Isaiah Brink wrote:

Well, there are scumbags are all over the place.  Did you know that rapists go grocery shopping too?  In fact most of them do, so you are just as likely to be stalked and raped at the grocery store as you are at a photo shoot.  And this thread started off with the idea of models staying safe in light of a rare occurrence.  I for one, have worked with close to 40 models, and not one has been raped while at the shoot.  And that is the norm at photo shoots around the world.  It is irresponsible for anybody to portray that there is a high risk of a model being raped at a photoshoot when that is clearly not the case.  Photographers and models work together thousands, possibly millions of times everyday around the world and the number of rapes that occur while they are working together is so low, even in the UK that it accounts for less than 1% of all models.  So, in all reality, your chances of being raped is not very good.  But let's face it, with the number of car crashes, train derailments, plane crashes, you are much more likely to be harmed physically on your way to a photoshoot or anywhere else for that matter than at the photo shoot.  And if it were so dangerous, and your experiences with "dodgy" photographers as you put it, if those were so common, you wouldn't be modeling anymore.  If you did, I'd really wonder about your choice of work, as in, why would you choose to put yourself in harms way so often.  If I could, I'd send you a gift card to a coffee house of your choice so you could go over and wake up, smell the coffee, and enjoy a cup because the reality of things is that a model is actually, in reality, pretty safe at a photoshoot because even the amateurs are honest enough people to not cause harm to a model.

I model because of the support of friends, and industry professionals.

Bad things have happened to me twice.

Amber reported three times she had bad experiences at shoots. When you are shooting a lot it's going to happen in one degree or another. It's Russian roulette if you don't take every means necessary to ensure your.safety as a model.

So YOU wake up and smell the coffee. Because twice bitten makes me very determined to ensure my safety. I am not going to let disgusting misogynists stop me doing a job I enjoy.

And since, they haven't. You are correct the VAST majority of photographers are safe, and I've never had a problem with a hobbyist. I have said this already. But it's not something a model can or should,take for granted.

It's a very unusual work situation working with a photographer alone, sometimes partially dressed. It's going to be VERY difficult to get a conviction against rape in that situation. Most people on wider society think it's asking for trouble. I don't. But I want to be confident enough to do my job so I must have NO doubts about those I am working with.

Dozens of models have been affected by these two London scumbags who have got prison sentences. Do dont tell us we can relax, especially when other photographers here turn around and say it's our fault for not checking these monsters out when something happens. I managed to avoid being assaulted, but the way Cropper made me feel about myself I will never forgive or forget. What was especially disgusting is when I was telling people about it here once, there was sympathy for him from some quarters because I called him 'the mofo'. That was actually his name here, but I was utterly shocked by that sympathy for a convicted sex offender.

Since I've been here I've been called a cunt, a bitch, a twat, a whore, and most recently a tart. In public in forums by photographers. Which gives you an indication of the unbridled misogyny. that runs rampant here. All those terms are sexist abuse. I've had vile tags left on my portfolio and been sent abusive emails and pms. Never in any field of other work have I encountered this.

So to me it's all part of the same problem. It just varies in degree. I've not encountered anything like this in off site modelling. Not remotely.

If I was called a cunt in any other workplace, or had vile messages left on my work,  the offender would be sacked. If I was asked to suck someone's dick for work promotion they definitely be sacked.

Here we are on our own.
Sure, a woman can be sexually assaulted on her way to the grocery store. But shes not nude with the guy at the time. So nobody can day she asked for it, or she should have,taken precautions.

Now I do take precautions and advise other models do the same.

Isaiah Brink wrote:
To all models reading this.  If you choose to listen and take heed to things that Eliza has said, that you are likely to be raped or assaulted on a shoot, then you have what's coming.  But if you take heed to what established professionals like myself and Abbitt Photography are saying, that the industry is actually pretty safe, and you are not very likely to be harmed by a photographer while on a shoot, then you are seeing things correctly.  To Eliza:  you are doing yourself and other models a disservice by making it sound like you stand a good chance at being raped or assaulted while on a shoot.  You yourself have said that you've been on over 100 shoots and only 2 or so bad or questionable occurrences.  Safety is of course a good thing, but look at things accurately.  Don't make Mt. Everest out of a single grain of sand.  Perceived risk is quite different than actual risk.  And Eliza, I have woken up, smelled, and consumed the coffee and am enjoying reality, thanks for inquiring.  Now, if you would join me in reality, I'd welcome your company.

