, it was fun but a lot of bother to do regularly.

Thinking back to what someone would do with images of kids, which is presumably why parents are concerned about people taking pics, if pics were for nefarious purposes - would images of fully clothed kids serve the purpose? :confused:

Maybe that's why I sometimes struggle to understand the reaction people have in this situation. I don't see that pics like that would be of any 'value' to the sort of people you wouldn't want to have them.

Maybe one could have been, but not the 3 others he took photo's of after that one had passed

Maybe he could complain to the police that you were spying on him, do you have a license to watch people in public?