to think that if you don't want people taking photos of your child in the school play don't let them be in it!

(320 Posts)
2anddone Mon 12-Dec-11 15:52:43

Hi I am sure this has been done a hundred times before but I am so pissed off. DS had his school nativity play today and at the start we were told no photos or videoing was allowed. Typically enough it was the first school production where he hasn't cried. They are not filming the play or offering us any other ways to get a 'memory' of the play and the reason given was that 2 parents had requested no photos were allowed. This is not due to religious beliefs it was simply they didn't want other people taking photos of their dc. I know IAPBU but I don't care IMO if you don't want your child photographed in the play collect them early and don't let them be in it! Rant over angry

DuchessofMalfi Mon 12-Dec-11 15:55:31


TheBrandyButterflyEffect Mon 12-Dec-11 15:57:52

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

tinierclanger Mon 12-Dec-11 15:58:23

So if, for whatever reason, someone needs to keep pictures of their child out of the public domain, you think the child should be penalised and should not be able to participate in normal activities?

Memories can be held in your brain you know. That's what it's for.

MixedBerries Mon 12-Dec-11 15:58:51

I just find it unbelievably sad that it's no longer acceptable to take pictures of kids in a school play.

dribbleface Mon 12-Dec-11 15:58:59

i have two friends, one has adopted children and one foster children's, both wouldn't want their child photographed for safety reasons. my stupid ex dp once saw a photo of a child(not my friends) on a desk, he commented that he knew the child from x school. turns out the person was not allowed contact. so yabu

duckdodgers Mon 12-Dec-11 16:00:55

" Memories can be held in your brain you know. That's what it's for."

There is nothing wrong with wanting a photograph as a reminder of an event/image of your child, because yes of course memories are within you at all times but dont we all love looking back at photos of our children years later?

CMOTdibbler Mon 12-Dec-11 16:01:51

Theres some very good reasons why some people may not want others taking pictures of their child, and thise children shouldn't be penalised for this.


dribbleface Mon 12-Dec-11 16:03:01

having said that the school could take Photo's and remove said children's? this is what we do at nursery

Haziedoll Mon 12-Dec-11 16:03:05

I have a friend who has an adopted daughter, she cannot be photographed for security reasons. At her school the teacher said that parents were allowed to photograph their own children individually at the end of the play.

nailak Mon 12-Dec-11 16:03:45

yabu, but they should offer an alternative, ie photo taken by teacher of individual children/ groups of children and given to parents of only those children, in paper format, with the permission of the parents/ careers of the kids in the photo.

this is what is done at my dds nursery, parents cant take pictures, but class pictures are taken at xmas and end of term and printed and given to each parent, obviously they know if there is an issue with any of the kids then they would deal with this. and at the cc they have a camera for taking and printing photos and can only give out pics with your child and no other to you.

KatAndKit Mon 12-Dec-11 16:04:12

Right so just because you don't want a video with your child on it all over facebook or youtube, they can't take part??? Ridiculous.

It wasn't such an issue before the internet age. It isn't about paedophiles who generally prefer pictures of kids being abused rather than pictures of kids dressed as sheep. It is because people are not happy with taking a couple of snaps and keeping them in an album, they feel the need to stick the pictures all over the internet.

As people have pointed out above, there are often valid child protection issues which mean that it isn't a good idea for people to be able to find out on the internet what school a child goes to.

Surely you would enjoy the play more if you focused on actually watching it and enjoying it in real life at the time, rather than filming it for later?

niceguy2 Mon 12-Dec-11 16:04:24

YANBU as the tail should not wag the dog.

If there are safety reasons why they shouldn't photo'ed then surely they shouldn't be in it since you cannot guarantee no-one will take a photograph and it's not a criminal offence to do so.

VeronicaSpeedwell Mon 12-Dec-11 16:05:00

YABVU. You really want a five year old with safety problems to be told to sit in the wings so you can take a picture?

aldiwhore Mon 12-Dec-11 16:05:49

There is no reason why everyone cannot be kept happy. Multiple performances.

Our school do this. One performance is private, no cameras of any kind. One performance where photos are allowed for personal use only (of course, this is always a matter of trusting that parents aren't going to upload them onto facebook) and one performance is for the 'official video' which is sold as a fundraiser (and raises an absolute fortune as its high quality - unashamed boast - my husband films it).

This way every child is included. The performances are arranged in such a way that if one child is not there (whether through illness or privacy) the show can and does go on.

One child, only one, did not take part in the filmed performance last year. No reason is needed, no judgement made. Everyone happy.

Longtallsally Mon 12-Dec-11 16:07:04

Agree YABVVU. Ask the school next year to have a couple of photos available from the dress rehearsal with those children in whose parents have agreed to them being photographed, or offer to take in a camera and help out - but don't put children at risk simply for the sake of a group photo.

KatAndKit Mon 12-Dec-11 16:08:57

You can't just "trust" that parents will not put the pictures online. Once the parents have taken the pictures the school has no control over what happens to them, and plenty of parents will put them on facebook anyway, often without any privacy settings.

I really don't see why parents need to video every single thing. Just watch it and remember it with your brain.

JamieComeHome Mon 12-Dec-11 16:09:44

niceguy, yes, let's make everything a criminal offence! Then no one will do it!

I agree with KitAndKat.

RalphTheRedNosedGnu Mon 12-Dec-11 16:10:05

I would presume that if a parent has asked for their child not to be photographed it's for a good reason and not just to be awkward.

Understanding the reason for it doesn't mean I won't be a bit disappointed if I can't take a photo of DS in his first nativity, but like previous posters have said, there's still the opportunity to take individual photos.

MollyTheMole Mon 12-Dec-11 16:10:52

I dont think YABU at all. I cant fucking stand all of this shite, do these same people not realise that their precious little angels are being filmed on CCTV in shopping centres, stores, the streets?

Id have videoed it discreetly off a phone.

JamieComeHome Mon 12-Dec-11 16:11:54

Nativity photos are quite often disappointing anyway, because some big oaf has sat themself front and centre and is videoing the whole thing.

VivaLeBeaver Mon 12-Dec-11 16:13:39

But MollytheMole - CCTV footage from stores, etc isn't likely to end up on Facebook where potentially a father of a child who a family are on the run from could see it.

KateFrothers Mon 12-Dec-11 16:14:05

YABU to think that children who have fled domestic violence, who are fostered or adopted, politically exposed persons or any other reason (including neurotic parents) should be punished by being made to sit out of the play.

However, yanbu to want a souvenir of the day. The school could have taken photos and made them available to parents who wanted a memento of the event. Perhaps suggest that to them?

VivaLeBeaver Mon 12-Dec-11 16:14:21

I don't think parents ask for this because they're worried that a camera might suck the soul of their child. They have good reasons.

KatAndKit Mon 12-Dec-11 16:14:34

Yes, but on cctv in the streets, the people who the child is being protected from do not have access to this footage. Known abusers (violent ex's for example) can stalk on facebook via friends of friends etc, it only takes one person with a kid in the same class to post a video, then that person can turn up at the school and potentially abduct the child. I know it is a fairly rare scenario and most of the filming and photographing is harmless. But this is the second thread on this topic today, on the earlier one there were a number of real life examples of people who needed to ensure that the location of their children was not available to certain people on the internet.

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Mon 12-Dec-11 16:17:16

My son is adopted. His birth mother may be crap at a lot of things but she is shit hot with a computor.

Its not a case of not wanting people to take photos of him. Its a case of not wanting muppets to stick them of face book.

I would show you why but I doubt you want to see the sort of website she has. I would also take a punt that if you thought your kid was going to end up on it, you might start thinking a bit more deeply about this subject.

MrsHoarder Mon 12-Dec-11 16:18:05

So because a child has an abusive parent who is not allowed contact (or to know where they live/go to school) they should be excluded from some of the highlights of primary school? These are probably the children who need the boost of the fun activities the most!

I think they should have lined up photo-time afterwards though, so parents can get a photo where the children are facing the front and smiling at the camera, and the fun part is over so kids who can't be photographed can be excluded more gently.

FredFredGeorge Mon 12-Dec-11 16:19:20

I have no memories of when I was a child, and rely on photographs to stimulate what few memories I do have (presumably from retelling of the story when looking at the photo) Surely the children who are in the play are also being "punished" by there being no record of them doing it.

VeronicaSpeedwell Mon 12-Dec-11 16:19:48

And it's not just a case of 'collect them early', is it? The excluded child (for whatever reason) would have to sit on the sidelines at all the rehearsals, have no costume, not be able to chat to their parents about it all, not have their moment when they feel that someone in the audience is proud of them, and hugs them afterwards and tells them how well they did. And most likely they would have no real understanding of why they were denied all this. But I'm sure it would all be worth it for you to get your photo hmm.

annaklingon Mon 12-Dec-11 16:20:15


So, a child is uprooted, flees abuse of the vilest kind and is then ostracised and punished for the rest of their school days because you can't have a photo of your PFB? That child is excluded from sports day, performances, all kinds of things, just so you can upload pictures of your PFB all over Facefuck?

