The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
At our local swimming pool, there is no a sign up which says "No cameras or mobile phones permitted".
This is, presumably, to stop paedophiles taking pictures of kids in the swimming pool. The thing is, so what if they did? In this particular example the child himself is not being harmed - he/she doesn't even know it's going on.
"But it's better to stop these evil people, however we can!" Scream some.
Even if it means being unable to do anything any normal parent would want to do?
Such as a friend of mine who took their 2 year old daughter down to said pool for her first swim. My mate had bought on of those disposable splash proof camera things to record the occasion, as any parent would want to do - learning to swim is a big thing after all.
Only, he was told that no pictures could be taken, and had to put the camera away. It was his own daughter. Surely if he'd wanted to take dodgy pictures of her, he could have done it any time at home.
We're getting closer to a Big Brother state, and no one seems to notice....
EDIT: I'm talking about taking the phones and camera's into the spectator gallery, not into the pool itself.
This is, presumably, to stop paedophiles taking pictures of kids in the swimming pool. The thing is, so what if they did? In this particular example the child himself is not being harmed - he/she doesn't even know it's going on.
"But it's better to stop these evil people, however we can!" Scream some.
Even if it means being unable to do anything any normal parent would want to do?
Such as a friend of mine who took their 2 year old daughter down to said pool for her first swim. My mate had bought on of those disposable splash proof camera things to record the occasion, as any parent would want to do - learning to swim is a big thing after all.
Only, he was told that no pictures could be taken, and had to put the camera away. It was his own daughter. Surely if he'd wanted to take dodgy pictures of her, he could have done it any time at home.
We're getting closer to a Big Brother state, and no one seems to notice....
EDIT: I'm talking about taking the phones and camera's into the spectator gallery, not into the pool itself.
Page:
Paedophiles ruined internet chatrooms. Fact.
Belldandy wrote:
> Don't know about anyone else, but I'm sure there is a link between
> the rise of the internet and increasing numbers of paedophiles,
> whilst I was younger you never heard anything like the volume of
> cases there is now...
I suspect you are right, you can't have such a lawless society, which is effectively what the the net is because it will be abused by the lawless, the more freedom people have the more they can abuse it.
> Don't know about anyone else, but I'm sure there is a link between
> the rise of the internet and increasing numbers of paedophiles,
> whilst I was younger you never heard anything like the volume of
> cases there is now...
I suspect you are right, you can't have such a lawless society, which is effectively what the the net is because it will be abused by the lawless, the more freedom people have the more they can abuse it.
Memorandum wrote:
> Ahaha. Now I've got a mental image of someone hiding in the corner
> of a bookstore furiously taking pictures of every page in a giant
> novel as fast as they can before they get caught.
>
> Ridiculous.
*Goes to library*
> Ahaha. Now I've got a mental image of someone hiding in the corner
> of a bookstore furiously taking pictures of every page in a giant
> novel as fast as they can before they get caught.
>
> Ridiculous.
*Goes to library*
Belldandy wrote:
> A lot of book sellers in Japan have banned camera phones because they
> claimed people were taking picture of whole books or just photographs
> in books!
Ahaha. Now I've got a mental image of someone hiding in the corner of a bookstore furiously taking pictures of every page in a giant novel as fast as they can before they get caught.
Ridiculous.
> A lot of book sellers in Japan have banned camera phones because they
> claimed people were taking picture of whole books or just photographs
> in books!
Ahaha. Now I've got a mental image of someone hiding in the corner of a bookstore furiously taking pictures of every page in a giant novel as fast as they can before they get caught.
Ridiculous.
Yes, it's all that evil internet's fault!
I think that things are getting ridiculous, and because of a tiny, tiny minority, the normal majority are being stopped from doing things that, to me, seem perfectly acceptable.
I think that things are getting ridiculous, and because of a tiny, tiny minority, the normal majority are being stopped from doing things that, to me, seem perfectly acceptable.
Flockhart wrote:
> On this occassion i dont mind by strictly policed, i know you're
> going on about this being blown out of all proportion but as the
> people on this forum who have kids will tell you, it's simply to
> protect their kids and god knows they should be protected.
Well judging from what appears in the media and so on, paedophiles are devious b"stards so this won't actually matter to them, it simply penalises those who want pictures. People make noises like "think of the children" etc, but then proceed to let their kids run wild during the day with little idea where they are.
Fact is, again going on the media and what police say, that the greatest danger to a child is from someone that the the child's family actually knows. There have been no high profile cases recently where the criminal has not been known by the family.
Don't know about anyone else, but I'm sure there is a link between the rise of the internet and increasing numbers of paedophiles, whilst I was younger you never heard anything like the volume of cases there is now...
> On this occassion i dont mind by strictly policed, i know you're
> going on about this being blown out of all proportion but as the
> people on this forum who have kids will tell you, it's simply to
> protect their kids and god knows they should be protected.
