Photographing children

retoohs writes:

Its usually Junkies after money that lure them into the
toilets here

How do you lure someone into a toilet?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Unspam writes:

Yes, he fell off his bike and was impaled on 6ft high railings while being
pursued by a police car, but they deny they had anything to do with it.

Why didn't he stop for the police? Why would the police be at fault for
a freak accident?

He was an Aboriginal, they were not.

So? Does being aboriginal make a person stupid or disobedient to the
police?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

retoohs wrote:
Jer wrote:

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Jer" wrote:

Well, what I need to do is to being mollified,
go ahead and start a fight, force it into the
courts, get a news hound interested so I can get my name in the
lights, thereby providing
but one more example of my constitutional
rights under attack by someone that desperately
needs to know about them All of them.





Well, since I wasn't able to find any great number of cases (at
least not described on the internet), it appears photographers being
unfairly stopped or arrested by police is relatively rare. It does
happen, as the links show. And, if one believes the anecdotal
stories, it may be happening more often today.

Interestingly, this appears to be a greater problem in the UK.
While I didn't actually count while I was searching, it seems there
were ten cases in the UK for every one I could find here in the USA.

Stewart



One of the big (and significant) differences between the U.K. and the
U.S. is the U.S. has a constitution which explicitly defines what a
citizen's "rights" are. To be completely correct, the word is
"inalienable", which according to my pedant, means these rights are
not transferrable to another, which means they cannot by usurped by
law. Now, history has shown that the U.S. courts will refuse to uphold
one's access to a "right" if one doesn't care enough to complain when
a "right" has been violated. I complain because people have been put
in the ground trying to protect these rights, and I, for one, will NOT
allow the memory and respect of those before me to be dashed upon the
uncaring rocks of todays' society.

Now, this is not to say I don't think other people's issues aren't
important - they certainly are - but they also need to realize there
are constitutional issues that sway over their personal sensibilities
as to whether someone is snapping a shutter at someone elses visible
panty line. I'll also go on record right here and now by saying that
I think anyone that abuses a child deserves a properly tied noose
around their scrawny neck in the town square at sundown. The courts
decide what is and isn't abuse - not me, not them, nobody but a judge
and jury. I'm intimately familiar with what my rights are, I wish
everyone was. I'll defend my rights from any assult regardless of who
assaults them in three ways - hard, fast, and repeatedly - no
exceptions. Anybody who wants to be buried in legalese and related
paperwork for the next ten years is welcome to bring it on cuz I'm
your guy, and I've got a ton of money. IOW, don't fxck with me cuz
I'll fxck back in ways one cannot imagine. If one is concerned about
political incorrectness when they meet me, then hang on to your
visible panty line when you meet my attorney, cupcake, cuz the ride
gets a bit rough tomorrow. Myself and my attorney get along rather
well - we both firmly believe in a scortched earth policy where the
defense of my rights are concerned. Yes, I'm the guy your attorney
warned you about, and for all the right reasons.

One other thing... I work best in the background, and I suspect a lot
of photographers faced with these issues don't want a lot of publicity
surrounding them when they're trying to work. I don't argue with
that, that's their call. As a consequence, I suspect a lot of these
issues don't get a lot of ink on them, but that doesn't mean they
don't happen, it only means we're not aware of the event.

We are from the same mould Jer. We should all be standing up for our
rights. We also have a Bill of Rights in New Zealand

Alan


I've got an ex-pat brother in Canberra, and he routinely gets his
exercise by rolling his eyes when I tell him about some of the crap I've
seen through a lens. I also told him if he writes another book to not
identify me in any way.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Wayan writes:

Hor****. Just perverted photography should be illegal.

There's no such thing as "perverted photography."

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Brian May writes:

However, some people seem to be suggesting the crime was already
committed the moment the photo was taken.

Which crime?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Ron Hunter writes:

Somehow I can't put putting your hand on a 17 year
old girls breast and beating the same girl to death, but the law in many
states makes the murder less severely punished than the touch, even if
the touch was strongly desired, and encouraged.

In the United States, sex is feared and hated far more than violence.

Europe seems to have had much more reasonable standards until recently
when they began implementing many of the same laws as in the US.

They do as they are told these days, unfortunately.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Ron Hunter wrote:
Unspam wrote:


On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 10:35:49 GMT, Unspam wrote:



Unspam wrote:


Apparently a young boy was impaled on some railing when he fell off
his bike, I think it may have been rocket powered. Oh, he was being
followed by a police car at the time, but it seems that was not an
issue.


Apparently you are talking of the Redfern Riots, not the Westie ones.
Totally different.
BTW in both instances the kids were doing the wrong thing. Hardly an
instance of police corruption.
However as this has nothing to do with cameras, and it seems people
in other
countries know more of what goes on here, than those of us who live
here, I
guess it's time to let this particular part of the thread die.



Sorry, I didn't realise a child riding a bike carried a death penalty.


Couild you elaborate on this "death penalty" for riding a bike thing?
Or are you saying that the child fell off hs bike while being chased
by the police?




Yes, he fell off his bike and was impaled on 6ft high railings while
being
pursued by a police car, but they deny they had anything to do with
it. He
was an Aboriginal, they were not.

And his race makes it ok somehow? Or makes it a foregone conclusion
that the police tossed him up on the railing? Ever see what happens to
a rider when he hits something at 30 mph? He goes sailing. It's rather
hard at that point to pick a good landing site.




Ron, Aussie cops treat the Aboriginals similar to how the blacks were
treated in the U.S. back in the 50-60s. Damn shame too.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Frank ess writes:

I suppose legislators had something in mind when the wrote the
California law (may have changed in the dozen or so years since I
learned about it) that imposes a mandatory prison sentence for Rape With
A Foreign Object. Turns out a "foreign object" is anything other than a
penis: an exploratory finger can send a person to the joint, while he
may get a suspended sentence and local time for a full-on Statutory
Rape.

Statutory rape is a victimless crime if the "victim" actually consented.
A light sentence is thus warranted, if there must be a sentence at all.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Frank ess writes:

I suppose legislators had something in mind when the wrote the
California law (may have changed in the dozen or so years since I
learned about it) that imposes a mandatory prison sentence for Rape With
A Foreign Object. Turns out a "foreign object" is anything other than a
penis: an exploratory finger can send a person to the joint, while he
may get a suspended sentence and local time for a full-on Statutory
Rape.

Statutory rape is a victimless crime if the "victim" actually consented.
A light sentence is thus warranted, if there must be a sentence at all.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Ron Hunter writes:

The implication was that under Nevada law, ANYONE who is convicted of
having sex with a child under 14 gets automatic, life without parole.
But then that was TV. Don't know if that accurately reflects Nevada law.

Reality is probably worse.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.