Not allowed photography at school play??

dizziblonde

CRB checks (and list 99) checks aren't something I have an issue with - however when you need multiples of them, and you're paying out for them out of your own pocket (some of the supply agencies charge an additional admin fee which goes to their own pockets) - they don't half get expensive. The company contracted to do them must be making an absolute killing with how many people who do voluntary work and a range of different things requiring one make.

The new checks come in at some point next year as well.

With the Xmas card thing - I was never able to send a list of kids names home - best I could come up with was a strategic "turning a blind eye" while parents scribbled them down off trays in the classroom... not the teacher's fault - usually school policy (and nowhere near as tricky further up the school when kids stand a chance of remembering whos in their class and being able to spell them), so I had to do it that way.

I think the thread's getting a touch hysterical though - it's getting a balance between giving kids a normal childhood, making them aware of the risks of stranger danger etc, but keeping schools accessible to parents and people like the local community volunteers (my old school used to have an active group of retired ladies who came in to hear readers etc and were utter starts) - yet not completely bubble wrapping children up and denying them their chances to do Christmas plays and the like (and the political fallout from Xmas plays are one massive source of stress for teachers - we once had a parent who refused to speak to a staff member for another 7 months over the role her kid was given in the play and the fact he was on the back row of the angels as he was a taller child).

The photos the teachers take in-class by the way are the latest in-thing for evidencing kids' work if they're doing practical activities etc - if they're doing something like a sorting activity, it's very common to have a photo taken, and it glued into the child's book with a comment like "X sorted a set of objects according to colour" - as evidence of what was done and what was attained. Just in case people were thinking anything sinister goes on there (it ain't half a horrific waste of paper and ink at times though!).

vaio

tandraig wrote: »

no - we cant go around suspecting every person we meet - but we MUST be aware that in this day and age - the internet age - strangers ARE suspect!
you are right in that there is a balance to be found. because of her job paparika knows exactly how these people function - and how they are not suspected by parents because they are so 'charming honest reliable people'.
what most people dont realise is that !!!!!philes will spend a LOT of time researching their victim. they will befriend the parents. or they may be in positions of trust or authority. and unfortunately - they ARE more common than you think!
its up to parents to be aware - 'why is your best friend offering to babysit'
why does your kids best friends dad offer sleepovers?
kids dont always tell about innapropriate touching - so dont think your child would tell you if something was wrong - odds are they wouldnt!

I tend to the opposite view, we MUST be aware that stranger danger is no more serious now than it ever has been at least in my lifetime (and the figures back this up), similarly the main danger to kids is and remains family members & family friends.

The child protection industry that has sprung up over the last 10, 15 or 20 years have had a dramatic effect on freedoms and enjoyment of kids, parents and society in general and seem to be fuelling public hysteria and advocating a mind set where every one is regarded a guilty until proved otherwise and doesn’t seem to have achieved any increase in child safety despite the huge increase in bureaucracy and intrusion/infringement it has generated.

I’m a 50+ grandfather now but twice over the last 30 years I’ve come across distressed lost toddlers at public events. On both occasions I picked them up, calmed them down and delivered them to the lost children post safe in my mind that if I came across the parents on the way it would be “thanks for looking after my offspring” rather than “!!!!!! are you doing with my child, you pervert”

Would I do the same now? Absolutely. Would my 25 yo son or others from his generation do it? I would like to hope so but I’m not sure and if not then the world is a worse place because of it.

People like paparika who work with offenders have an insight that the rest of us don’t (and I don’t particularly want to) but should also have the professional detachment and sense of proportion to realise that they are working with a tiny tiny very disturbed % of the population and not try and project offenders behaviour and motives on to the rest of us.

tandraig

I didnt mean to come across as paranoid!!! but, just to warn parents NOT to be too complacent when it comes to their childs safety.

the reason i said 'dads' who seem very keen for your child to have sleepovers is - even though its sexist - most !!!!!piles are men. yes women have committed this offence but the figures show that this is a rare occurence.

PolishBigSpender - I was thinking more along the lines of someone talking to my granddaughter through the school fence - their grounds are quite large and the play supervisors cant be everywhere at once!

perhaps I am paranoid - or I have talked to too many teens who were abused as children, so my understanding is of course second-hand and from a different perspective to paparikas.

however I would rather be safe than sorry and when under my care my grandchildren are watched very closely. my son and his partner allow them both to go unsupervised to the playground in next street which i wouldnt do but they are the parents and its their decision to make about its safety.

mrcow

bestpud wrote: »

But how does this relate to the banning of photos at school plays?