...to all the models reading this: most photographers don't think like this.  At least I hope not.  Isaiah: it would help if you actually read what Eliza has said, and address the words she actually said, and not the strawman version of what she said.  She most definitely does not do other models a disservice.  She has not claimed that models are likely to be raped or assaulted on a shoot.  Those  are your words.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

You are hijacking this thread!!

Jerry, Why dont you add something substantive to the debate.  I would love to know your thoughts

Isaiah Brink wrote:
To all models reading this.  If you choose to listen and take heed to things that Eliza has said, that you are likely to be raped or assaulted on a shoot, then you have what's coming.  But if you take heed to what established professionals like myself and Abbitt Photography are saying, that the industry is actually pretty safe, and you are not very likely to be harmed by a photographer while on a shoot, then you are seeing things correctly.  To Eliza:  you are doing yourself and other models a disservice by making it sound like you stand a good chance at being raped or assaulted while on a shoot.  You yourself have said that you've been on over 100 shoots and only 2 or so bad or questionable occurrences.  Safety is of course a good thing, but look at things accurately.  Don't make Mt. Everest out of a single grain of sand.  Perceived risk is quite different than actual risk. And Eliza, I have woken up, smelled, and consumed the coffee and am enjoying reality, thanks for inquiring.  Now, if you would join me in reality, I'd welcome your company.

Yes, I've said this myself.

But don't put words in Eliza's mouth.

No one here thinks they are more likely to be raped at a shoot, than say get in a car accident on the way to a shoot, percentage wise.

We all know that most photographers are ok. Just like most escorts are ok.

But we still like to minimize the risk by playing it safe right?

I hear all the time about photographers not allowing escorts because one of them stole something, or they had a bad experience in the past, or they got robbed, or someone they heard about got killed, but what are the chances of that happening?

Isaiah Brink wrote:
To all models reading this.  If you choose to listen and take heed to things that Eliza has said, that you are likely to be raped or assaulted on a shoot, then you have what's coming.  But if you take heed to what established professionals like myself and Abbitt Photography are saying, that the industry is actually pretty safe, and you are not very likely to be harmed by a photographer while on a shoot, then you are seeing things correctly.  To Eliza:  you are doing yourself and other models a disservice by making it sound like you stand a good chance at being raped or assaulted while on a shoot.  You yourself have said that you've been on over 100 shoots and only 2 or so bad or questionable occurrences.  Safety is of course a good thing, but look at things accurately.  Don't make Mt. Everest out of a single grain of sand.  Perceived risk is quite different than actual risk.  And Eliza, I have woken up, smelled, and consumed the coffee and am enjoying reality, thanks for inquiring.  Now, if you would join me in reality, I'd welcome your company.

You have compared the risk to going to the grocery store.
Rabbit has compared totally inappropriately the risk to bring injured driving a car.
I have explained why that is inappropriate. It is akin to playing down hate crime because you ate more likely to be killed in a car crash actually.

I have never even driven a car. I've done shoots with maybe twenty photographers here; most of my shoots are not from here. So not a hundred. Sure I've done four or ten shoots with some but it's the same photographers. So I think the percentage should be worked out on the number of photographers just from MM. One was on MM but it wasn't through MM so we will just go with the one from 20.

That's 5% chance of something very unpleasant happening in my case. Now I firmly believe that the 15 photographers I have shot with since from MM I have checked out thoroughly and got references,for may have helped. They've all been excellent anyway. The three I declined (one though bad reference the others through reluctance) had already started to exhibit hostility. Even if we go on your figured that would still be 2%. You arent going to get that at a grocery store. I've had problems on London buses but both times were upstairs. Out of approx 2000 bus rides that is only 0.1%. Much smaller risk in daily life. I still try to avoid going upstairs however after the second time. And in 10 years since finishing my degree and masters , during which time I've worked in hotspots, in the middle east, in inaccessible areas, and with soldiers, with Iraqi men, and cooped up with scientists and explorers in the arctic for weeks, I have not had one unpleasant experience in terms of some misogynistic abuse let alone demanded sexual favour of or assaulted.

I don't know how Amber's three bad shoots are as a percentage from her total shoots.

I also don't know how other models fare.

But I'm pretty sure that many models here have had bad experiences at some point. Judging from what I hear, a lot  seem to have a bad one.  I doubt that many have had a thoroughly unpleasant experience at the grocery store (I haven't) or through texting while driving to a shoot. So yes I have it in proportion thank you.