Have some compassion and understanding please.

stuffthenonsense Mon 12-Dec-11 16:21:39

There must be ways to find a compromise here, i used to take pictures of my eldest at such events, by the time DD3 was in plays cameras were not allowed...she believes we were bored by the time she came along, so sad....i cant understand why the majority should have a 'normal' event quashed because a solution to the rare case of child protection cannot be found.
Plus, nowadays, how many primary school kids have mobile phones and are they not regularly taking pics of each other which will no doubt end up online.
I can appreciate the need for privacy, but is it really to be had at the expense of personal this not one of the fundamental ideals of great british life?

VivaLeBeaver Mon 12-Dec-11 16:21:51

Do you know I've never bothereed taking a photo of dd in a nativity play even though I'd have been allowed to. Too busy watching the play. I have plenty of opportunities in her life to take hundreds of photos. I don't feel that either her or myself have missed out through there not been any photos of her dressed up as Mary.

tyler80 Mon 12-Dec-11 16:22:11

I think having some sort of arrangement for photos at the end without those who want to opt out is sensible. If only to avoid people secretly filming/photo taking.

KatAndKit Mon 12-Dec-11 16:22:29

No, for the vast majority of people, "remembering" when you were a sheep or an angel is not a matter of life and death, they aren't being punished, you don't need a photographic record of every single thing that ever happened to you.
Mrs Hoarder has the most sensible solution, that should be what schools ought to do. Allow you to take photos afterwards of your kids in the costume.
Anyway, surely it is a fair bit of pressure for a 5 year old to perform with all those video cameras going? I'm sure some of the kids would find 10 people videoing them quite unnerving at that age.

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Mon 12-Dec-11 16:22:31

Another way of adopted and LAC to feel different.

You cant be in a play/show etc because all the mummies and daddies of the normal children want the right to stick photos all over the bloody internet

Acekicker Mon 12-Dec-11 16:23:26

their precious little angels yes indeed - quite probably a 'precious' child who has fled horrific abuse and might not live to see next year's nativity if they are found by the 'wrong' people.

it was simply they didn't want other people taking photos of their dc so if the school had sent a letter home giving full details of why they can't be photographed, perhaps setting out the dates of the court orders, precis of the police reports, social worker contact details, maybe naming the children etc then you'd be more understanding? No-one has to give you any reason as to why their child can't be photographed - use your common sense, perhaps keep a diary in case your memory fails you and get over it.

Schools cannot control what happens to pictures taken at their events - they know full well that even if they ask parents not to post pictures online a few will ignore this claiming 'they're my pictures it's my right to do what I want with them' forward a few shares/wall postings by people with shite security settings and all of a sudden a vulnerable child who has probably had precious little stability in their life is at best emotionally distraught, perhaps on the move again, and at worst...

MollyTheMole Mon 12-Dec-11 16:23:42

infact I think you are a bit U to ask that kids are excluded because of their parents decision, aldiwhores school sounds like they have the right idea then everyone is happy.

I still think people are very naive if they think that stopping people taking pics is going to protect their kids from anything undesireable. Do these parents vet all of the audience to check other parents dont know someone who might know someone who might be an aunties cousin of a kid in the play?

KateFrothers Mon 12-Dec-11 16:24:41

In my previous working life I had the keys and alarm codes to access a large amount of money. If someone saw pictures of my son, identified him as my son and used him to kidnap him and hold him as ransom to make me steal that money for them (called Tiger Kidnap) just the possibility of that would make me say no photos.

It's not just abused children but also many ordinary folk who do ordinary jobs (supermarket managers, bank managers etc etc) where large amounts of cash are kept on the premises.

deepandcrispandsevenfold Mon 12-Dec-11 16:24:42


Dinosaurhunter Mon 12-Dec-11 16:25:04


KatAndKit Mon 12-Dec-11 16:26:00

There is only so much the school can do to protect children of course. Yes their location might be given away by someone who knows someone who knows a cousins of the kid in the play. The school can't do anything about that.

However the school can prevent photos and videos of the child being taken during a school event, and they have a responsibility to do that.

Just because you can't do everything does not mean you should do nothing.

annaklingon Mon 12-Dec-11 16:26:11

Molly - I am aware of a situation iwhere a family has moved hundreds of miles to escape abuse. So keeping those children safe and pics off the internet may well stop them being "found".

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Mon 12-Dec-11 16:26:41

Agree with viva.

I prefer to watch what is going on. If you can see anything past all the idiots trying to get a shot and make their precious memories. hmm

As for children being punished by not having a few photos taken - come off it.
Punished is having to leave your school and home because an abusive parent has found out where you live.
Or having your birth mother come and shout at you in the playground that she has come to rescue you and take you away from the fuckers that stole you.

MollyTheMole Mon 12-Dec-11 16:26:48

also guess my view on this is skewed somewhat as I dont upload pics on to facebook and would have no intention too either although appreciate here are some saddos who put everything on there.

annaklingon Mon 12-Dec-11 16:27:05

iwhere? WTF am I on?


Acekicker Mon 12-Dec-11 16:27:54

Surely the children who are in the play are also being "punished" by there being no record of them doing it

yeah - it's right up there with the vilest kind of abuse, beatings and god knows what...

I don't think there is a single photo of me in a school play - I'm not sure I can even be arsed to type 'meh'...

manicinsomniac Mon 12-Dec-11 16:28:44

YABU to suggest that children be excluded.

But YANBU to want a solution. I understand the importance you place on photos, I'm the same way - I would be really geunuinely upset if I couldn't have a photo of any significant moment or event, I'm a total camera fiend.

Facebook is a total nightmare in this repsect, it has really ruined a lot of photo opportunities.

Where I work a member of staff takes hundreds of photos both of the show itself and of groups and individuals afterwards and backstage. Parents can then buy them. If there is a child who cannot be photographed then they would be either editted out or photos including them would be left out.

KateFrothers Mon 12-Dec-11 16:29:08

This link explains about Tiger Kidnap. For those of you saying not unreasonable have a look.

MollyTheMole Mon 12-Dec-11 16:30:08

So if I am in the park, taking a pic of my son on the swing, and your DD is in the shot in the background, would you ask me to delete the pic?

(question not to anyone in particular btw, just a general one)

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Mon 12-Dec-11 16:31:02

My son's birth mother has pornographic websites. She likes to put photos of her children on there next to photos of her with her tits out.
So if I took pictures of my son and he was standing next to your child, stuck them on facebook....

Would you be happy to find out that she had got hold of those photos and put them underneath a photo of her with her finger in her mouth and her knickers off?

Your child on that website just because I thought I should have the right to do what I like?

Bucharest Mon 12-Dec-11 16:32:01

My half sister has a lover with child abuse convictions. As a result her 3 children have been taken into care,in cities miles away from their hometown because the risk to them, should this animal find them is considered too great for them to have been fostered locally.

I do hope photographs of these innocent children never end up on your FB you ignorant morons who think it's OK to flout school rules which have been put in place for a very good reason. Shame on you.

Oh, and word to the "wise". No-one on this planet, apart from yourselves who begat him, are remotely interested in seeing Junior PFB in his reindeer costume splattered all over in any case. There is nothing so bone-achingly boring as photo after photo of Other People's Children. It's why the FB hide button was invented, to save us the nausea and self-absorption.

Sassybeast Mon 12-Dec-11 16:32:43

If I typed out what I really thought of your post and your poor diddums attitude, I'd probably get banned.
So instead, have a gentle YABU. And educate yourself about 'looked after children' domestic violence and escape from abuse. And be thankful that it's not your 4 year old who has to be protected......

MollyTheMole Mon 12-Dec-11 16:33:04

I ask because this kind of happened the other week, a mum looked very angry that I was taking pics of my DS in the park, tutting every time I took a pic (only took about 4 or 5) and for a minute I actually thought she was going to ask me to stop

KateFrothers Mon 12-Dec-11 16:34:01

shock at MrsDV that's ghastly awful sad

Molly I would not have an issue because my child could not be identified. If you took a picture of my child in the school play and I still worked for the bank with access to £80,000 in cash (v tempting for a criminal) and you posted it online then I would have concerns.

deepandcrispandsevenfold Mon 12-Dec-11 16:34:51

why does every one assume this was because of abuse, no one knows,
I am glad dd's school take the gentler approach and ask you just not to take pictures of one girl, it is really easy to do.
my dd has sn and one of her joys is watching her school play on DVD, no way would I be happy if I had to stop doing it.

KateFrothers Mon 12-Dec-11 16:35:42

<coughs politely> Not everyone deepand

KatAndKit Mon 12-Dec-11 16:36:23

I'm not sure it is a great idea for the school to make public the names of the children who are not to be photographed!! Kind of defeats the object really.

MollyTheMole Mon 12-Dec-11 16:36:45

MrsDV - honestly? My view is I cant stop people taking a pic and if someone does something shitty to that pic well, I cant do nowt about it. What I can do is try protect my son from any real life threats. There may be a pic of my DS out there now, I dont know, but I dont lose sleep over something that hasnt actually happened.

annaklingon Mon 12-Dec-11 16:36:46

Deepandcrisp - I am shock that the school would single out a child like that. If I was their parents I would have their guts on a plate for that. And their balls for dessert.

