Modern Life Is Rubbish

[harvey19]

I wonder what percentage of images are taken/used inappropriately.

[steve68]

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

You are talking absolute cobblers, again

Lack of empathy.......

always sniping with rudeness its pot/kettle every time, deflecting the facts that

 

you have 17 years of self indulgence on this forum, I think your issues aren't fixable here.

 

 

1 hour ago, harvey19 said:

I wonder what percentage of images are taken/used inappropriately.

 

obviously enough for the governing body to acknowledge the issue  

 

https://uk.teamunify.com/reczztdsc/UserFiles/Image/QuickUpload/filming-and-photography-guidance-section-2-4---wavepower-2020-2023-024447_072220.pdf

[Chekhov]

1 hour ago, harvey19 said:

I wonder what percentage of images are taken/used inappropriately.

I'd bet good money it is a small fraction of one percent. And even those that are one then has to ask how often does any harm come to the child as a result ?

The risk is as close to zero as it is possible to be without actually being zero.

 

This is the basic issue :

 

Parents ARE prepared to put their kids at risk, they do so every time they drive them in the car any where, or let them play on a climbing frame, or whatever. They do that because they see some benefit to their kids or themselves.

But, either consciously or, more probably, sub consciously they must think there is no benefit to me of another parent taking a picture with my child in it and there is a risk in it, the fact it is a ridiculously small risk is not on their radar. So some will say they do not want it, and in this overly risk averse world we live in with everyone wanting to cover their own backs, that is enough to ruin it for all the other parents.

Surely that comes under the definition of selfish ?

 

[trastrick]

Just now, Chekhov said:

I'd bet good money it is a small fraction of one percent. And even those that are one then has to ask how often does any harm come to the child as a result ?

The risk is as close to zero as it is possible to be without actually being zero.

 

This is the basic issue :

 

Parents ARE prepared to put their kids at risk, they do so every time they drive them in the car any where, or let them play on a climbing frame, or whatever. They do that because they see some benefit to their kids or themselves.

But, either consciously or, more probably, sub consciously they must think there is no benefit to me of another parent taking a picture with my child in it and there is a risk in it, the fact it is a ridiculously small risk is not on their radar. So some will say they do not want it, and in this overly risk averse world we live in with everyone wanting to cover their own backs, that is enough to ruin it for all the other parents.

Surely that comes under the definition of selfish ?

 

A scientific survey of attitudes to this issue, might throw some light on the matter, if responses were broken down by those who have children, vs those that do not?

[Chekhov]

2 hours ago, Delayed said:

>>Chekhov said:
Why do you never talk about the rights of every parent to record their own kids and instead just bangon about a load of paranoid parents ?  But you are too blinkered to see.<<

 

There is no such right.

Every parent is at the mercy of the venue whom can set their own rules.  Don't like it? Find another venue.

Coming from someone who thinks it's fine to deny people most of their rights "stay at home, meet up with nobody" your opinion on what constitutes "a right" is rather narrow.

But, as it happens, we are not talking about whether a venue seeking to cover its backside can have its own rules or not, we are talking about:

 

1 - What is the cost of those rules (and I am not talking financial) ?

2 - What are those rules achieving and are they proportionate ?

 

The parallels with people's attitude to Covid are stark. With that people like you were minimising other peoples "rights" and the harm the suppression policy was doing, and that's exactly what you are doing here.

 

The world is dividing, or has already divided, into those who want more restrictions on everyone "to keep us safe at any cost" and those who value personal freedom and want to be able to live their lives as they wish.

 

As I said before :

 

Other than the basic death rate per infection statistic Covid has never been about the science it's about five things :
1 - How the suppression policy affected people individually, some were hugely affected, but some not that much at all.
2 - People's risk aversion and their knowledge of risk probability.
3 - People's attitude to personal freedom, and, more significantly, to other people's personal freedom.
4 - People's attitude to the relative importance of length of life v quality of life.
5 - People's attitude to, and acceptance of, death.

 

10 minutes ago, trastrick said:

A scientific survey of attitudes to this issue, might throw some light on the matter, if responses were broken down by those who have children, vs those that do not?

That's a very good point T.

Those with no kids may not understand how much parents want to picture / video their own kids, esp them doing stuff that is particularly special.

On the other hand you might think those with kids might be more likely to be overly risk averse about their own kids (except when driving them about or helping them buy them a car....).

However, if we are more specific, and asked parents of competitive swimmers if cameras should be banned from galas I am pretty certain a big majority would say they should not.

Edited March 26, 2023 by Chekhov

[Delayed]

39 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Coming from someone who thinks it's fine to deny people most of their rights "stay at home, meet up with nobody" your opinion on what constitutes "a right" is rather narrow.