I also am not sure what you are saying in the first line. Are you suggesting that you are more likely to have an unpleasant shoot with risk of assault or casting couch degradation etc if models listen to.my advice? If so that is quite bizarre.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
compared the risk to going to the grocery store.

ontherocks wrote:
for what it's worth, my hair stylist got groped her first time out after arranging a shoot on facebook. i'd be surprised if a lot of women are getting groped at the grocery store where someone can call security or the cops if a guy starts squeezing the wrong melons.

from what i've been told directly by my models they definitely have to deal with sexual harassment/assault or "the photographer got weird". maybe not every time out but often enough that it's a thing. there are plenty of guys out there hoping to take some liberties. and i imagine that all the press about terry richardson (regardless of whether it's true or not) doesn't help matters if photographers start to think they can be like that, too.

if you want to date the model then just ask them out (hopefully after you've delivered her images).

Thank you.

Most models I know have at least one bad experience too. A grope, or casting couch demands to me are not as bad as rape but they certainly arent what you get in every day life every fifty times out. I get the feeling that some of these guys just think those thongs are just like being hit on. Of they have ever happened to anyone I can assure you it's not the same.

Also yes some here think it's acceptable if TR is guilty, and that people like Cropper was unlucky and undeserving of being sent down. And that is frightening some here think that way.

I also know from experience that many models don't come forward and say because of the scorn those that do get.
And yes there's nothing wrong with model photographer relationships. I've dated one. And go out with an artist/designer I met through work. But theres a way of doing things. And abusive degrading suggestions or gsexual assault etc are certainly nothing to do with dating or akin to being hit on.

CHAD ALAN wrote:
No one here thinks they are more likely to be raped at a shoot, than say get in a car accident on the way to a shoot, percentage wise.

Respectfully, I feel that if one looks through the numerous threads about model safety posted here on MM, they give an incredibly strong impression that photographers present a significant threat. Other risks are rarely discussed giving the strong impression photographers not only are huge threat, but the only risk to safety worth considering and managing.  (Clearly perceived risk does not reflect actual risk in these discussions.)

As we see in this very thread some models speak to the times they've felt uncomfortable or felt a photographer was "dodgy" as if such incidents were the same as actually being harmed by a photographer.  It's not the same thing.  The incidence or risk of feeling uncomfortable and risk or incident rate of actual harm are different risks and should not be presented as if they are one and the same.

Certainly, it's appropriate to mention that rapists exist. Certainly it's appropriate to think about the limited risk a photographer may impose upon a model. It's even more appropriate to consider all potential risks, how likely all these risks are and how they compare.  Constantly focusing on one small risk to the exclusion of other risks is not good risk management and may actually increase overall risk, not reduce it.

You ask why some photographers feel threatened about discussing model safety.  What I question is why some people feel threatened by rationally discussing all risks and putting them in their proper context.   

Rationally looking at the entire picture of safety should indeed be encouraged.   Some however seem hell bent on focusing on one limited aspect and censoring the rest.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

Respectfully, I feel that if one looks through the numerous threads about model safety posted here on MM, they give an incredibly strong impression that photographers present a significant threat.

...respectfully, while this may well be your strong impression (and the impression some other photographers/models may have), that isn't the strong impression that myself and other get at all.

This thread isn't other threads.  This thread refers to a specific photographer: and a specific legal case, and that photographer has had many interactions with models on this board.  A couple of models have spoken out in this thread.  There may well be other people, who have had encounters with this guy, and this thread is the perfect place for them to come out and get support.  But as long as you sustain this ridiculous hijack this thread is not about this person and the models he has hurt, but its all about you.

If you really feel the urge to lecture models on the dangers of driving on the road, you should open up your own thread.  In fact, I encourage you too.  I'd love to see the feedback you get.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

Respectfully, I feel that if one looks through the numerous threads about model safety posted here on MM, they give an incredibly strong impression that photographers present a significant threat. Other risks are rarely discussed giving the strong impression photographers not only are huge threat, but the only risk to safety worth considering and managing.  (Clearly perceived risk does not reflect actual risk in these discussions.)

As we see in this very thread some models speak to the times they've felt uncomfortable or felt a photographer was "dodgy" as if such incidents were the same as actually being harmed by a photographer.  It's not the same thing.  The incidence or risk of feeling uncomfortable and risk or incident rate of actual harm are different risks and should not be presented as if they are one and the same.

