Log in

No account? Create an account
Smaller World - Danny Danger Oz [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Smaller World [Jul. 27th, 2009|05:44 pm]
[Tags|, , ]
[mood |sadsad]

Just got back from wandering the Giralang shops with my better camera (but no tripod). Pictures will be up when I find time.

On the way back I walked past the soccer field and there were a bunch of kids playing and being coached. The field was lovely, the kids seemed to be having fun, and in the distance between the trees, the Telstra tower was lit orange by the setting sun. It would have been a gorgeous photo.

Five years ago.

But of course, in this day and age, I couldn't afford to take it.

Someone may have seen the guy on the footpath with the camera and decided I'm obviously a paedophile, because the only people who could ever have wanted to record a scene like that would be fiends and perverts. No ordinary person could derive pleasure from such shot - children playing at sunset with a solid Canberra icon in the background.

Someone may have made the accusation, and with no prior record or any evidence more substantial than a person worrying about someone standing in open view taking a photo of kids rugged up against the cold and playing sport, I would be investigated. Our computers would be confiscated (usually returned damaged, even if there is not a shred of proof of wrong-doing), friends questioned, and the fact that I play Father Christmas would probably work against me, even though there has never been the slightest concern regarding my conduct with any child. I'm considered one of the company's best Santas.

Oh, and chances are I would have to move out, leaving my 73 year old mum to try and care of my son all day long (which would not be good for either of them), or my son would be taken away from us while the investigation took place.

After months of investigation, even after being found completely innocent, there would still be people who looked at me askance. Because there's no smoke without fire, apparently. Oh and I wouldn't be allowed to play Santa again, because it would be recorded that I was investigated, and that's enough to stop me being allowed to play the part.

Meanwhile, I'm assuming that most of the perverts who have any sense are buying camera glasses and pinhole cameras and getting their pictures that way.

For the rest of us, well, the world gets just that little bit smaller and less colourful as the illusion of safety is maintained for the masses.

It's all really rather a shame, as it would have been a beautiful photo.

[User Picture]From: kateorman
2009-07-27 08:36 am (UTC)
In all honesty, mate, I think you've been reading too many tabloids.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dalekboy
2009-07-27 08:52 am (UTC)
In all honesty, I've seen three different people I know done over with this sort of rubbish. Two to the degree of having computers taken (and returned damaged), having to be kept separated from their children, etc.

It only takes an unfounded accusation to seriously screw you up in the current paranoid climate.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
(no subject) - (Anonymous) Expand
(no subject) - (Anonymous) Expand
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: ariaflame
2009-07-27 08:48 am (UTC)
Last year while I was in Scotland I went to the end of year ceremony for my cousin's eldest child, who was leaving primary school and going on to high school. Pictures were not allowed to be taken because that would require the permission of all parents. And so little by little, even when the child is a relative of yours, it seems that the moments which mark their growth and change aren't getting recorded.

Photos that we used to take of children playing, carefree and innocent, we no longer do, or the act of taking them gets tainted by this worry. I find this very sad.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: arcadiagt5
2009-07-27 09:43 am (UTC)
That's just sad.

The worst aspect that I see is that later on you may not be able to record Lex's interaction with other kids, creating an illusion of a solitary life for a kid who probably won't be the least bit solitary.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: vegetus
2009-07-27 09:47 am (UTC)
I agree totally crazy and I really feel sorry for your friends who had to go through the ordeal of being investigated without reason.

Recently there was a case in the UK where a woman who worked in a child care centre was charged with making kiddy porn (one way they charged her was that some of the pictures were actually taken at the childcare centre). It was really interesting to see the media and community outrage and shock that a woman could do this. Because as we know only men are involved in child abuse and all men who show any interest in children are that way inclined. And then we wonder why we can't get any male teachers in primary schools...
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dalekboy
2009-07-27 11:49 am (UTC)
Recent studies seem to suggest that the rate of abuse by women is actually substantially higher than first thought. 25% is currently being bandied about as the figure. One of the big issues is that if a child said they were being touched inappropriately by a woman, the default was that the child must be confused or mistaken, as a woman was thought incapable of such behaviour.

Now it's coming out that female teachers, mothers, grandmothers, aunts, etc. make up a sizeable portion of child molesters. And some have gotten away with it for decades because no-one would believe the kids.

