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

Nicki

I had something similar happen to me last year at a swimming gala. The organisers sent out info beforehand and said photos could be taken, and when we arrived at the venue we were asked if we planned to take photos, and if we said yes were asked to sign a form saying there were for personal use and wouldnt be sold.

I was taking a photo of my son on the starting block with an SLR camera and was asked by a smiley parent if I was from the press. When I replied that I was a parent, her attitude changed and she told me I wasn't allowed to take photos! Bonkers that she would be happy of me taking photos of random children in their swimwear to put in the paper, but not one of my own son for our photo album Anyway I explained to her that photos were allowed and that I had signed all the paperwork but she was welcome to check with the venue if she was unsure, and although she clearly wasn't happy, she didn't say anything else. And like the OP I was very careful not to get anyone else in my shot, as I could understand that people might not want their children being photographed in swimwear, but my DS was one of only 4 people chosen to represent his school at the gala and was in Year 6, so we wanted a momento for him of the day.

BenL

Looks like they are living in the past, the Information Commissioner released guidance notes on this a few years ago. It came out for nativity play time of year as this is when the most issues arise.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11945081

Derivative

I am a bit fed up of this 'child protection' nonsense.

The proportion of children who have been 'abused' is a tiny tiny percentage.

If you take a picture of a scene with a child in, the proportion of those pictures that actually get uploaded to Facebook or end up in a newspaper is even smaller.

Then the chance of the photo being tagged or captioned is even lower.

Then the so called 'abuser' has to actually find the photo.

Then they have to act on it.

So how many children actually get abused as a proportion of the original amount, which was already tiny?

It does not make sense to restrict the freedoms of all parents to satisfy a tiny minority. It's not the bloody Wild West out there.

If any particular parent is worried, perhaps they could quietly take the photographer to a side after the play and give them their concerns.

GobbledyGook

Part of the issue is that people have no manners when it comes to photos any more. At my daughter's sports day they allowed photographs of the children to be taken on the strict understanding that parents didn't post photographs of ANY other child on Facebook and the likes. Did all the parents comply? Did they heck. So now the school is back to it's original 'no photos' stance.

It's not just about abused children, it's about a whole myriad of issues. It's about children in foster care, it's about children whose family have fled domestic violence, it's about children who've been abused, it's about children who've been adopted and so on and so on. People in an area will often have no idea if their child's school is the one that takes children from a local shelter or the likes.

Also when it comes to nativity plays and the likes the 'no photos' rule is equally about the protection of the children as it is about the pig ignorant people who'll happily stand up in front of folks blocking their view to try and get a photo of their little Prince/ss as they have zero manners. It's easier to have a blanket rule one way or the other than to chop and change depending on the classes involved.

dizziblonde

Derivative wrote: »

I am a bit fed up of this 'child protection' nonsense.

The proportion of children who have been 'abused' is a tiny tiny percentage.

If you take a picture of a scene with a child in, the proportion of those pictures that actually get uploaded to Facebook or end up in a newspaper is even smaller.

Then the chance of the photo being tagged or captioned is even lower.

Then the so called 'abuser' has to actually find the photo.

Then they have to act on it.

So how many children actually get abused as a proportion of the original amount, which was already tiny?

It does not make sense to restrict the freedoms of all parents to satisfy a tiny minority. It's not the bloody Wild West out there.

If any particular parent is worried, perhaps they could quietly take the photographer to a side after the play and give them their concerns.

Gosh - how inconsiderate of the family fleeing a partner caught up in all sorts of incredibly serious crime and violence to block your photography.

How inconsiderate of the woman who knows her ex will start threatening and harrassing if he finds out where they live by someone uploading a picture of a kid in a school uniform onto facebook to spoil your fun.

How utterly shockingly inconsiderate of those evil youth organisations, or schools, or choirs or whatever else to know these kind of backgrounds and to protect their kids - without laying everyone's dirty laundry public for you to sit and comment on and scrutinise whether it's "worthy" enough grounds for photos to be restricted.

I would, and do, go utterly ballistic if I'm tagged in facebook photos (and promptly de-tag myself from them all) - I keep my own profile set to as private as possible (it's so locked down my own brother couldn't find me to add me a few weeks ago), and I do not want pictures of me tagged all over the internet - while I allow them added to family member's albums from events such as weddings and the like where I'm usually avoiding group shots like the plague, I ask them very strongly not to tag me in them... I've got an ex, not a massive horror story one, but enough of a one that will play mindgames, threaten and harrass if he remembers to bother, such that I try to keep minimal things online and control very tightly what's posted of me... and I will go utterly apocalyptically ballistic if anyone starts posting and tagging photos of my own child when it comes without me knowing... it's easier said than done when you have friends and relatives who will dump the entire contents of their phone camera on there and tag them all - and unfortunately I have a few of those I'm related to.