Certainly, it's appropriate to mention that rapists exist. Certainly it's appropriate to think about the limited risk a photographer may impose upon a model. It's even more appropriate to consider all potential risks, how likely all these risks are and how they compare.  Constantly focusing on one small risk to the exclusion of other risks is not good risk management and may actually increase overall risk, not reduce it.

You ask why some photographers feel threatened about discussing model safety.  What I question is why some people feel threatened by rationally discussing all risks and putting them in their proper context.  

Rationally looking at the entire picture of safety should indeed be encouraged.   Some however seem hell bent on focusing on one limited aspect and censoring the rest.

That's all good and well stated. Overall safety to, from, and during a shoot is important...and beyond.

I feel that the thread and this discussion is about [photographer <--> model] safety, and that we should focus on that topic. A focus, rather than censorship.

Yours is a good reminder that there are many more things to worry about aside from bad/creepy/rapist photographers, but I think that most models are smart enough to know that, and are just choosing to address a particular topic at this time. It's something they can try to control, albeit to some degree.

I think it's possible that newbie models might get a "strong impression that photographers present a significant threat" based on the numerous posts like you said, but I haven't had a problem with newbies, experienced models and escorts, so therefore my viewpoint is probably different than somebody else's.

Big Mark Photography wrote:
...respectfully, while this may well be your strong impression (and the impression some other photographers/models may have), that isn't the strong impression that myself and other get at all.

This thread isn't other threads.  This thread refers to a specific photographer: and a specific legal case, and that photographer has had many interactions with models on this board.  A couple of models have spoken out in this thread.  There may well be other people, who have had encounters with this guy, and this thread is the perfect place for them to come out and get support.  But as long as you sustain this ridiculous hijack this thread is not about this person and the models he has hurt, but its all about you.

If you really feel the urge to lecture models on the dangers of driving on the road, you should open up your own thread.  In fact, I encourage you too.  I'd love to see the feedback you get.

Thank you.
That was particularly of concern to me because I know how I felt when Cropper got sentenced. I'd been made to feel I was over reacting, and that it was my own fault because I didn't check references. So I think that this,is indeed somewhere that potentially models can come forward.

Abbit etc appear to have real difficulty in understanding this, and that it is as inappropriate as saying hate crime is negligible compared to risk of road accident so doesn't matter.

I have no doubt that the vast majority of photographers ate interested in photography respect and even adore models. To others we are simply ocassional work colleagues, and others maybe just like women and love to shoot them. But there are a tiny hardcore who hate women, and this manifests in the photography being an excuse to manipulate and excercise control over women, and in extreme cases degrade them either with the kind of images they make or through sexual abuse and harrassment. The latter was certainly the case with Colclough as the judge said in his statement. This is the problem here. I think some think this is a kind of situation where a photographer gets a bit carried away and touches up a model through over enthusiasm. It isn't that. And neither was Cropper. These are misogynists who use their positions to humiliate degrade and abuse women. And they may be small in number but many of us have come across them.

Nobody is saying photographers are a threat in general. What is being said is that some misogynists have found photography a convenient way to abuse women. And as they can be utterly charming then snap and reveal their true nature, it's difficult to go on gut feelings. One has to take further precautions.

Incidentally Coughlan was in his late thirties and Cropper was in his twenties when he began here. So models expecting its only older males that present a risk should take note.

Big Mark Photography wrote:
This thread refers to a specific photographer: and a specific legal case,

Perhaps you missed the original poster's original post. It included:

PR Zone wrote:
…Stay Safe...

Always check tags/references and make sure people know where you're going

You don't need to be paranoid - just very sensible

While the OP referenced a specific person, he also spoke to general shoot safety.  The comments I've made in this thread relate directly to these comments made by the original poster in his original post and are not off topic.

Your desire to limit a discussion of model safety to one specific risk, and censor all other relevant risks and perspectives does not make my points off topic.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

You have compared the risk to going to the grocery store.
Rabbit has compared totally inappropriately the risk to bring injured driving a car.
I have explained why that is inappropriate. It is akin to playing down hate crime because you ate more likely to be killed in a car crash actually.

I have never even driven a car. I've done shoots with maybe twenty photographers here; most of my shoots are not from here. So not a hundred. Sure I've done four or ten shoots with some but it's the same photographers. So I think the percentage should be worked out on the number of photographers just from MM. One was on MM but it wasn't through MM so we will just go with the one from 20.