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Mon 12-Dec-11 16:37:27

molly if you had asked that mum what her problem was she might have told you.
She might have just looke like you were a bit bonkers because she didnt give a toss about you taking photos of your own child.
We will never know.

JamieComeHome Mon 12-Dec-11 16:37:51

deepand - I would have a problem with a school telling me not to take photos of one particular child. That's a good way to start gossip about a family ...

annaklingon Mon 12-Dec-11 16:37:53

Molly - yes, but if the danger is that if the pic is posted on FB with "jonny at such n such school nativity" and the family are fleeing serious domestic abuse, the pic gets on FB and as such the abuser can trace them - can you not see that is a real life threat?

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Mon 12-Dec-11 16:43:40

Before I got banned from Netmums I was on a thread. A young woman worked for a nursery. She was being critical of how parents dressed their children.
I very politely and gently pointed out that she should be careful about talking about work on an open forum.
Cue much derision and 'stop getting your knickers in a twist' from several posters. Many of them telling the young woman to ignore me, I was a nutter. Noone could tell who she was or where she worked.

I found out, in about 5 minutes, her full name, where she studied, age, photos, the church she attended and the full name and address of the nursery she worked at.

I didnt publish any of this information. The girl in question said I was bluffing and blah blah. I PM'd her to tell her how easy it was. I was trying to help her, she was very young and didnt realise how easy this stuff is. The other posters should have known better.

I am no expert. All you need is a bit of time and a bit of info.

redpanda13 Mon 12-Dec-11 16:45:30

I went to my DD's nativity last week and cameras and videos were allowed. I did not bother with either. I sat and enjoyed it. I waved to her when I came in and she smiled and waved back. When she came home she asked how if I had enjoyed it and never asked if I had a photo of her.
There are no photos of me at school plays either. I can't say I feel sad or disadvantaged. Ask my mum and she can remember them all just fine!

wannaBe Mon 12-Dec-11 16:45:49

quite apart from the valid reasons for wanting certain children excluded from photographs, there's nothing more annoying than sitting in the nativity having to listen to the click click click/flash flash flash of a hundred cameras as people spend the entire time taking photographs to the extent they probably don't actually see an awful lot of the actual show. I think they should be banned for that reason alone.

People with cameras are annoying. People with video cameras ten times more so.

redpanda13 Mon 12-Dec-11 16:46:24

she asked if I had enjoyed it not how if I enjoyed it - damn too much mulled wine at school fair!

JamieComeHome Mon 12-Dec-11 16:48:22

I agree wannaBe. Is something not happening, or important unless it's being filmed?

<deep philosophical point about reality TV>

Miette Mon 12-Dec-11 16:49:53

If the parents don't want their kids to be videoed because they are worried "the peedos" will see it YANBU. If it is for a valid reason, such as child protection issues then YABU

Sassybeast Mon 12-Dec-11 16:50:32

Deepandcrisp - Mine isn't an 'assumption. It's based on cold, hard, fucking awful reality.

wannaBe Mon 12-Dec-11 16:54:17

agree mrsD. People underestimate just how not anonimous the internet actually is.

Anyone remember izzyRuby? (and yes, I bring this up every time this type of topic is mentioned), she was a mumsnetter who obtained pictures of children from mumsnetters and other sources since she ran a child modelling website. It was suspected (although never proved) that she sold these pictures to paedophiles where they were doctored... I needn't go into the details. These were normal pictures.

She wasn't ever convicted because iirc she fled to Brazil.

But anyone who believes this stuff doesn't happen, or that you can't be identified from information on the net is very naive.

I was recognized in a shop once. By a mumsnetter I had never met. She knew I was a mumsnetter, and she knew who I was. And all that from information I have posted here - my location, how many dc I have, etc. Admittedly I have a guide dog which probably makes me a bit more recognizeable if you narrow down an area but still...

EdithWeston Mon 12-Dec-11 16:54:36


The fact that the child need protection may also in itself need to be kept confidential.

You want everyone in the school and its community to know exactly who that is? You want to both stigmatise the child and remove one layer of the protection required for their vulnerability.

For a photograph?

I am very glad that schools take a far wiser view, and take their responsibilities to the vulnerable seriously.

namechangerbat Mon 12-Dec-11 16:55:23

Yes as others have said YABU BIG TIME

midnightexpress Mon 12-Dec-11 16:56:33

Hmmm. YA probably BU. However, at our school concert last week, the HT told us at the start that we're not allowed to take any pics/vids, but that they would take pics and put them up on the school website. How does that work then? Even if people who've objected to having pics taken are excluded from these pics, how come it's OK for the school to put up pics of my child, but it's not OK for me to have the same pics on my camera, in my home? confused

KatAndKit Mon 12-Dec-11 16:59:59

It's ok because the school have kept control about which children can appear in the photographs. They will only put pictures on the website of children whose parents have filled in the standard consent form. There is nothing stopping you from copying the picture of your child and posting it onto ArseCrack or whatever other website you please.

If the pics are on your camera, the school has no control and can not fulfill its legal safeguarding responsibilities.

It is a shame that we need rules like this to ensure some kids stay safe, but it is sadly a fact that it is needed and is not something schools have invented to piss parents off.

WorraLiberty Mon 12-Dec-11 17:00:51

The school are being unreasonable here

A lot of schools get round this by asking parents to take the photos after the play (while the kids are still on stage)

This gives parents time to remove their children if they wish....and everyone's a winner.

midnightexpress Mon 12-Dec-11 17:01:12

OK, thanks kitandkate. In that case, YABU, OP.

midnightexpress Mon 12-Dec-11 17:01:40

sorry, katandkit.

soverylucky Mon 12-Dec-11 17:03:38

In the scenario described by the op there is probably a good reason why they can't be photographed. However at my dds school you can't take a photo for " child protection reasons" but can purchase a photo of any kid you like! Now that winds me up.

KatAndKit Mon 12-Dec-11 17:05:27

You probably can't purchase a photo of any kid you like! Their parents will have had to fill in a form giving permission for the school to take and use photographs of their child.

soverylucky Mon 12-Dec-11 17:06:29

All the kids in dd's class are in the photos. I can purchase whichever snaps I want to.

KatAndKit Mon 12-Dec-11 17:08:12

That means that all the parents have consented to photos being taken by the school

However, it does not mean they have consented to any old person being able to come into the assembly hall and take pictures of their child. They know that it is the teachers taking the photos and they trust them.

Nanny0gg Mon 12-Dec-11 17:08:48

Because it is safe to do so.
It is so easy for permission slips to be filled in and then for school to take photos/make DVDs.
That way, any children who must be left out can be and all are satisfied.

NinkyNonker Mon 12-Dec-11 17:08:56

Totally Yabu. Given many of us grew up before cameras with flash zooms, flash, video cameras etc (and I'm only 30) I doubt not having pics etc of little Ben in a sheep costume is going to traumatise him as otherwise there would be generations of screwed up adults out there.

I can understand you being disappointed, but YABU.

Our dc's school has had to ban cameras at performances for the first time this academic year, previously they didn't have any parents who refused permission for photos. I'm rather sad about it as dd has just started reception and we won't have any video record of her first harvest festival, etc, etc unlike her older brother.

Her brother was disappointed the first time we couldn't video something this year because it meant his dad wouldn't get to see it, but at 7 he's old enough to understand why some children can't be photographed/filmed.

soverylucky Mon 12-Dec-11 17:10:45

But the point is if i purchase the picture I could if I wanted to, scan it into my computer and do what I want with it. What is the difference?

reallytired Mon 12-Dec-11 17:12:02

I think that local authority care kids should be allowed to be in the school play. It is pretty standard tha LAC kids are not allowed to have photos of them taken by schools. Its a matter of life and death.

I would favour having a teacher taking photos and then selling the photos to the parents. In that way the school would raise money and local authority care kids would be kept safe.

soverylucky Mon 12-Dec-11 17:13:17

I must add thought that after several years of this I am used to it and I agree with earlier post about the number of pics we all have of our children. I don't miss the ones of dd on the stage in the school play.

FreudianSlipper Mon 12-Dec-11 17:14:01


children do not like their picture taken

some families have escaped very abusive men and are living in fear of them finding out where they are sadly with the internet this is harder for them and every picture you put on fb or film on youtube can be open to anyone and everyone and abusive ex partners tend to try their hardest to track their ex partner down

goingtoofast Mon 12-Dec-11 17:14:13

At my DD's school the school takes photos of the kids in costumes. It means we can enjoy the plays without cameras in the way and we get a little memory in the form of a photo. Also as the pictures are done in small groups I wouldn't notice if any kids who need protecting are missing.

wannaBe, I remeber Izzy. I didn't think she was selling the model agency photos as they were going to a random address in London. I think her and her husband were taking money for language courses that didn't exist too and were also wanted by the Brazilian police - wonder what happened in the end....