When you multiply that kind of person by the audience in a school concert - it only takes one to post an entire set of photos of "St Smith's School Concert" album pictures with the child in question in, and if someone's keeping an eye on a friend or relative they know you have who HASN'T got their privacy locked down well (since facebook keep changing the ruddy settings) - bam they have a school, they have a rough location near the school and they've got a lead to start whatever they were doing again. It's something that wasn't a factor when we were kids but because of how social networking sites work - it's a big problem now... you can't rely on everyone you come into contact with having their privacy locked down even if you yourself do and people have the tendency to catalogue their entire lives, and those of anyone they come into contact with by association, on there.

I also, incidentally, live in fear of anyone unearthing photographic evidence of the hideous perm I thought was a good idea in the 1980s and putting that on FB as well - there will be wrath if that can of worms gets opened.

daska

dizziblonde wrote: »

Gosh - how inconsiderate of the family fleeing a partner caught up in all sorts of incredibly serious crime and violence to block your photography.

How inconsiderate of the woman who knows her ex will start threatening and harrassing if he finds out where they live by someone uploading a picture of a kid in a school uniform onto facebook to spoil your fun.

How utterly shockingly inconsiderate of those evil youth organisations, or schools, or choirs or whatever else to know these kind of backgrounds and to protect their kids - without laying everyone's dirty laundry public for you to sit and comment on and scrutinise whether it's "worthy" enough grounds for photos to be restricted.

I would, and do, go utterly ballistic if I'm tagged in facebook photos (and promptly de-tag myself from them all) - I keep my own profile set to as private as possible (it's so locked down my own brother couldn't find me to add me a few weeks ago), and I do not want pictures of me tagged all over the internet - while I allow them added to family member's albums from events such as weddings and the like where I'm usually avoiding group shots like the plague, I ask them very strongly not to tag me in them... I've got an ex, not a massive horror story one, but enough of a one that will play mindgames, threaten and harrass if he remembers to bother, such that I try to keep minimal things online and control very tightly what's posted of me... and I will go utterly apocalyptically ballistic if anyone starts posting and tagging photos of my own child when it comes without me knowing... it's easier said than done when you have friends and relatives who will dump the entire contents of their phone camera on there and tag them all - and unfortunately I have a few of those I'm related to.

When you multiply that kind of person by the audience in a school concert - it only takes one to post an entire set of photos of "St Smith's School Concert" album pictures with the child in question in, and if someone's keeping an eye on a friend or relative they know you have who HASN'T got their privacy locked down well (since facebook keep changing the ruddy settings) - bam they have a school, they have a rough location near the school and they've got a lead to start whatever they were doing again. It's something that wasn't a factor when we were kids but because of how social networking sites work - it's a big problem now... you can't rely on everyone you come into contact with having their privacy locked down even if you yourself do and people have the tendency to catalogue their entire lives, and those of anyone they come into contact with by association, on there.

I also, incidentally, live in fear of anyone unearthing photographic evidence of the hideous perm I thought was a good idea in the 1980s and putting that on FB as well - there will be wrath if that can of worms gets opened.

Thank you. I was trying to post a 'polite' response and failing miserably LOL. I think those of us who have experience of having to avoid identification as a result of abuse of whatever kind (why do people always assume that abuse + child = sex? why do they not consider physical or emotional abuse? or that it might be the parent who was the victim and the child merely a way of finding/punishing them?) see things rather differently from those who have had the good fortune to not see be placed in this position.

We and DSD's school followed the advice we got from the police about protecting not just DSD, my elderly parents and ourselves but the other children at the school who might have been caught up in any fracas had DSD's mum identified where to find her. In our case she knew which town we were in so it raised the risk somewhat. It was the police who suggested nominating a single person to take photographs and editing them. N.B the school had an existing policy of publishing the best photos on the website so that they could be freely downloaded, it was never a case of 'no one can take or have pictures'. One of the parents was a keen photographer and was happy to take on the role. No-one was told the real reason, it was given out as being less disruptive for the children performing and an advantage for the parents who could concentrate on watching.

GobbledyGook

daska wrote: »

It was the police who suggested nominating a single person to take photographs and editing them. N.B the school had an existing policy of publishing the best photos on the website so that they could be freely downloaded, it was never a case of 'no one can take or have pictures'. One of the parents was a keen photographer and was happy to take on the role. No-one was told the real reason, it was given out as being less disruptive for the children performing and an advantage for the parents who could concentrate on watching.

A number of schools I know (and my children's school now) use this strategy. I don't know why more don't. It's much, much less disruptive at events as well than 100 flashes going off at random times.