Personally, I've had a gutfull of the assumption that, as a male, I'm automatically predisposed towards interfering with children, and have to be treated as a potential danger right from the start.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: strangedave
2009-07-27 10:47 am (UTC)
if IS important, both this issue and the 'only terrorists want to take pictures of buildings' crap, and the 'copyright means you can't take pictures of public art' crap. Fuck them all, we have the right to take photos.

I am not sure that it is quite as bad as you say, though. Certainly some overzealous passer by might ask you to stop, the federal police really do have better things to do with their time.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dalekboy
2009-07-27 11:59 am (UTC)
On one hand, it's not as bad as I say, in that the worst case was that I would probably have been told to fuck off by the coach.

On the other hand, people are getting dragged through all the crap that I mentioned on the basis of single accusations with no evidence. And this is a crime where one is definitely treated as guilty until proven innocent. But even if proven innocent, people's lives are still affected afterwards by people who no longer trust them.

The real point is, rather than feeling free to just take a photograph when I was moved to, I had to weigh up what might happen, and given the kneejerk responses of people, decided it wasn't worth risking the hassle.

We met a professional photographer, one who'd been around a couple of decades, had art shows, etc. He was talking about how, even with his professional credentials, he wasn't allowed to take photos of his kids on the sports field. The rule they have is, one has to obtain the permission of every parent before taking any photos. How the hell is that even practical?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
(no subject) - (Anonymous) Expand
From: fe2h2o
2009-07-27 02:28 pm (UTC)
About 5 or so years ago, my uncle refused to take a film in to be developed. My aunt had taken a couple of photos of their grandkids playing in their nappies (so she could paint the image). He was not prepared to take the film in, because he figured on something like what you describe.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dalekboy
2009-07-27 02:51 pm (UTC)
I was still unfussed by all this a couple of years ago. Back then, I would have taken the photo. But it's gotten a bit out of hand.

At Lex's swimming class a grandmother was stopped from taking a photo of her grandson learning swimming. The picture was for the child's father, who is overseas. I don't think anyone in our swim class would have objected, but we weren't even given that chance either way.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: transcendancing
2009-07-27 05:43 pm (UTC)
This is the kind of fucked up thing that upsets me greatly.

And there is so much that I have so much trouble articulating, and at nearly 2am don't want to step on a soap box and wake up to trying to make intelligent responses at people tomorrow.

I'm having a cynical moment inside of the response I'm having which is a) human and not a small part feminist.

The context in which guys get to be guys is as absolutely fucked up and offensive as the inherent lack of value placed in women is.... that and several levels of other stuff.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: vegetus
2009-07-28 05:25 am (UTC)
I'd actually blame the anti-male sentiment that comes from so many wimmins and feminist groups in part for the continued negitive views towards men in our society. See above for the discussion on the number of women who are child abusers or who commit acts of domestic violence and the lack of support of victims.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: paul_ewins
2009-07-27 08:13 pm (UTC)
Sad to say, but that was probably a wise choice. The thing I find really stupid about the whole situation is the ban on taking photos of kids in normal situations. How on earth can that harm them, regardless of who looks at the photos? If taking a photo is so bad, why are we letting anybody watch them in the first place? Surely that would be much worse. It is all so stupid and such a long way from the kids who are really being harmed.

Still, at least you aren't in the UK where you can be arrested for taking photos of bus stations or pretty much anything that the copper involved thinks is unusual. God knows what would happen if there were still any Police Boxes left standing in England as taking photos of them would probably see you in permanent detention.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: vegetus
2009-07-28 05:23 am (UTC)
Ah the great anti-terrorist law that says taking footage of a police officer on duty is an illegal terrorist act... even if they are beating someone to death.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: chuckmck1
2009-07-27 09:15 pm (UTC)
Reminds me of when Max was a baby: I used to take him out in the stroller quite a bit, unaccompanied by his mother, and some of the looks I used to get (mainly from people in their 40s or 50s, and mostly women) still stick in my mind. Nobody ever said anything, but it left me feeling quite bitter at the time.

Without in any way wishing to downplay the true horror of kiddy-fiddling, it really has become the one major crime that seems to require little or no evidence for the general public to cry 'foul'.
(Reply) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)