First of all. Even if this guy had a previous conviction for offences against kids it still doesn't give people any right whatsoever to murder him. But IMO way too many people in Britain would be celebrating his death if the newspapers were reporting of genuine suspicions of him being a paedophile.

Now on to the article. There are too many warning bells in the article for me and too many things that are being hinted at but not cleared up. Firstly, how old were the kids? That's a pretty important factor in this. If there's a group of 15 year old kids and there's damage to the flowers that is one thing, if there's a couple 7 year old's and no evidence whatsoever of damage to the flowers then it's completely different.

Now, if kids of any age are messing up my garden then I'm not grabbing my camera, I'm outside and telling them where to go go. I wouldn't want there to be damage to my property, I wouldn't be getting a camera out to document the damage.

The police made a statement that there were no indecent images on the camera or the guys computer. That's good, but he wasn't accused of taking indecent pictures. If he was taking pictures of kids damaging his flowers then that would be what was on the camera. The police could have cleared him completely by verifying that the pictures the guy took were of the kids causing damage, they could have documented the damage that the kids did. Instead all the police are prepared to say is that there were no indecent pictures.

The rumour that the guy was burned out of his previous council rental. The council say they are investigating. The guy was murdered 3 months ago. The trial is happening now. It should take the responsible people in the council less than 10 minutes to find out whether there is any truth to him being burned out of a previous home. A "we're investigating" comment is suspicious if he was as innocent as he is being written. If he had no history of previous homes being burned down then that is a completely different situation to other residents knowing that he was a suspected offender and had been burned out of his last home. If there was no allegation and no fire then the rumour could quickly be proven to be false. But instead it is just left hanging.

IMO I think one witch hunt to get rid of a paedophile is now going to be replaced by another witch hunt to put blame on the police and council for not protecting him. There MAY be people who let him down, but I fear that there are going to be calls for heads to roll even if the police and council did nothing wrong.

To be fair, even if he was a paedophile he didn't deserve to die like that and if the Police and council are found not to have acted to protect him when help was requested then heads should roll.

Mintball wrote:And I damned well wish the media as a whole would realise that it needs to behave responsibly Story Sure, that'll happen, and next week i'm entering the Mr Universe Competition

Mintball wrote:And I damned well wish the media as a whole would realise that it needs to behave responsibly Story Sure, that'll happen, and next week i'm entering the Mr Universe Competition

It sums up our obsession with wanting to label someone a paedo when people throw the accusation that he "took pictures of children vandalising his flowers".

Were these kids naked or something? If they weren't then I can't imagine pictures of a bunch of kids fully clothed are going to be hot property amongst the kiddie porn community.

I remember we had a bit of hysteria like this a few years ago on this forum when there was an incident at Salford where a guy had his camcorder and was filming the under 11s match before the Super League game kicked off, people on the forum were saying this was disgusting and how scary that sort of person could be around in the family game. I remember having this argument then and being told by someone that I wouldn't understand as I'm not a parent. If I remember rightly this guy just got a 'caution' for it because he hadn't requested permission from the club.

There are vids all over youtube of kids playing sports like "6 year old Dutch kid with skills like Maradona", does this count as indecent porn....?

In fact if you go round my grandads he's got some old cine film of my mum and uncles on Bournemouth beach in the 1960s running around in various states of undress. Should I be reporting him?

I suspect that what all this paedo labelling is about is a primal desire to commit a horrendous crime against another person like burning them to death. You're generally not allowed to burn people to death but if someone is labelled as a paedo it provides social justification. I doubt they killed him really because of wanting to protect local children but because they felt free from the shackles of morality and had a chance to label him outside the law and so got to carry out their own sadistic fantasy.

Well it completely depends on the context of taking the pictures. If they were 15 year olds damaging his stuff and he was spotted taking pics of them clearly doing that then it is ludicrous to jump to the conclusion that he was doing it for his gratification. But if there was just a couple of 8 year old's talking and playing 10 feet away from his flowers and he was hiding behind curtain taking pics of them then it's a completely different situation.



You don't need to be in a child porn community to get your kicks from kids.



Again, context is important. If it was a parent filming his kid on his kids big day playing in a SL stadium that's one thing. But if the guy had no ties whatsoever to any players and was just filming for "the rugby" then I would be suspicious.



Clearly not. But if some guy was taking a video of an unrelated 6 year old whose skills were more Carlton Palmer than Maradona then one would ask why he was choosing to taking videos of him.



No, because he's your ****ing grandad. But if your grandad was asking your best friend over for special filming sessions then yeah, you probably should. Your grandad would want film of you because you're his grandson, but what reason would he have for taking film of your friend?

Why would it be different?

He had decided not to be confrontational, but was making sure he had evidence.

And if it's "different" to be photographing younger children – because then everyone assumes he's a perve – why do they assume photographing older children is somehow "different"? Why not assume he perves over 15-year-olds?

It is utterly ludicrous the way in which photographing a child has suddenly become evidence of perversion. It's paranoia and downright stupidity. And the mainstream news media has played a role in this, whipping up fear and with it, that hysteria.

Indeed, why do you feel the need to question what nobody else (anywhere) seems to be questioning: that his garden was being vandalised, and turn it into a 'maybe it wasn't and he was just using it as an excuse'?

Are you actually trying to illustrate how the current hysteria works?

Thats pretty much it - the feeling among parents that there is a pervert on every street who "wants" their children is widespread and manifests itself in the many anecdotes and press reports of amateur photographers being questioned in town and city centres when taking what used to be called "candid" photos of passer-by's or even just of buildings when people happen to be in the way - some of whom then find themselves explaining to police officers why they are taking those photos and then being asked to delete the photos under some sort of vague terrorist act (which doesn't exist) - the irony being of course that apparently deleting a photo on a digital camera does nothing of the sort but simply hides it from view.

We look back now at photographic collections of street scenes and "candid" photos of crowds of children playing (for instance) and call these photos important historical documents and social commentary, you can only imagine that in thirty years time anyone who wants to look at public photography from the 2000's will have to have police background checks before being allowed into the locked archives.

That's how it appears. A spokesperson for the vigilante murderers. Strange.

There's a good photo in the Sir Titus Salt in Bradford of a load of raggedy urchins getting ready for a charabanc trip probably in the '40s or '50s. Most people would look at it with a nostalgic smile. I'd find it sad that someone would view it thinking "Which nonce took that?"

I took this candid some years ago at Millennium Magic, Cardiff: I took this as well: In neither case did the subject see me – indeed, I was careful to avoid it. I don't usually photograph children – simply because that's not a subject area I'm particularly interested in. But this shot struck me straight away as rather charming and the child is not easily recognisable. Perhaps someone will be able to explain why one would apparently be okay and the other could ever be accused of anything else? The title of this thread was made quite deliberately. Humans never seem to learn from history, do they? From the hysteria and mob mentality of witch burnings, to that of Nazism, to McCarthyism and to things like this.

I took this candid some years ago at Millennium Magic, Cardiff: I took this as well: In neither case did the subject see me – indeed, I was careful to avoid it. I don't usually photograph children – simply because that's not a subject area I'm particularly interested in. But this shot struck me straight away as rather charming and the child is not easily recognisable. Perhaps someone will be able to explain why one would apparently be okay and the other could ever be accused of anything else? The title of this thread was made quite deliberately. Humans never seem to learn from history, do they? From the hysteria and mob mentality of witch burnings, to that of Nazism, to McCarthyism and to things like this.