That's 5% chance of something very unpleasant happening in my case. Now I firmly believe that the 15 photographers I have shot with since from MM I have checked out thoroughly and got references,for may have helped. They've all been excellent anyway. The three I declined (one though bad reference the others through reluctance) had already started to exhibit hostility. Even if we go on your figured that would still be 2%. You arent going to get that at a grocery store. I've had problems on London buses but both times were upstairs. Out of approx 2000 bus rides that is only 0.1%. Much smaller risk in daily life. I still try to avoid going upstairs however after the second time. And in 10 years since finishing my degree and masters , during which time I've worked in hotspots, in the middle east, in inaccessible areas, and with soldiers, with Iraqi men, and cooped up with scientists and explorers in the arctic for weeks, I have not had one unpleasant experience in terms of some misogynistic abuse let alone demanded sexual favour of or assaulted.

I don't know how Amber's three bad shoots are as a percentage from her total shoots.

I also don't know how other models fare.

But I'm pretty sure that many models here have had bad experiences at some point. Judging from what I hear, a lot  seem to have a bad one.  I doubt that many have had a thoroughly unpleasant experience at the grocery store (I haven't) or through texting while driving to a shoot. So yes I have it in proportion thank you.



I also am not sure what you are saying in the first line. Are you suggesting that you are more likely to have an unpleasant shoot with risk of assault or casting couch degradation etc if models listen to.my advice? If so that is quite bizarre.

Ok, what I'm saying is to keep things in perspective, which you are doing quite horribly.  You are making rare occurrences out to be much more of a threat than they really are, a mountain out of a mole hill.  In all reality, you are much more likely to have harm come to you going to the store than at a photoshoot.  That's why at least in the western, southern, and northern part of the US, you hear newscasters warn people about being mugged, or having their cars broken into around Christmas time. And what I'm saying is that you are giving very bad advice by making it seem that photographers are going to rape you or sexually assault you in a high percentage of the time.  Bad things do happen from time to time at photoshoots, but they are the exception to the rule, and not the rule that you make it out to be.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

Big Mark Photography wrote:
This thread refers to a specific photographer: and a specific legal case,

Perhaps you missed the original poster's original post. It included:


While the OP referenced a specific person, he also spoke to general shoot safety.  The comments I've made in this thread relate directly to these comments made by the original poster in his original post and are not off topic.

Your desire to limit a discussion of model safety to one specific risk, and censor all other relevant risks and perspectives does not make my points off topic.

It's not censorship since nobody has censored you. Likewise you are not going to censor me saying you are utterly insensitive, inappropriate, and trolling to continue to hijack the thread.

The Op stated always check tags and references and make sure someone knows where you are going. How is that bad advice or white knighting? He stated nit to be paranoid but stay safe. So he is,saying keep it on proportion. But it IS something that happens to a great number of models at least once in their career. So we are entitled to discuss what precautions we can take without you suggesting the risk is minimal. I'm sorry forgive me for wanting a better than 2-5% risk of being abused by such animals at work. Especially in a place where some men think it's acceptable to call women tarts and twats and bints and cunts. Something that would result in dismissal in any other workplace; and where some think if we don't check references it's our OWN fault if we get abused.

So I respectfilly ask you now you've made your point, and ignored counter valid argument evidence and testimony, to start your own thread on general risks.

Isaiah Brink wrote:
Ok, what I'm saying is to keep things in perspective, which you are doing quite horribly.  You are making rare occurrences out to be much more of a threat than they really are, a mountain out of a mole hill...

Exactly, fixating on one relatively minor risk and trying to prevent the discussion of other relevant risks and how they compare, eliminates any sense of perspective and is clearly poor risk management.   

I haven't seen anyone argue the risk imposed by a photographer or someone posing as a photographer should not be discussed, just that it should be discussed in a proper, accurate perspective in relation to all potential risks. 

The OP did not limit his initial thoughts to one single risk, but clearly many others here wish to promote the perception that there is only one risk and any other potential risks should not be included in any discussion of shoot safety. I can't help but wonder why some fight so hard to avoid a rational, more well-rounded, more productive approach to risk management and shoot safety.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
And abusive degrading suggestions or gsexual assault etc are certainly nothing to do with dating or akin to being hit on.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

Exactly, fixating on one relatively minor risk and trying to prevent the discussion of other relevant risks and how they compare, eliminates any sense of perspective and is clearly poor risk management.   

I haven't seen anyone argue the risk imposed by a photographer or someone posing as a photographer should not be discussed, just that it should be discussed in with a proper, accurate perspective in relation to all potential risks. 