TalkinPeace2 Mon 12-Dec-11 17:14:21

there are ways the school can get round it though

we used to be barred from taking pictures DURING the play
but at the end, there was always a bit of a kerfuffle
(during which the no picture children were quietly removed from the hall)
and then it was photo free for all

those kids got to be in the play
we got our pictures
everybody happy

now that the particular children are at secondary and the custody issues have been sorted there are no restrictions
I thought it was unfair at the time, but not half as unfair as the crap that the world had dumped on those poor children's heads

MrsCampbellBlack Mon 12-Dec-11 17:20:47

YABU for all the reasons stated.

And honestly the school that told the parents which child not to photograph - well words absolutely fail me.

I picked ds up today - its his last day and the teacher had popped a photo of him in his shepherd's costume in his bookbag - easy - took the teachers about 10 mins to do the photos and not much time to print them off.

And I hate this need to film everything nowadays - some people have lost the art of just enjoying the moment for the moment's sake but thats an unpopular view nowadays.

My PFB was a sheep in his first nativity today. It was lovely and hilarious and I will remember it for the rest of my life without the need for pictures. The Head very nicely and firmly explained, and we were pre-warned in a letter and everyone happily agreed. I know some of the circumstances of the pupils (because I teach their older siblings, not because anyone has broken confidentiality) and I can guess why, but actually, no-one asked or complained. I was most relieved. Wasn't there some awful situation last year where a play was delayed or cancelled because some arrogant father refused to follow the rule? My mum remembers all of our plays and no photos of those exist.

Meglet Mon 12-Dec-11 17:25:19

YABU. For all the reasons all the other yabu-ers said.

Forgot to say that the dc's school are still doing an official DVD of the nativity this term, and the other termly shows, but are having to figure out how to work around the restrictions imposed by the 'no photograph' children.

Dustinthewind Mon 12-Dec-11 17:27:15

Because of course, the entire point of a school play and all the time and effort it takes over weeks is so that parents can take photos.

Mincepieeyes Mon 12-Dec-11 17:27:59

It's a relief though in a way isn't it? Now we can actually see our children in the nativity play, rather than spending the time trying to dodge round other parents blocking our view in their selfish fight to video or photograph every minute their precious one is on stage.

VikingLady Mon 12-Dec-11 17:28:12

I grew up in an area with several women's refuges, and one poor kid was snatched from the playground at our infants school. We had good security after that, with locked gates.

I'm now over 30, and my primary school may have been one of the first to ban cameras at school plays in case the photos got circulated, and that was before facebook.

That said, I wouldn't have a real go at the OP for posting the question - perhaps she did not think about the abuse aspect? It is something I would consider, but is that because I have experience of it (vicarious, thank god)?

VikingLady Mon 12-Dec-11 17:28:27

Really hope that didn't sound smug. Wasn't meant to.

JaneBirkin Mon 12-Dec-11 17:36:56

You're not unreasonable to want a photo of your child, and perhaps the school could have filmed it and made copies available to parents, that's not to say the same parents wouldn't publish the video on the web etc. So it's a difficult thing.
photographs of individual children and groups of children taken at the end of the play is how our school handles it.

I find it quite painful to watch an entire film of my children's productions, tbh, though a photo in their costume is always nice.

I don't mind parents photographing them. Most parents we have at school are sensible and have decent privacy settings I imagine on their facebook/whatever they use. But it's a small school and I know most people. I do mind the press printing photos of my children, so I don't allow that.

JaneBirkin Mon 12-Dec-11 17:39:18

Also I don't think many people are aware that a school has NO grounds to refuse a birth parent of a child - whether or not they have PR - access to the child when it is picked up from school.

So in theory if you have a child with an estranged father, say, who decided he wanted to take the child away from its mother, he could quite easily find out which school that child attended, turn up, and demand to take the child with him, and the school would be able to do nothing about it.

I don't know why this is the case but apparently it is. So it makes perfect sense to me that some parents don't want their children's photographs being associated with the school in the public arena.

purplewednesday Mon 12-Dec-11 17:39:41

I do understand about all the child protection stuff but I really like taking pics of my DD in school plays.

I think zandone should take it up with the school and ask for an alternative solution to be thought of that doesn't discriminate the majority of us.

Are adoptive parents always told that they have to be watching over their shoulder every 5 mins, just in case?

tallulah Mon 12-Dec-11 17:43:43

My DD did her first nativity at school last week and we were all told no photos or filming because a parent had requested it. My mum was furious that she wasn't allowed to take photos so I explained to her it was probably a protection issue (as she puts photos on FB all the time without asking first).

As it turned out it was lovely to be able to watch something without the endless camera flashes and people standing up to film. They'd taken individual photos of the children in costume and we could buy them afterwards.

The HT has since included a group photo of the reception children in costume on a newsletter but it was too dark to even be sure which one is DD confused

unfitmother Mon 12-Dec-11 17:48:52


RedHelenB Mon 12-Dec-11 17:49:36

Ds(4) was best friends with a child who was about to be adopted & no pictures were allowed to be taken of him. I think he will always remember him though.

JeanBodel Mon 12-Dec-11 17:54:23


I know there are children at my child's school who have very good reasons why they should not be photo'd.

I'm not so selfish that I'd happily jeopardise their safety just so I can get a picture of my darling little Tarquin in a tea towel.

unitarian Mon 12-Dec-11 17:55:13

I had a single glimpse of my DD in her first nativity play before an idiot father walked down the aisle to take a photo of his child. I missed all the rest of the scene. I lost count of how often something similar happened year on year, such as a pair of hands holding a camera shooting up from the row in front right in front of my face.

No, parents should not take photos during the play/concert. Take pictures of your child before or after all dressed up if you want but don't spoil other people's chances to see a special occasion and store it in their memories.

KatAndKit Mon 12-Dec-11 17:59:28

If you went to any other sort of public performance such as the theatre, it would not be acceptable to block other peoples view and spoil their enjoyment just so you could record the event on film.

JaneBirkin Mon 12-Dec-11 18:01:17

purplewednesday Mon 12-Dec-11 17:39:41
I do understand about all the child protection stuff but I really like taking pics of my DD in school plays.

is completely at odds with:

Are adoptive parents always told that they have to be watching over their shoulder every 5 mins, just in case?

So I don't think actually you DO understand very much about child protection issues.

lockets Mon 12-Dec-11 18:01:26

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TalkinPeace2 Mon 12-Dec-11 18:04:01


I am in no way an expert on such things but would be VERY surprised if what you say is true

GypsyMoth Mon 12-Dec-11 18:08:18

Op where are you????

natation Mon 12-Dec-11 18:18:24

In our school there are almost 1200 students and we have a photo opt out system. Only one student's parents opted out and that child has now left, meaning thankfully all members of staff and parents during shows can take photos without constantly checking for children they are not allowed to have in photos.

IReallyHateMyCat Mon 12-Dec-11 18:25:04

I don't put any photos of dd on line or on FB and i dont let others do it.
But even I agree with you. If one child can't be photographed they shouldnt be in the play. Many parents show the videos to grandparents who live abroad or are too ill to attend, and i think it is silly for everyone to change for one child. Not being in a school play will not scar a child for life.

TheScaryJessie Mon 12-Dec-11 18:27:51

In addition to all that has been said, I feel a need to point out that privacy settings don't stop a friend/relative saving a photograph to their pc, and then uploading it again onto their profile, which may have much looser settings.


annaklingon Mon 12-Dec-11 18:29:41

IReallyHateMyCat - I actually don't have words to debate with you why your post is offensive to those who have escaped abuse.

Why should an innocent child continue to suffer just so that you can take a picture of your PFB?

Should the child not be allowed to compete in Sports Day? Banned from singing in the choir? Not allowed to play their instrument at the Carol Concert?

JamieComeHome Mon 12-Dec-11 18:30:14

IReally - by your logic - someone (an adult, not a small child), won't be scarred for life by not seeing a video of a child.

Sidge Mon 12-Dec-11 18:32:40

You can remember it in your head you know - it's called memory.

It doesn't have to be preserved in digital media and shared on YouTube/Facebook/Twitter to have happened.

(Oh and do you know the reasons why the parents refused? It may have been someone like my friend, who is a foster carer, and many of the children she fosters aren't allowed to be identified so their violent and abusive parents can't find where they go to school. Why should they miss out on being in the play/nativity so you can record your child's performance?)

KatAndKit Mon 12-Dec-11 18:43:54

Ofsted and the like would have a total field day if schools started excluding looked after children and other vulnerable children from plays, concerts etc just so that the grandparents of the other children could watch a video. Schools have a particular duty towards looked after children and have to show that they are going out of their way to help them.

The school is their for the children not so that their grannies and aunties can see a video of an event on the internet. The child who has to miss out every time would be quite upset about this after a few years, whereas all the grannies that couldn't make it that time will definitely not be scarred for life.

And what would the school say to explain to the child who is too young to understand the reasons why they are being excluded from all these events?

Basically if you think the child should not be allowed to take part, you think that the school should put the viewing pleasure of relatives above the needs of the children in their care. Which would be a pretty fucked up view of what education is about.