It doesn't. None of what Paprika has posted does. It would seem that everyone else can see that......

Are we to look forward to another irrelevent story about !!!!!philes any time soon I wonder?

Zazen999

tandraig wrote: »

the reason i said 'dads' who seem very keen for your child to have sleepovers is - even though its sexist - most !!!!!piles are men. yes women have committed this offence but the figures show that this is a rare occurence.

However, 100% of dads are also men.

Paparika

mrcow wrote: »

It doesn't. None of what Paprika has posted does. It would seem that everyone else can see that......

Are we to look forward to another irrelevent story about !!!!!philes any time soon I wonder?

:rotfl:So nice of you to say..... next!

wearside_2

I went to my youngest Granddaughters Nativity Play last week and we were told that we could take photographs and videos. No one checked who my wife and I were, we were just allowed in with the parents, most of all looked young enough to be our children. This is more worrying than the banning of photos.

lynzpower

tandraig wrote: »

I didnt mean to come across as paranoid!!! but, just to warn parents NOT to be too complacent when it comes to their childs safety.

the reason i said 'dads' who seem very keen for your child to have sleepovers is - even though its sexist - most !!!!!piles are men. yes women have committed this offence but the figures show that this is a rare occurence.

PolishBigSpender - I was thinking more along the lines of someone talking to my granddaughter through the school fence - their grounds are quite large and the play supervisors cant be everywhere at once!

perhaps I am paranoid - or I have talked to too many teens who were abused as children, so my understanding is of course second-hand and from a different perspective to paparikas.

however I would rather be safe than sorry and when under my care my grandchildren are watched very closely. my son and his partner allow them both to go unsupervised to the playground in next street which i wouldnt do but they are the parents and its their decision to make about its safety.

There is not more risk now to children, simpl that the media reports it more than ever. There is an ever increasing appetite and to some extent a normalisation of people talking about sexual abuse for example on TV that was simply not a feature of the media some 10-15 years ago. However, it is a regular storyline on soaps, seems constantly discussed on jeremy kyle etc. The many many books released off the back of a child called it was phenomenal, I could not believe- and still cant- the amazing amount of books in the same vein, and the never decreasing market for them.

I think it is aboslutely right that there is a culture where vulerable people and children can come forward to say they have been abused. I do not argue with this at all.

I have a long career working with children and young people who have been sexually abused and reallly if the government is wasting its time banning parents from taking photos of thier own children- meanwhile allowing child pornography to ravage this country on line. Yes there are efforts, but the courts let perpetrators and purchasers of child pornography off with a few months custody if we are lucky.

These are the abusers the government knows are out there, yet chooses to focus its efforts on the potential for a parent to take a picture of thier own children.

@ jellyhead

out of interest when you say this

Oh, we had letters about our plays today and I moaned about the rule about not putting our photos on the internet, because I usually put them on facebook and tag my friend's children too. Rules state we cannot publish them at all, not even emailing them to grannies etc.

I was thinking about this today. In my old photo albums from school/ brownie camp etc, we used to get our parents to take group photos of us all hugging-and doing funny faces etc. If your daughter or son asked you to take a pic of her and freinds ( a few, the ones you know, theyve been to your house, they are in her class, you know thier mums and have tacit consent as photros are regualryl taken of the group of girls) would you have to say no? Or have to wait till off school property. Are you allowed to share photos on facebook if taken offf property - ie jsut outside the gates? .

I think its tremendously sad if children are growing up without photos of the freinds, dodgy fashions, silly haircuts etc.

tandraig

I am NOT saying that parents shouldnt have photographs of their kids or grandkids! when photos are in photo albums at home thats fine! the more the merrier!
just warning of the dangers of putting photos on internet - so why am I and paparika getting vilified? whatever we say we are accused of scaremongering - so - personally - this is my last post on this thread - and i sincerely hope that while you are all esconced in your ivory towers - your kids arent being abused!

aliasojo

bestpud wrote: »

We sign that as well.

I guess if only one parents objects, it is enough to stop everyone taking photos?

It was in our school. We got a letter saying no filming and it turned out one father had objected. What was annoying was that he had offered to keep his daughter off during the play so that other people could film but the head told him she would just ban filming completely.

I called her to discuss it as I was annoyed to say the least but she simply insisted the decision had been made. A quick phone call above her head to to the LEA showed that it wasn't. She was told she had no right to do this and filming was allowed to go ahead.

This was in Scotland btw in case it makes a difference.