The OP did not limit his initial thoughts to one single risk, but clearly many others here wish to promote the perception that there is only one risk and any other potential risks should not be included in any discussion of shoot safety. I can't help but wonder why some fight so hard to avoid a rational, more well-rounded, more productive approach to risk management and shoot safety.

Well, some are white knights, another is trolling, or trying to get every other model so scared to leave their houses that she's the only model left and then gets all of the work, but that's a looooooong shot, in the dark, with a blind fold on.

Isaiah Brink wrote:

Well, some are white knights, another is trolling, or trying to get every other model so scared to leave their houses that she's the only model left and then gets all of the work, but that's a looooooong shot, in the dark, with a blind fold on.

...exactly what thread are you reading?  If you want to accuse someone of something, have the balls to quote the person you are accusing.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

Big Mark Photography wrote:
This thread refers to a specific photographer: and a specific legal case,

Perhaps you missed the original poster's original post. It included:


While the OP referenced a specific person, he also spoke to general shoot safety.  The comments I've made in this thread relate directly to these comments made by the original poster in his original post and are not off topic.

Your desire to limit a discussion of model safety to one specific risk, and censor all other relevant risks and perspectives does not make my points off topic.

...you misunderstand the meaning of the word "censor."  I'm not seeking to censor anyone.  I have suggested, that if you truly believe that road safety is an issue that needs discussion in a forum on modelling, you will receive a better reception in its own thread. 

This isn't a "general safety" thread.  It was about a specific incident and the thread OP, which you have cited, specified specific ways in which a model could be safer to protect themselves from people like those in the quoted article.

Can you be as specific as possible, and explain exactly how buckling your seatbelt will protect you from predators like Shaun Colclough?  Because if you can't, then it is pretty clear that your general safety message is not only off-topic, but completely irrelevant to the OP.

There are more important things in life than proving you are right on the internet.  Shaun Colclough was a predator who preyed on members here.  Statistically many things are unlikely to happen: until they actually happen.  This thread isn't about things that might happen, but things that have already happened, and how to stop those things happening to others.  Not only is your tangent unhelpful, it is "chilling" the discussion, and discouraging other victims of Colclough from speaking out. 

The OP did not limit his initial thoughts to one single risk, but clearly many others here wish to promote the perception that there is only one risk and any other potential risks should not be included in any discussion of shoot safety. I can't help but wonder why some fight so hard to avoid a rational, more well-rounded, more productive approach to risk management and shoot safety.

This is bollocks.  If you really wanted a rational, more well-rounded, more productive discussion to risk management and shoot safety, you wouldn't have attempted to start that discussion in the middle of a thread where people were discussing something else.  My suggestion stands.  If you want that rational discussion, then start a new thread.  Attempting to start that discussion in the middle of a thread where models are sharing their experiences of being sexually humiliated by a predator/rapist is completely inappropriate, and stunningly tone-deaf.  But if that is how you want to be perceived, and if that is how you choose to act, then by all means keep on doing what you are doing.  Your posts are the poster child for why there was a movement to get photographers banned from the Model Forums a few months ago.

Big Mark Photography wrote:

Abbitt Photography wrote:

Big Mark Photography wrote:
This thread refers to a specific photographer: and a specific legal case,

Perhaps you missed the original poster's original post. It included:


While the OP referenced a specific person, he also spoke to general shoot safety.  The comments I've made in this thread relate directly to these comments made by the original poster in his original post and are not off topic.

Your desire to limit a discussion of model safety to one specific risk, and censor all other relevant risks and perspectives does not make my points off topic.

...you misunderstand the meaning of the word "censor."  I'm not seeking to censor anyone.  I have suggested, that if you truly believe that road safety is an issue that needs discussion in a forum on modelling, you will receive a better reception in its own thread. 

This isn't a "general safety" thread.  It was about a specific incident and the thread OP, which you have cited, specified specific ways in which a model could be safer to protect themselves from people like those in the quoted article.

Can you be as specific as possible, and explain exactly how buckling your seatbelt will protect you from predators like Shaun Colclough?  Because if you can't, then it is pretty clear that your general safety message is not only off-topic, but completely irrelevant to the OP.

There are more important things in life than proving you are right on the internet.  Shaun Colclough was a predator who preyed on members here.  Statistically many things are unlikely to happen: until they actually happen.  This thread isn't about things that might happen, but things that have already happened, and how to stop those things happening to others.  Not only is your tangent unhelpful, it is "chilling" the discussion, and discouraging other victims of Colclough from speaking out. 