Well judging from what appears in the media and so on, paedophiles are devious b"stards so this won't actually matter to them, it simply penalises those who want pictures. People make noises like "think of the children" etc, but then proceed to let their kids run wild during the day with little idea where they are.
Fact is, again going on the media and what police say, that the greatest danger to a child is from someone that the the child's family actually knows. There have been no high profile cases recently where the criminal has not been known by the family.
Don't know about anyone else, but I'm sure there is a link between the rise of the internet and increasing numbers of paedophiles, whilst I was younger you never heard anything like the volume of cases there is now...
Paradox: wrote:
> Why do you assume it's to do with paedophiles? Isnt that a judgement
> on your part?
>
> It's probably more to do with people dropping the cameras/phones in
> or near the pool and breaking them and the fact they would get huffy
> and try and make the pool replace it, which they will not be able to
> do as it isnt covered on their insurance.
>
> Thats what I reckon anyway.
Local leisure centre here banned them and in the local paper it was stated that it was because of "child safety concerns". Insurance is nothing to do with it, if it was then they would not allow watches, glasses, basically anything of value, on the site.
A lot of book sellers in Japan have banned camera phones because they claimed people were taking picture of whole books or just photographs in books!
> Why do you assume it's to do with paedophiles? Isnt that a judgement
> on your part?
>
> It's probably more to do with people dropping the cameras/phones in
> or near the pool and breaking them and the fact they would get huffy
> and try and make the pool replace it, which they will not be able to
> do as it isnt covered on their insurance.
>
> Thats what I reckon anyway.
Local leisure centre here banned them and in the local paper it was stated that it was because of "child safety concerns". Insurance is nothing to do with it, if it was then they would not allow watches, glasses, basically anything of value, on the site.
A lot of book sellers in Japan have banned camera phones because they claimed people were taking picture of whole books or just photographs in books!
Your Honour wrote:
> At our local swimming pool, there is no a sign up which says
> "No cameras or mobile phones permitted".
> This is, presumably, to stop paedophiles taking pictures of kids in
> the swimming pool. The thing is, so what if they did? In this
> particular example the child himself is not being harmed - he/she
> doesn't even know it's going on.
It's to stop pictures appearing anywhere, it's argued that some paedophiles start by looking on the net and progress, ask yourself this would you want your childs picture available to them.
> "But it's better to stop these evil people, however we
> can!" Scream some.
> Even if it means being unable to do anything any normal parent would
> want to do?
> Such as a friend of mine who took their 2 year old daughter down to
> said pool for her first swim. My mate had bought on of those
> disposable splash proof camera things to record the occasion, as any
> parent would want to do - learning to swim is a big thing after all.
> Only, he was told that no pictures could be taken, and had to put the
> camera away. It was his own daughter. Surely if he'd wanted to
> take dodgy pictures of her, he could have done it any time at home.
It's a simple argument he could take pictures of other kids.
> We're getting closer to a Big Brother state, and no one seems to
> notice....
On this occassion i dont mind by strictly policed, i know you're going on about this being blown out of all proportion but as the people on this forum who have kids will tell you, it's simply to protect their kids and god knows they should be protected.
> At our local swimming pool, there is no a sign up which says
> "No cameras or mobile phones permitted".
> This is, presumably, to stop paedophiles taking pictures of kids in
> the swimming pool. The thing is, so what if they did? In this
> particular example the child himself is not being harmed - he/she
> doesn't even know it's going on.
It's to stop pictures appearing anywhere, it's argued that some paedophiles start by looking on the net and progress, ask yourself this would you want your childs picture available to them.
> "But it's better to stop these evil people, however we
> can!" Scream some.
> Even if it means being unable to do anything any normal parent would
> want to do?
> Such as a friend of mine who took their 2 year old daughter down to
> said pool for her first swim. My mate had bought on of those
> disposable splash proof camera things to record the occasion, as any
> parent would want to do - learning to swim is a big thing after all.
> Only, he was told that no pictures could be taken, and had to put the
> camera away. It was his own daughter. Surely if he'd wanted to
> take dodgy pictures of her, he could have done it any time at home.
It's a simple argument he could take pictures of other kids.
> We're getting closer to a Big Brother state, and no one seems to
> notice....
On this occassion i dont mind by strictly policed, i know you're going on about this being blown out of all proportion but as the people on this forum who have kids will tell you, it's simply to protect their kids and god knows they should be protected.
In that case, surely they wouldn't specify "cameras and mobile phones"? Surely they'd make the sign state something more general?
Why do you assume it's to do with paedophiles? Isnt that a judgement on your part?
It's probably more to do with people dropping the cameras/phones in or near the pool and breaking them and the fact they would get huffy and try and make the pool replace it, which they will not be able to do as it isnt covered on their insurance.
Thats what I reckon anyway.
It's probably more to do with people dropping the cameras/phones in or near the pool and breaking them and the fact they would get huffy and try and make the pool replace it, which they will not be able to do as it isnt covered on their insurance.
Thats what I reckon anyway.
Page: