PC gone mad when you cannot even take pictures of your own kids!!

daska

Derivative wrote: »

Yes, so someone else identified the child.
Taking the photo and using it in say a photo album wouldn't have that effect.

No, it wouldn't, but how exactly can you ensure that the person taking the photo won't share it? Or that they have appropriate levels of security set up on their online albums etc?

When DSD came to live with us the Court allowed us to refuse to provide our address or the details of the school DSD went to because her mother was an alcoholic junkie with a history of violence. My parents even had to change their telephone number. The school had a photo of her so that they could warn us if she turned up. Those precautions could easily have been undermined if the local paper had published a photo of her.

Ravenlady_2

I cant believe in this day and age parents still are not aware that schools take a unsavoury stance on photo's of children.

Its been in the news umpteen times, millions have whinged about it and yet it seems a surprise to some.

claretmatt

I recently took a day off work to look after my son as the childminder was on holiday. I took him to the local Sure Start centre. I was expecting a work email, so went into a corner and checked my messages. 30 seconds maximum and the phone was pointed down so no chance of taking a photo. I was then told by the lady running the centre that phones were not allowed for the "protection of the children" Upon leaving I was asked as an active and involved parent if I would like to come to the dads and sons Saturday morning club as it has a very low take up. I doubt I will take up their offer.

Alikay

claretmatt wrote: »

I was expecting a work email, so went into a corner and checked my messages. 30 seconds maximum and the phone was pointed down so no chance of taking a photo. I was then told by the lady running the centre that phones were not allowed for the "protection of the children"

Sure Start centres are regularly used as venues for supervised contact sessions for children in care proceedings and their families, so that doesn't surprise me.

blue_monkey_2

Glad I am not the only one - both of the women were women who worked there.

I do understand the issues about protection of some children however in this case it did not apply. As I said, the pics were already on FB by the time I got home - just not ones with my DD in. Anyone can open the FB and see the pics of the kids so this is not the issue.

Just the venue being pedantic.

I think I will complain. What is the point in signing a disclaimer if you are going to get some jobsworth having a go at you anyway. They weren't even discreet.

And what riled me more was the way they went running to the leaders and said 'someone is trying to take pictures of the kids', they could have said 'is that woman a parent, she is taking pictures' because I could see the choir backstage from where I was sitting. They just wanted to make a bigger deal than it was.

I have one picture of her with one of the group and a little bit of video so I will have to cherish that. AND they gave us a picture of the kids at the end with the band but they were in casuals instead of what they usually wear and it's quite blurry - so they gave out a picture anyway. All that 'protecting the other children' stuff was just nonsense. But it was an amazing night and my daughter had such a lovely time.

adouglasmhor

daska wrote: »

What?!

Imagine a family has been relocated as a result of violence, maybe into a WomensAid Hostel, but the offender is looking for them. Publishing photographs of children on-line can identify where they are going to school, what groups they attend, narrow down the area they are living in.

Apply a little common sense and you can see that in those circumstances it's not unreasonable to restrict photos being taken. It doesn't stop the organisers taking photos and publishing those that don't include the faces/names of the relevant children.

With the rapid improvements in facial recognition in things like FaceBook it's increasingly important to bear in mind.

1 Who said they were going to be online?
2 I am pretty sure OP can identify their OWN child anyway.

daska

adouglasmhor wrote: »

1 Who said they were going to be online?
2 I am pretty sure OP can identify their OWN child anyway.

I think you're missing the point. Leaving this incident aside as it seems it might have been a lack of communication between the group and the venue there are a couple of basic points that have to be taken into consideration.
1. You can't control what people do with photos they take or, if someone else gets hold of them, what that other person will do.
2. You can't ensure that a person will only take photos that contain only their child - especially if you don't even know all the parents and children personally.

In this instance it sounds as if the venue were being overly officious, rude and unpleasant (unforgivable) but the cause is possibly poor communication between the venue and the choir - the choir leaders obviously thought they'd covered all bases. but that doesn't mean it isn't appropriate to control the taking of photographs in some situations.

adouglasmhor

daska wrote: »

I think you're missing the point. Leaving this incident aside as it seems it might have been a lack of communication between the group and the venue there are a couple of basic points that have to be taken into consideration.
1. You can't control what people do with photos they take or, if someone else gets hold of them, what that other person will do.
2. You can't ensure that a person will only take photos that contain only their child - especially if you don't even know all the parents and children personally.

In this instance it sounds as if the venue were being overly officious, rude and unpleasant (unforgivable) but the cause is possibly poor communication between the venue and the choir - the choir leaders obviously thought they'd covered all bases. but that doesn't mean it isn't appropriate to control the taking of photographs in some situations.

You can't just assume everybody is going to do wrong either; you seem to be missing that point, in fact there is a presumption of innocence in British law. No laws were being broken except possibly a breach of the peace by the idiotic woman who shouted at the OP.
Perhaps as well if a child is in some situation where they need protection and anonymity perhaps on a stage in front of an audience is not the best place.

pelirocco

PaulRichmond wrote: »

That is a rather silly statement, i actually have a close friend whose husband had abused their child and since been released from prison and after the child was tagged in a dance groups photo he had made a fake account on facebook and was watching his then ex-wife (my friend) without her knowing and actually got in touch with the dance group to find out when my friends daughter had her lessons and then consequently tried to pick her up! thankfully someone recognised it wasn't the mother and phoned the mother and the man has been arrested again and my friend is now having to move away

She should restrict who can see her FB then !

And somebody recognised the father wasnt the mother?

pelirocco

Ravenlady wrote: »

I cant believe in this day and age parents still are not aware that schools take a unsavoury stance on photo's of children.

Its been in the news umpteen times, millions have whinged about it and yet it seems a surprise to some.

Not all schools , the school my grandchildren go to have no objection to photos or videos being taken ,and as far as I am aware no parent has ever objected either .