This is bollocks.  If you really wanted a rational, more well-rounded, more productive discussion to risk management and shoot safety, you wouldn't have attempted to start that discussion in the middle of a thread where people were discussing something else.  My suggestion stands.  If you want that rational discussion, then start a new thread.  Attempting to start that discussion in the middle of a thread where models are sharing their experiences of being sexually humiliated by a predator/rapist is completely inappropriate, and stunningly tone-deaf.  But if that is how you want to be perceived, and if that is how you choose to act, then by all means keep on doing what you are doing.  Your posts are the poster child for why there was a movement to get photographers banned from the Model Forums a few months ago.

+1

James Jackson Fashion wrote:
Ride that noble steed!



Not only has this been posted before but:


Good luck finding bad references...

fuck you.

Big Mark Photography wrote:

...exactly what thread are you reading?  If you want to accuse someone of something, have the balls to quote the person you are accusing.

I'm reading this thread, which one are you reading?  It's pretty obvious if you're literate and paying attention.  Why such a harsh response?  Did I step on anybody's toes?  IF so, they may want to think about things.

Isaiah Brink wrote:

I'm reading this thread, which one are you reading?  It's pretty obvious if you're literate and paying attention.  Why such a harsh response?  Did I step on anybody's toes?  IF so, they may want to think about things.

...harsh response?  You called someone a white knight, called someone else a troll, and invented a story about that same person "trying to get every other model so scared to leave their houses that she's the only model left and then gets all of the work." 

I am literate and paying attention.  Which is why I know the insults you've dished out don't describe anyone participating in this thread.  If you think that they do, then quote that person so we are all not tarred with the same brush.

Now what things do you want me to think about?

Big Mark Photography wrote:
Can you be as specific as possible, and explain exactly how buckling your seatbelt will protect you from predators like Shaun Colclough?

It appears to me you are misreading my posts, but I apologize if I ever insinuated that buckling a seat belt would protect anyone from predators. I feel shoot safety is not simply about the risk of predators and was addressing other relevant risks.

Obviously you think any discussion of model safety should be limited to the threat of predators without any sense of perspective as to how that threat compares to other risks.  You are entitled to that view, and you are entitled to limit your posts to that single risk if you so wish just as I am entitled to address the broader perspective points of safety also raised by the OP.

James Jackson Fashion wrote:
Ride that noble steed!



Not only has this been posted before but:


Good luck finding bad references...

Star wrote:
fuck you.

You should know better than to attack someone like this. Let's keep it civil please.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

Clearly you are misreading my posts.  I never claimed buckling a seatbelt would protect anyone from predators.

...then why did you bring it up in a thread that was specifically talking about predators and how to protect yourself from them?

Obviously you think any discussion of model safety should be limited to the threat of predators without any sense of perspective as to how that threat compares to other risks.

Obviously you are incorrect.  I didn't say this.  And I can't see how you could possibly have gotten it from my posts.  Can you point out where I said this?

You are entitled to that view, and you are entitled to limit your posts to that single risk if you so wish just as I am entitled to address the broader perspective points of safety also raised by the OP.

That isn't my view.  Feel free to go back and read my words to find out what my view actually is.  Then once you understand what I actually said we might be able to have a discussion.

Big Mark Photography wrote:
...then why did you bring it up in a thread that was specifically talking about predators and how to protect yourself from them?

While the OP specifically mentioned a predator, his comments went beyond that and he did not say any discussion of model safety should be limited to just the risk of predators.  That is a limitation others seem to be trying to impose on this topic.

Again, I'm not criticizing you for your desire to focus on just the risk imposed by predators, but please respect the fact I feel it is a disservice to the broader topic of safety also raised by the OP to limit a discussion to a single risk in isolation, without also mentioning the other very real risks which must be included to provide any reasonably perspective on the issue of safety.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

While the OP specifically mentioned a predator, his comments went beyond that and he did not say any discussion of model safety should be limited to just the risk of predators.  That is a limitation others seem to be trying to impose on this topic.

Again, I'm not criticizing you for your desire to focus on just the risk imposed by predators, but please respect the fact I feel it is a disservice to the broader topic of safety also raised by the OP to limit a discussion to a single risk in isolation, without also mentioning the other very real risks which must be included to provide any reasonably perspective on the issue of safety.

Please read the title of this thread.  That is the topic.

CHAD ALAN wrote:

James Jackson Fashion wrote:
Ride that noble steed!