MrsCampbellBlack Mon 12-Dec-11 18:47:04

Gosh - I really really can't believe that someone thinks a child who can't be photographed should be excluded from a play. Really, really!

I mean you have read the thread - you do realise why some children can't be photographed.

JamieComeHome Mon 12-Dec-11 18:48:07

Mrs - she burgered off, don't know what she thinks

IReallyHateMyCat Mon 12-Dec-11 18:48:42

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

ChristinedePizanne Mon 12-Dec-11 18:49:02

My friend's DD has a beautiful voice and is a very talented performer. She has a leading role in her nativity play at school. She is also adopted and, if her birth family were to know where she lives, she would be at serious risk. For a child who was born into horrible, horrible circumstances, the joy that she takes in performance is a really healing thing.

Her right to be in the school play trumps your right to take photos and videos of your PFBs.

IReallyHateMyCat Mon 12-Dec-11 18:50:10

Oh and btw not being a school play wouldnt have really been a concern to me if it meant I didn't have to see my dad who was kicking the shit out of me or my mother on a daily basis. Your knowlwdge of abuse you think you would know that one sort of pales in significance.

KatAndKit Mon 12-Dec-11 18:51:18

And someone else might be videoing their child in the same play, at the same time as you are videoing your daughter. The next morning your daughter is on Facebook, Twitter and Youtube. You didn't choose that, you didn't allow it, you have no control over that video and you are powerless to do anything about it.

Not every parent videos and takes pictures and puts them online. But some do. The school has no way of knowing what will happen to the videos so they make a blanket ban.

annaklingon Mon 12-Dec-11 18:52:03

IReallyHateMyCat - there really is no need to address me in that offensive and nasty manner. I did not swear at you.

My point stands. First off, you have no idea where the video will end up, you may not put it on FB but someone else may. Secondly, there are children where there are court orders in place that forbid photographs and videos for the protection of the child, so that the child will not be abducted or found by an abusive parent.

IReallyHateMyCat Mon 12-Dec-11 18:54:30

Yes, they may kitkat and i wont like it but i wouldnt expect the majorty or 20 or 30 sets of parents to bow down to my wishes. Either I keep dd out of the play or I accept that. I think they should ask thought and if it is split then they should err on the side of saying no, but not if only one or 2 sets of parents disagree

annaklingon Mon 12-Dec-11 18:54:49

And IReallyHateMyCat - you have experienced abuse, and I am sorry that you did so and am sorry that you are angry but your experience of abuse is not everyone's experience of abuse and just because you were dealt with in a particular way or have a particular viewpoint does not mean that someone else's viewpoint is not just as valid as yours.

As you yourself said, do not assume.

JamieComeHome Mon 12-Dec-11 18:55:53

IReally - I do wonder if most children would feel like you though. I think most children want to fit in and be involved in school events.

I'm sorry for what you've endured though

IReallyHateMyCat Mon 12-Dec-11 18:56:57

If you consider what you said to someone who did suffer from severe abuse you might understand telling you to fuck off isn't in my head half as offensive.

lockets Mon 12-Dec-11 18:57:25

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

purplewednesday Mon 12-Dec-11 18:57:56

janebirkin so are adoptive parents told that the birth family are dangerous and to look over their shoulder every 5 mins? Sounds like you are telling me they are.
In that case no, i don't understand the details.

I have a family member whose son was adopted at birth because she has psych problems (bi-polar). The rest of us in the family were told we couldn't adopt because it would be "confusing" for him confused

Also, i work with drug users, some of whom have children adopted not because they are dangerous as such, they just don't give a shit.

UniS Mon 12-Dec-11 18:58:53


The play is for the kids to experience performing, learning songs/ lines and actions and co-operating as a group ,not the photo opportunity.

If people didn't splash pics around on face book etc school might not take such a hard line. DS's school have tried the "reasonable" approach, photos allowed but notices asking people not to share them digitally/ on social media, but still some inconsiderate so and so has done so with pics that feature not only their own child but also a child whose parents have not given permission and are legally unable to give permission., so we all get a letter home ... next time we may also have a photo ban at this rate.

helpmenow Mon 12-Dec-11 18:59:37

YABVVU- but you've either realised that or aren't really as bothered as your initial post suggested.

KatAndKit Mon 12-Dec-11 18:59:40

I don't think that sending your child to school to take part in a normal school activity means that you are effectively consenting to them being video taped by the other parents.

If only two sets of parents say no, and the school says tough luck, they can't take part, what do those kids do during the rehearsals and such like? They are missing out on an educational activity through no fault of their own. I am sure the parents would have a good legal leg to stand on when they complain that their child is being unfairly excluded from an activity during curriculum time.

The school does not exist for the benefit of preserving memories for posterity on film or in digital format. They need to put the education, and safety, of the children first.

annaklingon Mon 12-Dec-11 18:59:52

IReallyHateMyCat - I will say again, your experience is not everyone who has been abused experience. I am sorry that you are so angry and I am sorry for what you saw and experienced but that does not give you the right to insist that other children, where courts and judges have made other decisions, be made to feel like pariahs so that you can have a video of your PFB.

ChristinedePizanne Mon 12-Dec-11 19:00:37

IReallyHate - are you actually saying that it's better for children who've escaped from abusive homes to be further punished for being a victim by telling them that can't be part of a normal school experience?

IReallyHateMyCat Mon 12-Dec-11 19:01:29

Jamiecomehome thanks for your comment- My worry is that some children (say kids whos parents are in the forces for months or years or in hospital) will be equally devastated by their mums and dads not being allowed to take part. And I suspect their are more of them than children who have genuine issues regarding their safety. No one wants to leave any children out and maybe a better compramise would be having the play on 2 days (which i think usually happens anyway) and one being photos Ok and one being No photos

annaklingon Mon 12-Dec-11 19:04:24

IReallyHateMyCat - the play/performance/carol service/sports day is for the children to take part in - not the mum and dad to take part.

KatAndKit Mon 12-Dec-11 19:05:34

Really the school have got better things to do than organise their end of term play performances around parents photography "needs".
I was never devastated by my dad not seeing me in primary school plays because he was at work. That was just how it was.

Schools have enough planning and organising to do, often involving the teachers putting in lots of work in their own time, in order to make these performances happen. Just go and actually watch it, I am sure it will be memorable enough for you. If others can't come with you, there is always next year.

IReallyHateMyCat Mon 12-Dec-11 19:05:57

Then why invite the children's parents to watch? You must realize that's where the fun is for the children hmm otherwise parents wouldnt be expected to sit through an hour of Oh Come All Ye Faithful outside of school hours.

KatAndKit Mon 12-Dec-11 19:07:22

Yes of course it is fun for the children when the parents come to watch. But watching does not have to mean recording. It can actually mean just sitting in the chair and actually enjoying the show.

lockets Mon 12-Dec-11 19:09:27

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

annaklingon Mon 12-Dec-11 19:09:39

The children's parents are invited to watch. They have a choice. If they choose not to go, then they don't see the performance. If they choose to go, then they get to see and remember the performance.

I'm quite sure teachers do performances for lots of reasons that are linked with the curriculum but I doubt they are solely done for the fun of the children and the enjoyment of parents.

What would you do about Sports Day? Should the no-photograph children be banned from that too?

TandB Mon 12-Dec-11 19:15:35


This isn't some new, crazy idea thought up to offend you personally. There have always been child protection measures in place in schools - this is just an adaptation of those measures in response to the very central place the internet has in our lives these days. It has never been harder to protect your anonymity should there be a need to do so when we are all at the mercy of everyone else's privacy (or otherwise) choices.

It is a million times more important for vulnerable children to be both protected and included than it is for you to have a bit of paper to stick in the family album. We have loads of photos and cine film of me as a child - we have none whatsoever of me in primary school plays etc - the only school photos are the official ones which makes me wonder if there was a no photography policy at my primary school even back then.

Unfortunately, you can never be sure whether or not a parent will obey a request for caution and use a photo for private use only, or whether they won't be able to resist sticking it on the internet with all sorts of tagging and location information.

I am going to DS's nursery nativity play this week - DP asked if I could video it and I said I wouldn't think it would allowed. His initial reaction was oh FFS because he immediately assumed "paedo-hysteria" - when I pointed out the various issues raised by adoptive and foster parents on this thread he said "oh, hadn't thought of that - obviously they have to do that then". I am surprised that people can have the issues pointed out to them and still think it is unreasonable.

ChristinedePizanne Mon 12-Dec-11 19:23:19

The right of a child to participate fully in one of the funnest parts of the school year for many kids trumps the right of the parent who chooses a job where they can't go to the play. My dad couldn't take time off work, I'm not scarred by that.

Whereas most children who can't be photographed are at very real physical risk.

I can't actually believe I'm having this discussion with a victim of abuse - it seems really perverse.

stoatie Mon 12-Dec-11 19:26:02

Children may need to remain anonymous for all sorts of reasons - for example a family may haver been rehoused and given new identities on a witness protection scheme - they would not want their photo on the internet linked to their location - you as a fellow parent would not be aware of this. If you provided the costume you can "recreate" the memory at home!

annaklingon Mon 12-Dec-11 19:27:46

Have any of you ever heard of a SPED house?

