I cannot believe this.

I shall keep the details vague to protect the privacy of the individuals involved, but....

two of my friends were out in London at a well known place with water in it. They are a gay couple, lovely folk. One of them is a serious amateur photographer.

They were taking photographs but were alarmed when told the Police had been called. The police said they were being escorted from the place on suspicion of having committed an illegal act.

When they asked on what basis, they were told that they had received reports of "two men without children" taking photos in an area where children were playing.

My friends' details were taken and, as I said, they were escorted off the area.

This sickens me. I know these people and they are so wonderful, and yet some do-gooder thought two men without children should not be taking photos.

My friend has emailed me to say he is shaking and nearly in tears.

This seems to have begun in the USA a couple of years ago and, like other things, was soon imported over here. I fail to see the logic. It's not just about taking photos. In some parks people have been under suspicion just for being there without children. Of course, if you have abducted a child and are taking him/her through the park you won't be interfered with. The entire idea is barmy.

Absolutely dreadful! It seems now that adults without children taking photos are treated in the same way as adults taking photos with children. This country's gone bonkers!

I can understand your friend's distress. It's shocking for
a citizen doing a normal human thing to be suddenly accused of a crime even if only on suspicion.

The police went too far which means they have incorrectly interpreted a law and thus have proved yet again why we protest so much about laws that can sweep up everyone in them when it's always claimed originally that the law is intended for another purpose.

Sadly that IS a form of fascism.

An example of the unfairness is the case of JK himself and the infamous pics of him in the park in a deck chair. I guarantee a newspaper photographer if questioned would fire back with demands to be left alone or immediately call their editor who would end the harassment.

No rational person would object to laws that ensure the safety of children. Personally-I can't abide the idea of harm coming to any child..or anyone for that matter, but the idea that children are so defencelsss is extremely upsetting. I can't even watch TV programs about sick children-it distress' me.

But when hysteria becomes so wide sweeping I believe it has an affect of watering down the concentration of authorities on real and genuine abuse of children.

There must be a reason that Third World countries can care for and love their children so much better-despite poverty, than the rich west where abuse of all kinds is an epidemic.

Let's hope they don't bring in the law the US state of Maine did recently where staring at a child for too long is now an offence.

I've become quite worried lately with my tendency to go into trance like states of boredom recently on public transport and twice missed train stops as I absent mindedly stare into space.

You're not allowed to photograph anyone else's children and in this paranoid society we have today, having a camera near them will land you in deep trouble.

I've worked as a photographer during my life but only in situations where I've been able to ask permission to photograph someone so I would never take snaps without asking people anyway.

In fact-the only times I haven't needed to ask is when I've done 3 jobs involving members of the Royal Family at official functions when I have to go around first and tell council officals etc etc never to ask one of the Royals for a photograph as they don't respond..they just pose themselves so a pic can be taken. Protocol.

At the same time I know many of the top paparazzi -the old kind-not the new cowboys but I'm very friendly with the infamous Jamie Fawcett who has had tangled with numerous celebrities but namely Nicolle Kidman and even then..they simply cannot stop them photographing their children.. although it's not my style.I'd never ever take snaps of anyone's kids-friends or otherwise.

I went with Fawcett for a few days once while doing a story on him and we were chasing Tom Cruise through the city when he was still married to Nicole..he actually stopped his car and got out , walked back and said 'please stop bothering me and don't photograph my kids"..pouring on the charm which is far more effective.

If I was David's friends I would actually make a formal complaint so that it's on the record even if it goes no-where. It sounds like the coppers over-reacted..they should have just looked into the matter, seen nothing untoward was going on and left it there.

Remember..the police don't always follow the rule: I arranged an exclusive deal with a newspaper to cover a charity dinner with just 20 people paying a fortune to dine with one of the British Royals at the Monaco Consulate in Sydney..when I was leaving the PR got it into her head that I hadn't given her all the film as arranged (I had). One of the bodyguards-a Scotland Yard detective from the Royal Protection squad approached me and said "I don;t have to search you do I"..I said "no but would you have the right ?"..he said "only if I was really suspicious which I'm not"..all very friendly but slightly tense !

I always make a complaint now-just so it's on the record !

Cameras are also proving to be our friend with police interviews etc being filmed so much less chance of a stitch-up !

Looking at today's edition of my local daily newspaper, The Sentinel, I see it has many photos of children to do with many subjects from prize-givings to sports winners. How is it that a Sentinel photographer is allowed to take photos of children in public places like swimming pools and no one threatens to have him arrested and attempts to confiscate his camera, yet another member of the public or a parent isn't allowed to take photos? After all, they're still photos of children, aren't they? The law is completely mixed up!

The problem is that anyone who questions this kind of thing is regarded as pro-paedophile or a paedophile themselves and nothing could be further from the truth.

I enjoyed watching the old Mitchel and Kenyon films of social life in the UK, showing ordinary people and how they lived. They bring history to life, and provide good insight into the non-famous who would not normally be on film. These, along with old photographs of town and village communities, including kids playing, are a rich source for any historian or genealogy researcher.

Unfortunately, in this age of much improved photo technology, the recording of such material is banned, and so there will be less for future historians to use, other than offial media footage.

In the Mitchel and Kenyon films there are always kids crowding round the cameras to get in shot. So far as we know none of them were harmed during the process, and none were stalked or abused afterwards. Nor did any of them lose their souls.

I begin to think of the past as a more enlightened period than the present. I wonder how mankind has so seriously regressed while his technology has progressed. When did we start to be afraid of everything? When and why did we lose our sense of proportion and perspective?

you raise a really good point and it illustrates that the general public really haven't got a clue about this and are just led by the nose.

The public at any event couldn't possibly know of the snapper's character although I'm quite sure the Sentinel photographer is of high moral character.

But as I've detailed on here-2 years ago the top NSW police prosecutor was himself prosecuted for the possession of child porn, receiving an 8 month sentence plus the total decimation of his career.

And you raise another good point: despte most Aussies being happy with their new PM, his Communication's Minister has been sold a bill of goods about a campaign to censor the internet(because of kiddy porn) which would put the country in-line with China, Thailand.,South Korea and Iran although all those countries are finding it impossible to impose.

He's been aided by a self-appointed "child protector" who labeled anyone who opposed the Minster's campaign as an "enabler of child porn". She bit of more than can chew and has not only been ridiculed by experts but by many commentators basically telling her to put up or shut up.

Word is-the Minster will go soon in a re-shuffle because of his complete balls up and I see he is already distancing himself from the child's rights campaigner.

Still-at the end of this summer here I had a wonderful lazy day at Bondi with an old friend and her grand-daughter. I was far too intimidated to bring out my small snap happy camera-she was braver.

Yes, the Mitchell and Kenyon films from nearly 110 years ago certainly show a different world and I suspect that most of those children looking fascinated into the camera may have gone on to die horrible deaths in the trenches of the First World War. I guess also that the parents of most of those children would have been too poor to own a camera or to pay to have their child's photo taken and that their appearances in the M & K films were the only photographic record of their existence as children.

What is needed is for the Prime Minister to come on prime time national television and clear up this Politically Correct mess as soon as possible, by stating that it is not a crime for any parent or relative or other interested party to take a photograph of a child. That photographs of fully clothed children, or childen playing on the beach or in a swimming pool are not (and never have been) child pornography and that he has instructed the Home Secretary to order the police to stop harrassing people taking innocent photos of children at any location. Also that failure by any police officer to follow these instructions will at best result in a reprimand and at worst dismissal from the force. That's what should happen, but I very much doubt that it will.

I am still fuming over this. I have been telling a few friends abroad about this, in Western and Eastern Europe and they are all appalled. Most European countries are very child friendly and have no taboos about chatting to someone else's kids, waving to a kid in a park etc... all perfectly normal, except in the UK.

The media are responsible for all this. Making everyone feel that there's a paedophile waiting on every street corner, in every park, waiting to prey on their kids. This makes people look at people like my friends, a gay couple with a camera, and call the police.

The media will not highlight the fact that most abuse happens within the family. If they did, they may find themselves advocating CCTV be installed in every home once a baby is born.

I still think your friends should make a formal complaint as it sounds even under the restrictive law the police mis-handled the matter and exercised a power they don't have.

They need a very good reason to ask people to leave a park and some proof that misbehaviour is happening.

Depends whether your friends wish to expose themselves to publicity and understandable if they didn't but it's most certainly a newsworthy story.

At the least they should post the story on the various gay news websites even with just first names.

Whilst on holiday in Cape Town a few years ago i went on one of the township tours. Wherever there were kids about and you took a picture or video the one in your shot very quickly turned to ten as they all crowded in to get in shot. In the pre trip briefing we were given we were positively encouraged to take photos of whatever we saw, especially the kids of the townships. It seems pervert panic isnt as rife in SA as it is here even though child sex offences are quite awful over there in some cases.

It's the same throughout Thailand AND most OF aSIA.

And particularly as there have been some awful cases of child abuse (and some dodgy cases as well).Sadly the racket of child prostitution and slavery is run by corrupt and criminal Thai gangs with high-up support, something never discussed or revealed in the tabloid shows and media that travel there for a bit of sensationalism(the BBC is an offender)

They propagate the usual myths that the country is a seething cesspit of abuse. I saw the result of this last year when a rather tall Russian got on a baht bus cuddling a young Thai looking boy and with a woman who was obviously his Thai wife-they all spoke Russian.
A bunch of Aussies got on and started making comments and gestures towards the Russian, about "pedos" and such-whereupon the 6' Ruskie stood up and decked the ringleader out cold..

However the local ex-pat community of Brits and Germans on the whole are vigilant about weeding out suspected pedophiles mindful of the countries reputation.

The gay area of Pattaya which boasts a huge neon sign saying 'Boyztowwn' is very vigilant about suspected child abusers.

But go onto the beach or walk in the street and taking a snap of some lovely looking kids with their beautiful smiles is more likely to get a "thank you"from the parents rather than a rebuke. But then Thais tend to be a race that judges people on their actions rather than their own prejudices.

Let's hope they don't bring in the law the US state of Maine did recently where staring at a child for too long is now an offence.


Although there is as yet no specific law in the UK, the police do have the power to arrest you for 'sexual activity with a child' (one of the many vague sex crime laws that zanulabor have introduced).

Yep, if you're walking down the street and you see a beautiful young women with all her bits hanging out (as they usually are these days) and can't help but take a second glance, take care. You could find yourself arrested if she happens to be 15 and a policeman (or surveillance camera) is watching.

Last year on a visit to France we spent the day on a fantastic beach in the Vendee region. The place was busy with families and couples and single people. Some wore swimwear, some didn't. I went in the sea for a swim, naked, as others were, when I was aware of a girl of about 7-8 years old and an oldish man( both naked) playing together in the water next to me. Then I noticed a young woman, topless, who was taking a video of the man and girl. A charming family scene and a completely normal thing to do, I thought. I am sure I was captured on her video but I never felt the need to complain. Somehow I couldn't see that happening on a British beach.

French are laid back like that when I went to France about 7 years ago they were advistising sex all over the place. They do hold the tourists attention if only I were older and had back then I would of gone to the clubs and Moulin Rouge which is about £30 to get in thats about 60 Euros as a quess.

Europeans have always understood the difference between nakedness and sex.