Derivative

So as above, you seem to think that the needs of your one child should override the joy that hundreds of families get from having photographs and memories of their childrens' youth.

I don't have a Facebook account. I don't want to be tagged for privacy concerns either. But I'm not arrogant enough to believe that my privacy concerns should stop a crowd of hundreds for my own personal problems.

I'd rather see the 'abuser', whoever they may be, banged up in prison, than have free citizens curtail their activities. Deal with the problem itself...

If a woman and her family suffers from domestic violence, the correct way to go about things is to imprison the person responsible to ensure they don't do the same again.

Quotes like this just make me wince:

I've got an ex, not a massive horror story one, but enough of a one that will play mindgames

Mind games. Bloody mind games. Dear god. Short of him turning up at your door with a fist raised, you have an easy option: Ignore.

adouglasmhor

dizziblonde wrote: »

Gosh - how inconsiderate of the family fleeing a partner caught up in all sorts of incredibly serious crime and violence to block your photography.What are they doing poncing about on stage etc, Keeping a low profile means being the grey man not teh centre of attention

How inconsiderate of the woman who knows her ex will start threatening and harrassing if he finds out where they live by someone uploading a picture of a kid in a school uniform onto facebook to spoil your fun.They would have to tag it and if the kid is in that much danger maybe keeping a low profile is better than appearing on stage

How utterly shockingly inconsiderate of those evil youth organisations, or schools, or choirs or whatever else to know these kind of backgrounds and to protect their kids - without laying everyone's dirty laundry public for you to sit and comment on and scrutinise whether it's "worthy" enough grounds for photos to be restricted.
But the Choir were happy for photos to be taken

I would, and do, go utterly ballistic if I'm tagged in facebook photos (and promptly de-tag myself from them all) - I keep my own profile set to as private as possible (it's so locked down my own brother couldn't find me to add me a few weeks ago), and I do not want pictures of me tagged all over the internet - while I allow them added to family member's albums from events such as weddings and the like where I'm usually avoiding group shots like the plague, I ask them very strongly not to tag me in them... I've got an ex, not a massive horror story one, but enough of a one that will play mindgames, threaten and harrass if he remembers to bother, such that I try to keep minimal things online and control very tightly what's posted of me... and I will go utterly apocalyptically ballistic if anyone starts posting and tagging photos of my own child when it comes without me knowing... it's easier said than done when you have friends and relatives who will dump the entire contents of their phone camera on there and tag them all - and unfortunately I have a few of those I'm related to.
Not the other parents problem - they owe you nothing at all, you sort out your own life
When you multiply that kind of person by the audience in a school concert - it only takes one to post an entire set of photos of "St Smith's School Concert" album pictures with the child in question in, and if someone's keeping an eye on a friend or relative they know you have who HASN'T got their privacy locked down well (since facebook keep changing the ruddy settings) - bam they have a school, they have a rough location near the school and they've got a lead to start whatever they were doing again. It's something that wasn't a factor when we were kids but because of how social networking sites work - it's a big problem now... you can't rely on everyone you come into contact with having their privacy locked down even if you yourself do and people have the tendency to catalogue their entire lives, and those of anyone they come into contact with by association, on there.

I also, incidentally, live in fear of anyone unearthing photographic evidence of the hideous perm I thought was a good idea in the 1980s and putting that on FB as well - there will be wrath if that can of worms gets opened.

There is no point trying to keep secure if you make special cases for activities, it is sad some kids don't get the benefits of these events but even sadder when something goes wrong.

BTW I see your perm and raise you a curly mullet and a purple and black houndstooth two button double breasted suit with pleated front trouses.

daska

Derivative wrote: »

So as above, you seem to think that the needs of your one child should override the joy that hundreds of families get from having photographs and memories of their childrens' youth.

I don't have a Facebook account. I don't want to be tagged for privacy concerns either. But I'm not arrogant enough to believe that my privacy concerns should stop a crowd of hundreds for my own personal problems.

I'd rather see the 'abuser', whoever they may be, banged up in prison, than have free citizens curtail their activities. Deal with the problem itself...

If a woman and her family suffers from domestic violence, the correct way to go about things is to imprison the person responsible to ensure they don't do the same again.

Quotes like this just make me wince:
Mind games. Bloody mind games. Dear god. Short of him turning up at your door with a fist raised, you have an easy option: Ignore.

What on earth are you talking about?! As made explicitly clear, it didn't result in anyone not having pictures or memories. Though if your tactic were employed DSD would not have had the joy or the memory of taking part. In fact, if anything, it made the performances very much more enjoyable for those sat at the back LOL. And I rather doubt the police would have recommended that action if it was as simple as you want to believe.