Because if you had experience of it, you would know that there are people, families, who are in real danger if I photo ever ever escaped on to the internet

annaklingon Mon 12-Dec-11 19:28:47

one not I.


purplewednesday Mon 12-Dec-11 19:29:49

Just googled SPED house and am none the wiser. Can someone explain?

annaklingon Mon 12-Dec-11 19:31:22

Special Purchase Evacuated Dwelling.

A family literally does a midnight flit. No one knows. No neighbours. No friends. No family. No one. They are just gone the next day. And the house is bought by the authorities and sold. They are given a new start elsewhere.

purplewednesday Mon 12-Dec-11 19:33:09

Blimey. That is a sobering thought.

JaneBirkin Mon 12-Dec-11 19:36:16

purplewednesday Mon 12-Dec-11 18:57:56
janebirkin so are adoptive parents told that the birth family are dangerous and to look over their shoulder every 5 mins? Sounds like you are telling me they are.
In that case no, i don't understand the details.

No, that's not what I was telling you. I really haven't time or energy to explain the ins and outs of any of this right now but maybe reading a few of the many replies here already will help explain why it's important that some children - adopted or otherwise - need not to be photographed in any way that might put them at risk.

Talkinpeace2 - I don't know if it's still true but it's exactly what I was told by the school office here, and by other sources, about 3-4 years ago.

You might want to check it out, I can't find info on this specifically through a quick google. It seemed incredible at the time and still does tbh if it is the case.

CotherMuckingFunticalChristmas Mon 12-Dec-11 19:42:15

I read the OP and thought, well no, YANBU because I would want those pics.

Then I read the thread.

Living in my lovely little cotton wool lined bubble in the Brittany countryside, it had never occurred to me why I was signing a form to allow photos to be taken of my dcs at school.

So I want to say thank you for educating me as I may well have been that (innocently ignorant) parent getting narky had it not been for your explanations.

BlissfulMistletoe Mon 12-Dec-11 19:42:47

in ds school everyone has to sign a disclaimer that photo and videos are for you own use and not to be shared on social networking site.

it is also said that if anyone has found to be doing it, the action will be everyone is banned from doing photo/videos.

however when i comes to school pictures, then there is no disclaimers

Figgyrollsintoapudding Mon 12-Dec-11 19:46:29

CotherMunkigFuniticalChristmas - me too.

It never occured to me that parents who ask not to have photo's taken are doing this to protect their children from abusive and dangerous relationships. I too was on the vein of yanbu. I am so bloody lucky I don't know it I don't think, I know no child that this would be the reason not to take photo's and my god I am so grateful for this.
For all of you who have to protect your children, god bless you and for those of you who took on a child who has severe abuse in their past, I cannot believe their are people out their like you, if only I had the courage to do this sad I really bless you all and hope you have a fantastic and safe christmas.

BlissfulMistletoe Mon 12-Dec-11 19:49:40

however i think there is a solution.

parents can film ect on the dress reharsal, but not on the main performance (the children who are not allowed to be filmed can miss this and do something fun)

LatteLady Mon 12-Dec-11 19:52:38

Having worked for a TV company, we had to get permission for every child to appear on film... on occasion we have had to pull programmes literally 5 mins before transmission as two boys who had been adopted decided that they wanted to be on camera despite their parents telling the school a big no. It transpires that their birth parents were drug addicts and the police and social services had serious concerns if they knew where there children were.

As a CoG, we have also had other children coming into school under armed Police escort... so although you may be upset that you are unable to take pics or videos, there very often is a good reason which you may not be privy to for security reasons.

annaklingon Mon 12-Dec-11 19:57:11

That's the thing that gets me Latte, and I've been puzzling how to put it without seeming offensive.

OP, of course the school are going to say to you "jonny and susie's parents just don't want photos taken of their children", they can't and shouldn't say "jonny's parent's don't want photos taken because his mother is a drug-addled prostitute who would sell him to the highest bidder and suzie's family were brought out of their last house in the middle of the night because her father had his life threatened when he was witness against a major criminal"

Of course the school are going to be vague.

ilovesooty Mon 12-Dec-11 19:59:58

parents can film ect on the dress reharsal, but not on the main performance (the children who are not allowed to be filmed can miss this and do something fun)

Surel that would mean those children could never have a leading role?

CurlyBoy Mon 12-Dec-11 20:00:24

Our child is adopted and I can't risk his image being let out in public in case his birth family sees it, especially if linked to a certain school!

Should he be penalised for this by not being able to take part in a play? Hell no!


LatteLady Mon 12-Dec-11 20:17:06

Oops... just noticed my typo, should have read "their" and not "there" children.

BlissfulMistletoe Mon 12-Dec-11 20:20:20

does it matter who gets lead roles.

it about children taking part

KatAndKit Mon 12-Dec-11 20:25:41

It matters if, say, you have a talent for singing or playing a particular instrument, or for acting, and you are not able to have a lead role because of a photography policy that puts parents need to take pictures above your right to participate at your level in a class performance.
If you are talented in acting or music, it is not going to be much of a learning experience for you if you are always stuck being a tree or a camel at the side.

In a school I worked at there was a very very talented singer who performed solo and in groups in many school music events. I know she is adopted, but know nothing about home circumstances so no idea if photo restriction policy would have applied. But it would have been rubbish for her musical education if she had been sidelined in order that other parents could do a video.

For 4 year olds being sheep and acting Joseph with a teatowel over the head, this matters less, but it is a point of principle really.

ilovesooty Mon 12-Dec-11 20:29:36

If you are talented in acting or music, it is not going to be much of a learning experience for you if you are always stuck being a tree or a camel at the side

Agreed, and arguably you would be discriminated against by not being given the opportunity to achieve your potential.

BlissfulMistletoe Mon 12-Dec-11 20:39:17

i don't belive that only the talented should get the main roles every time.

but thats a diffrent thread all together.

i want to film my child in school plays, as DH can not be there like many parents.

KatAndKit Mon 12-Dec-11 20:43:28

Well, I want to do a lot of things in life that aren't allowed but am able to understand simple reasons why some of those things aren't possible.

You can't always do everything you want. Tough luck unfortunately

catsareevil Mon 12-Dec-11 20:48:22

Surprised that so many people dont understand why it might not be possible to take photos.
Though I see that the OP hasnt been back.

ilovesooty Mon 12-Dec-11 20:52:38

Children's safety outweighs any desire to take photos/film for an absent parent. Surprised so many can't understand that.

lockets Mon 12-Dec-11 20:54:25

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Mon 12-Dec-11 21:10:34

I am actually quite heartened by this thread. I have seen many like this over the years on MNs.
I think this is the first one where most posters seem to 'get it'.
Its lovely that some posters have even taken the time to rethink their initial reactions to the OP.

I think we need to face what the real problem is.
Social networking sites. They are here to stay.
If it were not for them the parents would just be taking snaps that could only be seen by a handful of people.

To the poster who asked about adoptive parents having to look over their shoulder every 5 minutes - not all adoptive parents are dangerous.

No, you are right, they are not all dangerous, most are not.
But the majority of children, the vast majority have been removed from their birth parents. They have not been relinquished. This means that there are thousands of birth parents out there who can not and may never accept that they did anything to warrant having a child removed.
So they think they should have them back or at least get the chance to 'explain' to the child that they were stolen and will come home one day.

I would very much like to spare my son that experience. God only knows what it would do to him.

SugarPasteChristmasCake Mon 12-Dec-11 21:12:37

Genuinely shocked at the amount of people on this thread who think that it's preferable to tell a child that they can't be in the school nativity/play, because the adults watching won't agree to refrain from taking photos/videos.

There was a heartbreaking thread on here quite recently, where to cut a very long, sad story short, the OP had fled serious DV and sexual abuse of her DC. If her ex found them, they would have to move - end of.

If you can read that, and STILL believe that your right to take some pics of your kids dressed as shepherds, outweighs the safety of that child, then go right ahead. But if you do then your empathy and attitude to children leaves alot to be desired; you'd jeopardise the physical safety of another child for a few pictures of your own.

One last thing; how exactly would you suggest telling a child who has been taken out of hellish, unimaginable circumstances, that they can't be in the school play? What reason would you give them? Shame on you.

TandB Mon 12-Dec-11 21:13:03

I think a lot of people are very naive about how much the internet has increased problems for organisations like schools and local authorities.

Can I set out a possible scenario based on a case I was involved in recently - obviously this chain of events didn't happen, but it is easy to see how it could have done. I was representing the defendant in a domestic violence case where the victim had fled to a refuge in a different part of the country. There were a lot of logistical problems and various courtroom discussions in the absence of the defendant. The victim was giving evidence by video-link from her local court to our London court. Imagine events unfolding like this:

The victim does not want to attend court - there is an application for video-link to her local court which is named in the application - I undertake not to reveal this information to the defendant.

The victim still refuses to attend court on the trial date. There are discussions in the courtroom about what to do - the police liaison officer speaks to the refuge who manage to persuade her to attend and give an eta of 30 minutes.

I go down to the cells and tell the defendant that she was reluctant to attend but will be there in 30 minutes.

The victim attends her local court and the defendant is brought into court - there is a problem with the videolink and the clerk, while trying to re-set the connection absent-mindedly says "Hello? Is that Smalltown Magistrates' Court?"

The defendant now knows which area his wife is in, and that she is about 20 - 30 minutes drive or so from the court.

He is released from custody and gets straight on google. He finds that there are refuges in areas X,Y and Z near Smalltown. He has a faint memory of his wife mentioning a family member in area Z. He finds that there are 3 primary schools serving that area.

He googles every combination of words he can think of and then he hits on "St A's Primary School December 2011". Someone in the school has posted some photos entitled "St A's Primary School Nativity Play - December 2011". They haven't sorted their privacy settings and he can see their photos. There is his eldest son in the back row of the photo.

He goes to Smalltown and stands outside the school gate until his wife turns up.

This is an entirely plausible chain of events. It's not going to happen every day but it is plausible. Surely it is better to assume that schools have a good reason to put stringent measures in place than to assume that they are just being annoying?

MWB22 Mon 12-Dec-11 21:15:05

I have a friend who’s daughter is epileptic. Flash photograph can trigger a fit. Despite the school explaining that flash photography was not permitted and explaining it had serious health implications for a member of the year group, quite a few parents still did. Luckily no problem, but my friend couldn’t risk and had to pull her child out of the next two performances because of some selfish people who only thought of themselves. It caused problems for the school as she had a lead role and six year olds don’t manage understudying particularly well. Teacher had to say the lines a few words at a time for the understudy to say in role. But it’s OK, people got the photographs they wanted, so it doesn't matter that they endangered a child's health (life) at the first performance and forced her exclusion at the rest! angry

BlissfulMistletoe Mon 12-Dec-11 21:22:02

thinking about it i am letting my heart rule my head.

perhaps the simple solution is having a CD of the children singing, and perhaps the parents can take photos of there own child....with technology these days you can make a little vidoe at home like this (best example i could find on youtube )

BlissfulMistletoe Mon 12-Dec-11 21:22:12
Familydilemma Mon 12-Dec-11 21:29:55

Take a pic of your child in their costume just before or afterwards. I was allowed to photograph dd's play the other day. Nothing usable and I wish I'd been soaking it up rather than trying to take pictures.

Dustinthewind Mon 12-Dec-11 22:17:13

I'm a bit fed up with the number of posters who are saying stuff 'em, take the photos anyway. Symptomatic of the same mindset who park on zig-zag lines, complain about inconvenient children with sn and have little thought or compassion for the needs of others.
No one else needs to be considered, only the little emperor/empress of the selfish parent.

Ihavewelliesbutitssunny Mon 12-Dec-11 22:54:47

I know this has already been said over and over but YABVU OP. And anything that even highlights which children cannot be photographed should not be allowed. For example doing a dress rhearsal and taking photos but excluding the children who can't be photographed. Sometimes the children may not be aware that they can't be photographed or the reasons why and the peers certainly wouldn't and shouldn't. Often these decisions are made by social services/courts so it is not simply a case of parents being awkward.

ilovesooty Mon 12-Dec-11 20:52:38

>>>>> Children's safety outweighs any desire to take photos/film for an absent parent. Surprised so many can't understand that.<<<<<

That's how I explained it to my 7 year old son (who was upset that his dad wouldn't see his class's song). He's only seven, but he gets it!

A1980 Mon 12-Dec-11 23:08:33

You kind of brought it on yourselves. It is no longer enough to take a photo, print and put it in an album to remember what your DC's and their classmates were like. Now it has to go on facebook and christ knows what other websites to show the world. I have a cousin I've met once who lives abroad in the USA. She has two children and I think I know when they both last pissed and shat given the things she posts about them online. Sickly messages: well done my baby for doing well in your dance contest. Loads of messages leading up to the dance contest, photos of her modelling outfits and telling everyone where it would take place. what mnakes it worse is that her entire profile is public. She posts loads of photos of her friends DC's and inforamtion about them. it's shocking how much inforamtion you can discover about utter strangers.

It's a shame you can't have photos of the play itself but you can't control what people will do with it afterwards. So YABU.

A1980 Mon 12-Dec-11 23:10:42

Lets not also forget that the play would probably be spoiled if every single parent turned up with a video camera et al. Endless flashes and people walking around trtying to take pictures. good god, just sit down and watch. That is the whole point of it!

lockets Mon 12-Dec-11 23:17:13

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

blackeyedsanta Mon 12-Dec-11 23:17:22

some children need protecting from abusive parents/others. pictures on the internet can endanger their safety.

school should have provided another option though.

demetersdaughter Mon 12-Dec-11 23:46:40

I can't see what's wrong with parents taking pics of school plays.
But I suppose people are just looking for excuses with the safety angle.
Strangely though schools find room to video plays etc and sell the vids/dvds making a mockery of the reasons why they don't want people taking pics.
In 10 years time parents of today will be explaining what their kids were like in infant school because nobody will have the pics for memories.

lockets Tue 13-Dec-11 00:13:26

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

KateFrothers Tue 13-Dec-11 00:20:58

demetersdaughter I can't see what's wrong with parents taking pics of school plays.

Is this because you cannot read the thread, because you are rather thick or because you are lacking in imagination?

I am interested. Call it a social experiment if you like.

demetersdaughter Tue 13-Dec-11 00:26:55


Great insight into your mind there (Or lack of)
My opinion mirrors that of many others on this thread.
Put the shandy down you're in over your head smile

KateFrothers Tue 13-Dec-11 00:29:22

Oh dear. I'm gonna score you a Must Try Harder smile

lockets Tue 13-Dec-11 00:36:07

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

olivestanssister Tue 13-Dec-11 00:44:57

Are you two like a mini gang of illiterate school drop-outs?
If you are you're great at it.
That was not a compliment even though you probably thought it was smile

CocktailQueen Tue 13-Dec-11 00:52:11

Our school says you can video/take photos but not post them on facebook or anyhwre public.

KateFrothers Tue 13-Dec-11 01:07:13

Are you talking to me olive? If so you will be able to see I am not illiterate (look! writing!) and how is being a school drop-out an insult?

I'm rather proud of what I've achieved despite the odds.

olivestanssister Tue 13-Dec-11 01:09:47

I wonder what those odds are?
Perhaps my guesses would be too obvious.
Considering your aspirations are probably not too high i'd say you nearly reached them.
Puff your chest out while I pin a golden (Well done) star on your jutting forehead.

pinkyp Tue 13-Dec-11 01:12:11

I think it's very sad too. ESP as class photos (with names) are printed in local papers sad

KateFrothers Tue 13-Dec-11 01:14:32

olive what's your problem?

I am curious what you think those odds are. Go on, have a guess.

Oh, and what do you think my aspirations are?

olivestanssister Tue 13-Dec-11 01:15:58

Katefrothers thinks that there are good reasons why schools can print the photos in papers and online (Where you buy them) whilst a parent can't even take a picture.
But kates done well you know.
She said so smile

olivestanssister Tue 13-Dec-11 01:17:42

I'd say your aspirations are limited and your abilities to reach those aspirations are just as limited.
Sit still i'm aiming the golden star at your jutting forehead and you keep whining.

KateFrothers Tue 13-Dec-11 01:18:02

Oh really Olive, pray tell, where did I say that?


KateFrothers Tue 13-Dec-11 01:19:45

Come on Olive. Don't be shy, tell me what my aspirations and abilities are please. I could do with a laugh.

confuddledDOTcom Tue 13-Dec-11 01:22:03

This is going to sound OT, I think, but it's not.

Facebook asked me the other day where some pictures were taken. They were scanned pictures of me in hospital, looked rather generic hospital, I thought, Facebook knew which hospital I was in. I always thought it was to do with digital pictures but it scares me it can work out the location of a scanned picture.

I agree with the idea of having set ups for parents who want pictures of their children.

olivestanssister Tue 13-Dec-11 01:25:26


You suggested that you were somewhat handicapped by the odds that were against you.
Perhaps you could share so we can all have a laugh be empathetic on your behalf?
Considering you like calling other posters stupid.

KateFrothers Tue 13-Dec-11 01:32:04

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

missingmumxox Tue 13-Dec-11 01:34:41

not being unreasonable, for this reason only, today several hundred parents, family and friend turned up at our DS school, Dh started talking to a chap, I thought he was being polite, which he was, but chap was a "friend" of a childs Mum at the school. but went to school with my hubby in Scotland, no great shakes but DH is 45, pal, 43 and ...we are in Kent! so to take this subject to the logical end, no parents or anyone to the play, if I was that frightened about links I would refuse to let my children to take part. (also who the F! puts names of kids on face book?? etc? I don't even know most of them.
the other random factor is our next door neighbour of a month ago, is a teacher at DS school their DD in one DT's class on talking to Dad, his wife the School teacher is from EK Scotland!...OH and she only knows DH's DU and DA who are primary teacher there. oh and his brother!.
thankfully our DS school allows parent to take pictures, so we can send them to family in scotland who reasonably couldn't see it in the flesh as it where.

olivestanssister Tue 13-Dec-11 01:35:03

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

KateFrothers Tue 13-Dec-11 01:42:38

Message withdrawn at OP's request.

olivestanssister Tue 13-Dec-11 01:45:26

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

Bucharest Tue 13-Dec-11 06:57:37

....and if ever we doubted what vile specimans of humanity were to be found on the internet....the troll sockpuppet does a splendid job of removing that doubt once and for all.

