Modern Life Is Rubbish

[Chekhov]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

Just come back from Madeira, lovely, but I was rather concerned at all the parents taking pictures of their kids on the beaches and hotel pools. After all, it might upset some paranoid loonies and that would never do. Who gives a toss if the parents want pics for their poxy albums, sod them. So how can we stop that flagrant photography ?

We ban cameras from beaches ?
But the serried ranks of Paedos would surely just assemble in the surrounding cliffs with their telephoto lenses, so that's not the answer is it ?
How about we have an exclusion zone, no cameras allowed for one mile around all beaches ?
The problem there is that literally dozens of policemen would be required inland from every beach.
So, how about an outright ban on all cameras, in the "developed" world at any rate ? But that would have to include all smartphones, so maybe a little unrealistic ?
OK, all camera owners must be CRB checked every year ?
Might be a goer ?
But would that catch them all (not sure exactly who them are but you know what I mean) ?
After all, you can't be too careful can you ?
Apparently
Screwballs..........

Oh dear, I forgot.

The exclusion zone would have to extend out to sea !

We don't want Paedos on Pedalos taking snaps with Telephotos do we ?

After all they'll stop at nothing to get their pics, apart from the use of hidden cameras at swimming pools, obviously they wouldn't ever do that. 

I'm sure it's not just the parents of competitive swimmers in galas who would be affected by banning  them filming their own kids racing.....

[El Cid]

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

if you asked most parents of competitive swimmers, if they were in favour of a ban on filming at the galas their kids were in, I would be very surprised if more than a tiny minority agreed with it.

But who gives a toss what the parents think ?

If you had one child that was being protected because their parents were going through a messy divorce, that is enough for a blanket ban on filming.

Edited October 28, 2022 by El Cid

[The_DADDY]

3 minutes ago, El Cid said:

If you had one child that was being protected because their parents were going through a messy divorce, that is enough for a blanket ban on filming.

No. That's overkill. 

[El Cid]

47 minutes ago, The_DADDY said:

No. That's overkill. 

It probably is, but a few children are in foster care because of a violent parent and their identity and even their location needs to be protected.

 

[The_DADDY]

7 minutes ago, El Cid said:

It probably is, but a few children are in foster care because of a violent parent and their identity and even their location needs to be protected.

 

So that's 1 child in what?

10?

100?

1000?

10,000?

 

 

[crookesey]

No wonder my wife banned me from parent/teacher meetings. 😉

[HeHasRisen]

On 20/10/2022 at 11:10, Tyke02 said:

If that's true, and all the others in your club agree with you about filming as you say, then where's the problem? 

And yet he is still harping on about it. Its very odd.

[Delayed]

11 hours ago, Chekhov said:

Just come back from Madeira, lovely, but I was rather concerned at all the parents taking pictures of their kids on the beaches and hotel pools. After all, it might upset some paranoid loonies and that would never do. Who gives a toss if the parents want pics for their poxy albums, sod them. So how can we stop that flagrant photography ?

We ban cameras from beaches ?

But the serried ranks of Paedos would surely just assemble in the surrounding cliffs with their telephoto lenses, so that's not the answer is it ?

How about we have an exclusion zone, no cameras allowed for one mile around all beaches ?

The problem there is that literally dozens of policemen would be required inland from every beach.

So, how about an outright ban on all cameras, in the "developed" world at any rate ? But that would have to include all smartphones, so maybe a little unrealistic ?

OK, all camera owners must be CRB checked every year ?

Might be a goer ?

But would that catch them all (not sure exactly who them are but you know what I mean) ?

After all, you can't be too careful can you ?

Apparently.

 

Screwballs..........

As a visitor to Madeira, you wouldn't be able to change things as you are only there for a short time, so you would have to report your concerns to the local police force. 

 

Unless you wanted to become a citizen and then vote for law changes.  

 

(See I can be bothered now)

[trastrick]

9 hours ago, Chekhov said:

Oh dear, I forgot.

The exclusion zone would have to extend out to sea !

We don't want Paedos on Pedalos taking snaps with Telephotos do we ?

After all they'll stop at nothing to get their pics, apart from the use of hidden cameras at swimming pools, obviously they wouldn't ever do that. 

I'm sure it's not just the parents of competitive swimmers in galas who would be affected by banning  them filming their own kids racing.....

If pedophilia is a societal problem.

 

The societal solution is to target pedophiles.

 

To do this effectively, one must raise the enforcement and penalties for the guilty. Child molesters are attracted to intitutions that society give adults power over children

 

Not regulate the entire society of law abiding innocent parents. This is a huge enforcement undertaking

 

It does not reduces the incidence of pedo crimes, merely allows those who's job it is to "regulate" to appear to be doing their job.

 

A waste of resources. With no appreciable reduction of the actual crime.

 

Here's an example.

 

Every holiday season, in my Toronto, (now setting records for shootings, stabbings, car jacking and home invasions) they embalk on a PR Campaign to get DUI drivers off the street. They'll cordon off random  busy roads and pull every driver, including granny and the kids, so as to be "none profiling" in the interests of "fairness".

 

Police setting up holiday RIDE checks day and night

https://globalnews.ca/news/1708932/police-setting-up-holiday-ride-checks-day-and-night/

 

Meanwhile the trendy bar and restaurants and pubs have parking lots full of vehicles, of the chardonney, craft beer drinkers drinkers. It is obvious where the danger comes from. 

 

But the restaurant proprieters have been successful in stopping the police from targeting their parking lots.

 

The cops have to be seen to be "fair", and "none discriminating" in their policing. So they set up at random, around town. and add the the stress of the average law abiding citizen on a simple trip to the shops.

 

Meanwhile the really effective measures that have actually reduced DUI charges, are the newer severe penalties for the guilty. 

 

Increased punitive fines, loss of licence, prohibive car insurance premiums and such.

 

If a society is really committed to reducing crime, target the source, not the public at large.

 

A clue is from the criminals actual credo. "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime". 

 

As to pedos:

 

And the old saw about an infamous heist artist who was asked why he robbed banks, "
"Because that's where the money is", he said. 

 

Likewise pedos will be found, in larger numbers, in those institutions which give them control over children and where parents are advised their children will be safe, such as church, school, extra curricular activites, youth organizations, etc.

 

(Anybody that grew up with a close association with the church, scouts will understand what I am referring to. Those "camping trips" were notorious for, what was once called, homosexualty with minors)

 

No amount of "regulation" of common sense law abiding, innocent folks, will deter scofflaws and criminals from their crimes, not even from "sticking their heads out of train windows" or taking a shortcut by "crossing railway track"

 

Nor will making it illegal for parents to photograph their children in a public place, or at a public event, decrease the incidence of pedophilia.

 

Until the real perps are targeted and exposed, and penalized heavily, not excused and let free to repeat their crimes, by "well intentioned" anonymous judges and parole boards, and other assorted social worker advocates for "prisoner's rights", will anything really change!

 

[El Cid]

9 hours ago, The_DADDY said:

So that's 1 child in what?

10?

100?

1000?

10,000?

I am sure it's a small number, but the people organising the event don't know if there will be zero vulnerable children or one hundred.