But, as it happens, we are not talking about whether a venue seeking to cover its backside can have its own rules or not, we are talking about:

 

1 - What is the cost of those rules (and I am not talking financial) ?

2 - What are those rules achieving and are they proportionate ?

 

The parallels with people's attitude to Covid are stark. With that people like you were minimising other peoples "rights" and the harm the suppression policy was doing, and that's exactly what you are doing here.

 

The world is dividing, or has already divided, into those who want more restrictions on everyone "to keep us safe at any cost" and those who value personal freedom and want to be able to live their lives as they wish.

 

As I said before :

 

Other than the basic death rate per infection statistic Covid has never been about the science it's about five things :
1 - How the suppression policy affected people individually, some were hugely affected, but some not that much at all.
2 - People's risk aversion and their knowledge of risk probability.
3 - People's attitude to personal freedom, and, more significantly, to other people's personal freedom.
4 - People's attitude to the relative importance of length of life v quality of life.
5 - People's attitude to, and acceptance of, death.

 

That's a very good point T.

Those with no kids may not understand how much parents want to picture / video their own kids, esp them doing stuff that is particularly special.

On the other hand you might think those with kids might be more likely to be overly risk averse about their own kids (except when driving them about or helping them buy them a car....).

However, if we are more specific, and asked parents of competitive swimmers if cameras should be banned from galas I am pretty certain a big majority would say they should not.

You are in no position to tell me what I think

[trastrick]

28 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

That's a very good point T.

Those with no kids may not understand how much parents want to picture / video their own kids, esp them doing stuff that is particularly special.

On the other hand you might think those with kids might be more likely to be overly risk averse about their own kids (except when driving them about or helping them buy them a car....).

However, if we are more specific, and asked parents of competitive swimmers if cameras should be banned from galas I am pretty certain a big majority would say they should not.

As a parent, I'm always a little leery of folks who see pornography in images of innocent children at play.. Especially in those who gravitate to positions of authority over them,

 

Teachers, Church leaders, Scoutmasters, Daycare Workers. Anyplace they can be taken without parental supervision.

 

Especially when they are just learning about life, and who they are supposed to be.

 

But that's just me!

Edited March 26, 2023 by trastrick

[Delayed]

9 minutes ago, trastrick said:

As a parent, I'm always a little leery of folks who see pornography in images of innocent children at play.. Especially in those who gravitate to positions of authority over them,

 

Teachers, Church leaders, Scoutmasters, Daycare Workers. Anyplace they can be taken without parental supervision.

 

Especially when they are just learning about life, and who they are supposed to be.

 

But that's just me!

And yet none of that is happening in Chekovs case

[Chekhov]

2 hours ago, Delayed said:

You are in no position to tell me what I think

Sorry where did I "tell you what to think" ?

This is what I said :

 

Coming from someone who thinks it's fine to deny people most of their rights "stay at home, meet up with nobody" your opinion on what constitutes "a right" is rather narrow.

But, as it happens, we are not talking about whether a venue seeking to cover its backside can have its own rules or not, we are talking about:

 

1 - What is the cost of those rules (and I am not talking financial) ?

2 - What are those rules achieving and are they proportionate ?

 

1 hour ago, Delayed said:

And yet none of that is happening in Chekovs case

What do you mean by that ?

 

BTW I agree with this Guardian article :

 

 as the children's author Philip Pullman put it, that "the default position of one human being to another is predatory rather than kindness". Any adult looking through the viewfinder at a child is viewed as potentially sinister and in need of regulation.

Of course, none of these restrictions would stop a paedophile getting hold of images of children; and apart from anything else it would be easy enough to pay £12 for a school nativity DVD or, indeed, register their camera.

It is not the child abuser but the loving parent who suffers from these rules. "You miss out on the milestones in your child's life," says Sue Rice. "It is a shame because they are small for such a short time."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/jun/23/photos-children-school-ban

 

Edited March 26, 2023 by Chekhov

[steve68]

Just now, Chekhov said:

Sorry where did I "tell you what to think" ?

This is what I said :

 

Coming from someone who thinks it's fine to deny people most of their rights "stay at home, meet up with nobody" your opinion on what constitutes "a right" is rather narrow.

But, as it happens, we are not talking about whether a venue seeking to cover its backside can have its own rules or not, we are talking about:

 

1 - What is the cost of those rules (and I am not talking financial) ?

2 - What are those rules achieving and are they proportionate ?

you're having that one-way conversation with yourself again, which doesn't count unless there is a shrink in the room with you to decipher 👨‍⚕️