Not allowed photography at school play??

puddy

mikey72 wrote: »

Would if be right to simplify it, that as with all children, when the consent form is sent out at the beginning of the year, for a looked after child, the social worker advises where it goes, and, like any other child, it comes back with a yes or no, and is acted on accordingly. So to the school the child is treated exactly the same as the others.

yes, but schools will be much more cautious about any photographing and videoing when they know a LAC is with them, they would be in serious trouble if they got sloppy suddenly there is the child in a picture on the website, whereas as you see from above, that poster's grandchildren are on the website, seemingly without permission, no one is going to come down on them like a ton of bricks

there are also situations where the social worker may be able to say its ok, if the child is not subject to proceedings, theoretically the parents and the local authority share PR (in practice the LA has the main say), so if the SW has planned for the children to return home at some point, there is no risk from the parent's knowing the child's whereabouts AND that distribution of the child's picture would not invade the child's privacy, then it might be ok for pictures to be taken (and given to the parents/carers alike)

Becles

They banned cameras and video cameras from our school.

At my eldests first play, I was pleased to have a good view from a seat in the third row. Then as soon as it started, the person in front held a video camera in the air and obstructed my view I asked if she could put the camera down, but she refused and by then it was too packed for me to get out and move elsewhere.

People were taking flash photography throughout the performances which was distracting to the children and irritating to people in the audience. Some kept standing up to take pictures, which spoiled the view of people behind them.

Camera's and videos were banned due to the nusiance they cause to others. School said that they would take photographs at the dress rehersal and have one unobtrusive video camera at the back of the hall. You can buy copies of the DVD and photographs which are sold at a slight profit to raise money for school funds.

mikey72

tandraig wrote: »

just to add my twopennorth....exactly how do schools justify the photos they proudly display on their website!

when my GDs were in nursery I was horrified when i went on school website - i was looking for term date info - to find a pic of my gds under stars of the week including their first names! my son went in to school and objected and now they only put up pics no names.......which personally i am still not happy with - but its their website! oh and parents have always been welcome at school plays to take photos of their child AFTER the performance.

Because the only applicable law is the right to privacy, which is undefined, and so open to interpretation. One headmaster can decide one one rule, another on a totally different rule. Ours takes the photos, and tells the parents they have to notify him if they want to opt out. He doesn't stop other parents taking photos, but would if there was a complaint about them. Seems sensible to me.

mikey72

jenner wrote: »

yes, but schools will be much more cautious about any photographing and videoing when they know a LAC is with them, they would be in serious trouble if they got sloppy suddenly there is the child in a picture on the website, whereas as you see from above, that poster's grandchildren are on the website, seemingly without permission, no one is going to come down on them like a ton of bricks

there are also situations where the social worker may be able to say its ok, if the child is not subject to proceedings, theoretically the parents and the local authority share PR (in practice the LA has the main say), so if the SW has planned for the children to return home at some point, there is no risk from the parent's knowing the child's whereabouts AND that distribution of the child's picture would not invade the child's privacy, then it might be ok for pictures to be taken (and given to the parents/carers alike)

In practice what would happen, are you saying it is a criminal, not civil, offense, so would the punishment be a fine, custodial, etc?

flippin36

Becles wrote: »

They banned cameras and video cameras from our school.

At my eldests first play, I was pleased to have a good view from a seat in the third row. Then as soon as it started, the person in front held a video camera in the air and obstructed my view I asked if she could put the camera down, but she refused and by then it was too packed for me to get out and move elsewhere.

People were taking flash photography throughout the performances which was distracting to the children and irritating to people in the audience. Some kept standing up to take pictures, which spoiled the view of people behind them.

Camera's and videos were banned due to the nusiance they cause to others. School said that they would take photographs at the dress rehersal and have one unobtrusive video camera at the back of the hall. You can buy copies of the DVD and photographs which are sold at a slight profit to raise money for school funds.

When I read the OP post this is the first thing I thought of too. Then the posts turned discussing Pdophiles and vunerable children :sad:.

vaio

as it always does

lynzpower

mikey72 wrote: »

Aren't you more worried that while the father is always treated with suspiscion, there have been a huge increase in the number of women who reported as abusing children now, which is often initially overlooked, and as such the mother is allowed much more leaway with their children, and others.

I honestly dont think that social workers treat every father with suspicion- i think if a child obviously discloses that somethings not right at home, then clearly, if dads around- there will be an equal suspicion to mum. In my experience of working in inner london SW, to be truthful, in 85% dad wasnt around and mums managed to neglect and abuse thier children all by themselves.

I actually think it seems to be more education ( be it teachers, nursery settings, or ofsted, central government) that have run away with men as peeedos .In my time some of the bull i have heard coming out of early years settings make you realy wonder. 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. Along with another training session where I sat literally agog, where the nursery staff said that babies with HIV have recieved this from being sexually abused- and therefore all men that are in contact with the child can come to the nursery in case they abuse anyone else. Staggered isnt the word. :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

I have always been vehemently opposed to the feminisation of power in society, and that children should basically be born, raised and tended to until 18 by women as men somehow cant be trusted. Some men cant be trusted, just like some women cant be trusted. What I know is that if we poured the resources into truly protecting children at risk, instead oif dreaming up all manner of schemes to protect from some vague threat ( like you are not allowed to take pics of your own children in one of the parks round here- PLEASE!!) then children might recieve the protection that they need.

We have too much fear of the stranger, most children are abused by thier parents.

Not taking photos of children in a play will not make abuse of children less, im sorry but it really wont.

mikey72

It was you that switched from parent to father, in your remark about abuse.

Originally Posted by lynzpower
I have worked in social care, and the vast mjority of Peadophiles were the parents of the child or extended family member. So I dont get at all why a father cant take a picture of his own child, yet abuse him at home

(And the photos are nothing about abuse, right to privacy, Human Rights Act 1998 this thread is seriously sidetracked)

tandraig

to answer a couple of posters questions - no, he wasnt asked specifically if his girls photos could go on website. and to be fair to headteacher - he immediately removed their names after son pointed out that the schools address is there plus kids tend to trust people who know their names! all of which would make it too easy for local !!!!!philes wouldnt it?
for post 76
the situation you describe is all too familiar to me - happened when my kids were at school (same school as GDs). Now parents are NOT allowed to photograph children during the performance and parents wishing to film them must ask permission prior to the big day and they stand in a designated spot. so well done school for that - us considerate parents and grandparents can now enjoy the whole performance in peace.

puddy

mikey72 wrote: »

In practice what would happen, are you saying it is a criminal, not civil, offense, so would the punishment be a fine, custodial, etc?

no, its not an offence, but they would be seriously questioned about their child protection procedures, they havent broken any 'law' but they have neglected their duties to assess risk and protect the child. if it had an impact on the safety of the child, they would need to explain themselves to ofsted, the local safeguarding children's board etc. i dont know the ins and outs of what penalties schools would face, but the head or the child protection officer would need to examine their policies and procedures and look at why they managed to distribute pictures of a child they shouldnt have.

if the worst came to the worst and that child was injured or killed due to a parent finding the child, then yes, they would have to be part of the inquiry into that