Not only has this been posted before but:


Good luck finding bad references...

You should know better than to attack someone like this. Let's keep it civil please.

The image of the white knight was the second post, and in that post, he did not mention anybody, did not quote anybody, so I cannot see how this would be an attack by the poster of the picture.  But the person who replied and used profanities, that was uncalled for.  Disagree fine, state your point/case, but just to say "f#$% you" is not either.  See my point?

Abbitt Photography wrote:

While the OP specifically mentioned a predator, his comments went beyond that and he did not say any discussion of model safety should be limited to just the risk of predators.

...you have cited the OP.  You quoted him.  His comments did not go beyond that.  And do you really expect every OP to set limits on what can be discussed?  You think it is appropriate to talk about how awesome frat life is in a discussion on gang rape?

That is a limitation others seem to be trying to impose on this topic.

You are free to discuss what you like.  My suggestion is that if you are genuinely concerned about models not buckling up their seat belts you will get better feedback in a thread dedicated to seat belts rather than a discussion where models share stories of suffering from sexual humiliation from predators.  In fact after my photoshoot this afternoon if you haven't started a new thread, I'll start one for you.

Again, I'm not criticizing you for your desire to focus on just the risk imposed by predators,

Please stop putting words in my mouth.  My desire is not to talk about risk at all.  The thread very quickly drifted past that: and some models posted some deeply personal stories.  They deserve to be heard: and not have their voices drowned out by a guy pushing an agenda over a perception that is not reality.

but please respect the fact I feel it is a disservice to the broader topic of safety also raised by the OP to limit a discussion to a single risk in isolation, without also mentioning the other very real risks which must be included to provide any reasonably perspective on the issue of safety.

The OP did not raise a broader discussion of risk.  We know that because we can go back and read what they wrote.  You raised the broader discussion of risk.  You don't feel that this is a disservice to the broader topic of safety at all.  You've stated why you've posted here.  It wasn't because of this thread, but because of other threads.

Big Mark Photography wrote:

...harsh response?  You called someone a white knight, called someone else a troll, and invented a story about that same person "trying to get every other model so scared to leave their houses that she's the only model left and then gets all of the work." 

I am literate and paying attention.  Which is why I know the insults you've dished out don't describe anyone participating in this thread.  If you think that they do, then quote that person so we are all not tarred with the same brush.

Now what things do you want me to think about?

Well, at this point if you've missed it, it looks like you might not see it.  Oh well, I was hoping!

Isaiah Brink wrote:

The image of the white knight was the second post, and in that post, he did not mention anybody, did not quote anybody, so I cannot see how this would be an attack by the poster of the picture.  But the person who replied and used profanities, that was uncalled for.  Disagree fine, state your point/case, but just to say "f#$% you" is not either.  See my point?

...who are you talking too?

Who do you want to respond to you?

Quoting that person helps.  Who were you calling a troll?

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
Please read the title of this thread.  That is the topic.

Please read the entire title as well as the original post.  It's short and quite easy to read and understand.  While it specifically mentions a predator, it is not limited to just the risk of predators and the OP does not state any discussion should be limited to just predators.   

Even if the OP was limited to just the risk of predators, (which it's not) talking about that risk within the context of other risks to provide perspective is not off topic.

If you wish to limit your posts about model safety to just the risk imposed by predators without the perspective of any other risks that exist, feel free. I feel it's important to offer a context which includes a bigger picture of risk. In fact, I think it would be a big disservice not to provide that context.  I'm not trying to limit you from saying what you feel is important or relevant, but I feel you are trying to limit others from making points that are important and relevant.

Sure it's fine to talk about the threat of a predator, but when it comes to something as important as safety, and risk management, I think it's important not to act as if a single threat is the only risk. Perspective is relevant, important and on topic.

Big Mark Photography wrote:

...who are you talking too?

Who do you want to respond to you?

Quoting that person helps.  Who were you calling a troll?

Did you say it?  Nope.  So don't worry about it.  Now we can add you to trolling.  Geez, this is going off topic now.  What you said Mark dosn't have anything to do with model safety or rapists, or anything close.  Now you're just looking to argue.

Isaiah Brink wrote:

Did you say it?  Nope.  So don't worry about it.  Now we can add you to trolling.  Geez, this is going off topic now.  What you said Mark dosn't have anything to do with model safety or rapists, or anything close.  Now you're just looking to argue.

...just enough balls to insult me, but not enough to call anyone else out.  Got it.