This picture is what I found in the paper this morning. Its purpose is to encourage people (mostly parents, I'd imagine) to goto a website and support some form of child protection Thing.
Possibly not a bad idea. After all, we most protect the children from- no, stop.
Lets look at the add. Look at that number - 19%. Wow. What a high percentage. But - get this - 100% - and I mean ALL - parents will have a photo of their children by age three. In todays modern age, there's a vague chance that not only do they have the children on digital, moments after the birth, but they've got the whole thing record on tape, birth, screams and all. (Women, think of the blackmail potential. "I went through this much pain for you....").
So that 19% is about as useful as chocolate poker. Great, till you try and use it. So does that mean every parent is a nasty person, destined for that special hell (also shared by those who talk at opera)? Nope. 99.99% of such photos are almost certainly completely, totaly and utterly harmless. Aides to memory, and to tease the kids with when they grow.
Nope. This add is trying to spread fear. Mike has that picture of his daughter in his wallet. Uncertainty - maybe I should report him. Doubt - should I really let him meet my two angels...?
The odds of any givern child being involved in that sort of thing is less then the chance of winning the lottery. Hell, the lottery runs twice a week, 52 weeks a year...
So why do we obsess about this so much? No, wait.
Its for the children.
Arrggghhh!
4 comments:
Yes, I know I didn't spellcheck this one.
Still not going to fix it ;)
Mm, I have some photos of little boys in the bath - guess that would get me arrested these days. As for the one where we were painting daisys all over .......'s chicken pox spots. (identity concealed to protect the once innocent)... could mean years behind bars.
As you say all parents are guilty of having hundreds (not always an exageration) of photos of children under 3 years and sometimes they aren't even their own!! horror of horrors.
But seriuosly there are some warped people out there. Trouble is getting the right balance so children can have a normal life and have adult family friends. It is a sad world.
Okay so 19% of pedophiles have a picture of a child under 3 years of age, but that still means that 81% of pedophiles DON'T have a picture...
If government-taught logic tells us anything this means that if you meet a guy that doesn't have a picture of a child, be very very wary, because there is more chance that they are a pedophile than someone that does have a picture!
Though I must admit that I can't see that as being as effective for a poster's headline
"81% of pedophiles don't have a picture of a child under the age of 3" Really? Those fiends!
Regards,
Luke
You might not have heard this being on the far side of the pond. I had the chance to hear an interesting broadcast on Radio 2 about photography in public.
The presenter was talking with an eminant public figure who went to a football match where his young son was playing. He was in the process of taking memorable photos of his son going for a goal when an irate mother stood in front of him demanding that he stopped taking photos in case her son was caught in the frame and the image found it's way on to questionable internet sites.
Most places have now introduced polocies dictating that to take photos at public events such as this, you now have to get the permission of EVERY parent of EVERY child in attendance or have your photographic equipment confiscated and an interview with the local police authority as to why you wanted to take photos and whether you had any ultirior motives - i.e. questionable websites...
Does this seem like total lunacy to anyone else?
Post a Comment