So this morning a man taking photos of me

[Deleted User]

Johno100 wrote: »

Are their trustees?

From http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/ContactAndTrustees.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1042391&SubsidiaryNumber=0

This charity has been given a dispensation by the Charity Commission from publishing the names of its trustees.

Relevant page from the government - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/addresses-and-trustee-names-in-your-charitys-public-details

A FOI request has previously been made to find out more - https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/dispensation

But ultimately, it's a charity who's aim is to protect the safety of a minority group. It's not that crazy that some levels of further security may be requested by the organisers.

When I was the co-chair of a Jewish student society, I wouldn't give out the location of our office/student accommodation, and made sure it was never published by the university.

Mercdriver

ringo_24601 wrote: »

It's similar to why some schools allow photos, and some don't. There may be children who are effectively in hiding from a member of the family (e.g. an abusive one) and have moved areas from them. It's also why you should be careful about sharing 'missing child' posts within social media.

I'm fully aware that photography is legal when in public areas, but there are legitimate concerns sometimes about how those photos are used and shared.

My kids's school has a proper car-park and a drop off system so we don't have any of these problems.. but then again it also has 3 security guards, perimeter security gates, CCTV and bomb proof outer windows. The next step is to get some concrete barriers near the main gate to prevent ramming threats. Anyone photographing cars would be frogmarched away from the area.

Schools (and anyone else) can decide what is and what isn't allowed on their land. When I watch my youngest nephew's nativity or play, the head teacher will ask if anyone objects to relatives taking photos or videos on the basis that they aren't shared on social media. If one person objects then no filming or photos are allowed. The school has no authority to decide on these matters outside of their own land.

Robisere

My questions for the OP: what is the distance between school and home?

I am aware of your Blue Badge, does the nature of your disability prevent you from walking your child to school, or is it a considerable distance? If the answer to both questions is "No" then why not give both yourself and your child some healthy exercise?

IF you return to respond to this, be aware that you are responding to a Senior with a blue badge and more than one disability for many years, who walks as far and as often as physically possible, in order to retain a healthy heart.

Johno100

Robisere wrote: »

My questions for the OP: what is the distance between school and home?

I am aware of your Blue Badge, does the nature of your disability prevent you from walking your child to school, or is it a considerable distance? If the answer to both questions is "No" then why not give both yourself and your child some healthy exercise?

Blue badge or not, I hear this argument all the time about the school run but I'm yet to meet anyone jn the real world and who works 'traditional working hours' who has the time to walk their child/children to school, walk back home and then set-off on their commute to work.

pogofish

Although he is fully entitled to take any photos he likes and record any evidence of damage/trespass, how the photos are eventually used might fall foul of a number of laws - particularly if they can be argued to be demonstrating a course of harassment, aggravation or intimidation. IF he starts doing this regularly, it would be not unreasonable to be concerned. Similarly, if he is acting in a professional capacity, there may be data protection issues involved here - for him or the landowner and you will have rights under the DPA.to see that he or they are properly registered as data controllers and that images/footage are handled properly.

It also concerns me that if there is a parking/trespass/damage issue and the landowners are planning/trying to do something about it, why have they not informed/involved the school as a first step?

facade

ringo_24601 wrote: »

My kids's school has a proper car-park and a drop off system so we don't have any of these problems.. but then again it also has 3 security guards, perimeter security gates, CCTV and bomb proof outer windows. The next step is to get some concrete barriers near the main gate to prevent ramming threats. Anyone photographing cars would be frogmarched away from the area.

Thomas's Battersea is it?

(Didn't loads of undesireables take dozens of pictures of some 4 year old child going to school there a while ago? I don't think they were prosecuted, and IIRC, they even published some of the pictures on web sites...) :eek:

unforeseen

pogofish wrote: »

Although he is fully entitled to take any photos he likes and record any evidence of damage/trespass, how the photos are eventually used might fall foul of a number of laws - particularly if they can be argued to be demonstrating a course of harassment or intimidation. IF he starts doing this regularly, it would be not unreasonable to be concerned. Similarly, if he is acting in a professional capacity, there may be data protection issues involved here - for him or the landowner and you will have rights under the DPA.to see that images are handled properly.

It also concerns me that if there is a parking/trespass/damage issue and the landowners are planning/trying to do something about it, why have they not informed/involved the school as a first step?

If he is doing it regularly to vehicles that keeps driving onto the grass that will not be harassment but evidence gathering.

I would think any concern would be the OPs in trying to understand why they keep driving on the grass when fully aware that they shouldn't

pogofish

unforeseen wrote: »

If he is doing it regularly to vehicles that keeps driving onto the grass that will not be harassment but evidence gathering.

I would think any concern would be the OPs in trying to understand why they keep driving on the grass when fully aware that they shouldn't

Depends - If he's trying to use the act of taking photos to scare people off, then he could be skating on thin ice but genuine evidence gathering, yes. Its a fine line here and it could come down to someone else's perception of his actions.

Parents and schools, what can you say! Which is why once enough evidence is gathered, the landowner should be involving the school/local authority to get this problem solved properly.

The last school I worked in had a similar issue - a narrow access road and a verge on private land that was being chewed-up by parents parking right outside the school. Eventually a one way/drop-off was sorted out amicably and some landscaping made it difficult to straddle the verge. The first act however was to properly inform the parents about the problem and I don't remember any pictures of folk in cars being needed - pictures of the damage left by them was enough.

elsien

ringo_24601 wrote: »

My kids's school has a proper car-park and a drop off system so we don't have any of these problems.. but then again it also has 3 security guards, perimeter security gates, CCTV and bomb proof outer windows. The next step is to get some concrete barriers near the main gate to prevent ramming threats. Anyone photographing cars would be frogmarched away from the area.

Where do you live that merits all that palava?

Gloomendoom

elsien wrote: »

Where do you live that merits all that palava?

It sounds similar to a school I visited in Coventry.