Not allowed photography at school play??

Paparika

vaio wrote: »

Not sure I know this is the truth at all, in fact my gut instincts tells me it’s not the case, have you got any sources to support your assertion?

Shannon Matthews, kidnapped, mother charged with child neglect, mothers boyfriend charged with child p0rnography, Michael Donovan the uncle of Shannon's mother charged with kidnapping and false imprisonment

onlyroz

lynzpower wrote: »

I heard that one nursery where I worked would discriminate against men applying to be nursery staff- even if qualified, as they didnt tihnk it was ok for men to change nappies- yes Ive actually heard this.

I am extremely pleased to say that my daughter's nursery has two male employees. I think it's important that all children have both male and female role models.

Paparika

vaio wrote: »

When I said sources I was hoping for some authoritive evidence to support the assertion that most cases of abduction/murder by strangers were to children of neglectful parents.

The case you mentioned is one of the vast majority of cases where the abuse was within the family and no amount off bans on photographs/crb checks etc etc would make a blind bit of difference.

Ok Madeleine McCann, still missing, no one seems to have any cement evidence.

Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr, not related to their victims. crb checks!! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3313303.stm

mrbrightside842

I'm currently waiting to see if we can video/photograph our daughter's nursery play this Friday. I'm hoping we can, though. I put lots of photos of my two on facebook, and we've probably got ones with kids in the background. Not kids I know, just like when we went to Disney, and it was impossible to get a photo in front of the castle without hundreds of other people around, so there's bound to be people/kids in the background of those, but I haven't actually noticed as I'm not interested. In fact, when we were in front of the castle, we were having those photopass photos taken and once we'd finished a guy with a camera came up to us and asked to take a photo of our girls in front of the castle for the magazine he worked for. He showed us his ID, but I wouldn't have known if it were real or not. He could have easily taken hundreds of photos of them whilst we were taking them though, and we'd have been none the wiser.

onlyroz

Paparika wrote: »

Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr, not related to their victims. crb checks!! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3313303.stm

Ian Huntley was never charged with a sex offence prior to his murder conviction. Whether he should have been charged with anything is a separate issue, but I wouldn't want to be part of a world where people's lives are blighted because of an accusation that was never proven to be true.

I do think there's a hysteria about !!!!!philes. There has been talk here about "men" who photograph children in parks. Why shouldn't a man be allowed to photograph children in parks? Nobody would question a woman photographing children in a park.

As for photographing at school - I don't see any problem with it, and I wouldn't particularly have a problem about my child's photo being put on the school website or in the local paper. In fact I'd be proud that my child had done something important enough to merit their picture being published.

Paparika

onlyroz wrote: »

Ian Huntley was never charged with a sex offence prior to his murder conviction. Whether he should have been charged with anything is a separate issue, but I wouldn't want to be part of a world where people's lives are blighted because of an accusation that was never proven to be true.

I do think there's a hysteria about !!!!!philes. There has been talk here about "men" who photograph children in parks. Why shouldn't a man be allowed to photograph children in parks? Nobody would question a woman photographing children in a park.

As for photographing at school - I don't see any problem with it, and I wouldn't particularly have a problem about my child's photo being put on the school website or in the local paper. In fact I'd be proud that my child had done something important enough to merit their picture being published.

of course but following the announcement of Huntley's conviction, it emerged that various authorities were aware of allegations, from a number of sources, that he had committed one act of indecent assault four acts of under-age sex and three rapes. he was known, proper checks were not carried out which allowed him to carry on with 'alleged' acts.

onlyroz

Paparika wrote: »

of course but following the announcement of Huntley's conviction, it emerged that various authorities were aware of allegations, from a number of sources, that he had committed one act of indecent assault four acts of under-age sex and three rapes. he was known, proper checks were not carried out which allowed him to carry on with 'alleged' acts.

Yes, there was certainly a lack of communication between various authorities - but these were still only allegations. He was never charged with any sexual offence.

mrcow

onlyroz wrote: »

As for photographing at school - I don't see any problem with it, and I wouldn't particularly have a problem about my child's photo being put on the school website or in the local paper.

Of course there is no problem.

As I stated earlier, if someone wanted photos of kids, then they only have to open any magazne or newspaper and the world is your oyster. My children are just normal kids - they look like any other.

If you want to take photos of kids, then go to any park, theme park, school, local Tesco etc and there are people a plenty to take pictures of.

My children's photos are on the internet - my son's photo has been in the local paper a few times and they also have photos on the school's website for awards etc. and also on the Beavers/Cubs website. Why would object? I'm really proud of them.

What's wrong with having your photo in a newspaper? (for the right reasons of course!).

horse76

We've just received a letter from DD's school saying we will be allowed to photograph our own child in the nativity play this week, as long as we go to the back of the hall to prevent blocking anyone's view. The decision was made after lots of parents had asked the school if they were allowed to take photographs of their own child in the play. I didn't ask the school myself, but I'm happy with the decision and will be taking a couple of photos of dd. If they had banned the taking of photos, I'd be happy to respect that decision too.

DVardysShadow

Paparika wrote: »

of course but following the announcement of Huntley's conviction, it emerged that various authorities were aware of allegations, from a number of sources, that he had committed one act of indecent assault four acts of under-age sex and three rapes. he was known, proper checks were not carried out which allowed him to carry on with 'alleged' acts.

And that is exactly the problem. He was left in a twilight zone of unresolved accusations. It was not followed through to a conviction or acquittal. Now, anyone who has an accusation put against them is in the same twilight zone and treated as though he were another Huntley and potentially on the basis of tittle tattle decided by the local police sergeant. It is not good enough both ways. Not for Huntley and not for people such as teachers falsely accused by malicious pupils.