TandB Tue 13-Dec-11 07:25:49

Agreed, Bucharest. Perhaps those who think that everyone can be trusted to do the right thing and that those who are concerned with internet safety are overeacting might want to look at the breathtakingly offensive and stupid spewings of this complete twat this recent poster.

sashh Tue 13-Dec-11 07:27:13

Would it make a difference if it was a religeous reason?

I personally know some children who were abducted by parents, when they were in the care of their grandmother. Once home the kids had to be collected from school, they were not allowed out of school with the other kids, they had to go to the school office and be collected.

It's not just abductions, you said it was the first year your son didn't cry, OK well maybe last year when he did cry someone videoed it, how is he going to feel when he is 15 and somone puts it on facebook? (or whatever teenagers are using in 10 years)

It is only in recent years that so many parents have had cameras. When I was child I don't think anyone, even if they did have a camera, would be rude enough to take a pic during the performance.

If you want something for the future record your DC telling you about the play, the role they played, how excited they were etc.

Potol Tue 13-Dec-11 07:27:41

Ok, this is one of those threads that go round and round in circles and occasionally someone will ask a question that was answered 4 pages ago, and back we go again. So here's the summary:

- Some children need to be protected from
a. abuse. physical, sexual etc.
b. domestic violence.
c. enraged parents whom they may have been removed from.
d. other people who if they found out who they were would harm them.

- Next, the school should ideally NOT release the names of who these children are. But given a-d (see above), the guardians/carers/parents of these children have a perfectly legitimate reason not to want them being photographed. This is a reasonable request and is often vital to protect children.

- This, should not however be used to exclude these children from school activities such as nativity plays. In fact, if anything these children would benefit from participation in such activities.

- As a parent, while you may WANT and LIKE to take pictures of your offspring at such school events, the first two points may make it unwise to allow all parents to do so. Especially in this age of social networking and all kinds of digital recognition software.

- The school MAY have in place a system of taking separate photos that can be given later to students (presumably with the vulnerable children edited out). While this is a bit sad for them, it's worse to be left out of an entire activity altogether.

- Finally, most of us grew up in an age sans digital cameras and video recorders. Hence, our every move/accomplishment wasn't captured for posterity. Our parents seem to have perfectly reasonable recollections of our childhoods despite this. And we seem to have turned out fine as well. Again, while it may be NICE to take pictures of one's children, there are vulnerable children who need protecting and we all hope that as parents we can be sympathetic to their needs.

lisianthus Tue 13-Dec-11 07:42:14

YABU and even when people think they have their privacy settings sorted on Facebook, the Facebook people make changes so often that it is highly likely that your Facebook page is less private than you think it is anyway.

nevertoldanyone Tue 13-Dec-11 07:43:19

I rarely post under this name, but feel compelled to by this thread.

Year ago, i fled my abusive ex husband with my two young children. We were placed in a womens refuge in another part of the country and we started slowly to rebuild our lives - we cautiously made friends, moved into a flat and DS started in nursery.

At the nursery nativity DS played a shepard. Quite innocuous and innocent, and he looked like any other three year old in a dressing gown with a tea towel on his head. At the end of the show, people began taking photo's and i rushed to get DS away so his wouldn't be taken. I was too late. He was in a photo which appeared in the local paper - not even a close up, more in the background, but you could tell it was him.

Three weeks later my ex husband broke into our flat, held my children and i hostage for two days, and in that time raped and beat me mercilessly, all in front of my children. Thankfully he didn't touch them, but what they saw i can only imagine how they felt. When he'd finished with me, he walked out without a care in the world. I spent three weeks in hospital, one in intensieve care.

He found us because of that photo. When he was arrested he had it on him. Turns out he'd been watching us covertly for days before he attacked. He watched us come and go from nursery, and followed me home. He was able to find out all this by chance from an acciental photo in a newspaper.

I realise my case is extreme, but it highlights what can happen when photos are taken when really they shouldn't be.

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Tue 13-Dec-11 07:52:46

Thankyou for sharing that story. I think you are very brave to do so. I am so sory for what you were forced to endure. I hope you and your children can find a way through and find some sort of peace.

Your story illustrates why there are policies in place and why they are important.

Bucharest Tue 13-Dec-11 07:56:43


I echo MrsdeV's post. I hope your little shepherd has grown up not too scarred by your experiences. Wishing you all the best. x

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Tue 13-Dec-11 07:57:31

In ten years time parents of today will be explaining to children because they will have not pics of them in school?

What like parents of a few short years ago did and before that?

My eldest (would be) 20 and 18 and I do not have any video proof that they went to school and performed in school plays.
There is none of me or my mum or my grandparents.

But somehow we all managed to remember we went to school and were in plays and stuff.

Its only been very recently that your average family could afford a video recorder or a digital camera. When I was a kid not that many people had a camera at all.

Bucharest Tue 13-Dec-11 08:14:15

I was the angel Gabriel <preens> 36 years ago. I can remember (skimpy white vest,tinsel wings,bloody cold) every second. No photo exists. I was then second-pirate-on-the-left. One photo of that one exists. I am hopefully untraumatised by this lack of evidence that I was there.

The whole living every second of your life (or othr people's in this case, the children's) through photos, is just plain weird somehow. As someone said a few pages ago, I have FB friends about whose children I see upwards of a 100 photos a week. Not to speak of the "ooooh, bubba just said......" interminably boring minute by minute accounts of his/her day.

Of course I have photos of dd. Yes,I put some on FB when I can be arsed. (about twice a year if I get round to it) No, I don't expect anyone not directly blood-related to give a fuck.

It's all so terribly smug and "look at my perfect family" somehow.

But that's a tangent and my own particular drum I'm beating about how generally boring other people's children actually are. grin

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Tue 13-Dec-11 08:40:06

We only have your word for it Bucharest
Are you sure you were Gabriel?

I demand photographic proof wink

Bucharest Tue 13-Dec-11 09:01:28

By jove, that's it isn't it.

If there isn't a photo, it doesn't exist.

This whole thing isn't about PFBism at all!! It's philosophy.

<pinches self to check is real>

<nope> <disappears in puff of tinsel wings>

Bucharest Tue 13-Dec-11 09:03:19

Of course, I only found out after Gabriel was a boy angel, which miffed me somewhat as had evidently been chosen,not for locks of golden hair and angelic behaviour, but because had no tits. grin

I think most of what I wanted to add to this thread has been said already, by people like nevertold and others, who speak from actual experience (and thank you for sharing, very brave of you).

All I can add is this: about 8 years ago, I volunteered in a Women's Refuge. Us volunteers often looked after the children in the on-site playroom, or brought them to the local library / Mc Donald's / playground, when their mothers were having their counselling sessions etc. We had to be so, so careful about what we said in public (eg, when returning to the centre, gathering up the children, we were only aloud to say 'lets go back to the playroom') - to the children, to each other, and to the women staying with us when we sometimes brought them shopping etc.

The fact was, some of the abusive exes managed to find out what refuge their ex and child/ren were staying in, and had someone linger nearby, waiting for them to leave to follow them and hopefully glean information about their life, or to harass and intimidate them. The women were secure in the refuge, but if for example we were overheard in public discussing where the woman's next counselling session was / who her solicitor was / where she was relocating to after she left the refuge etc, this could have been very dangerous. It may seem unlikely, but these rules were in place for a reason - because this had happened in the past. This was before the days of FB, so it frightens me to think how much easier it must be for abusive exes to stalk and intimidate now.

Okay, yes the number of vulnerable children in any one class, school, community even is likely to be very small. However, if schools feel the need to put these measures in place, clearly there is at least one child needing protection. If not allowing photography at such events keeps even one child safe, isn't it worth it? If your child was the vulnerable, at-risk one, wouldn't you think it was worth it?

Hmm, Bucharest, I was always a king or a shepherd. The angels were always the small, adorable blonde girls, in their First Communion dresses and tinfoil wings. I was neither grin. Although I do remember my best friend accidentally stepping on the back of my long, kingly cape and almost choking me when I didn't realise and kept walking, when I was 6 grin. Even without the photos to prove it!

TandB Tue 13-Dec-11 09:31:48

After Nevertold has shared her real-life experience, I would very much hope that those who still think the whole thing is silly and "looking for excuses" will have a re-think.

Sadly I suspect that they will not.

TandB Tue 13-Dec-11 09:33:25

And I too was always a shepherd wearing an outfit constructed from 70s stripy curtains.

I always held out hope that I might one day be an angel but my only 'promotion' was to the donkey.


niceguy2 Tue 13-Dec-11 09:42:06

Fuck it, let's cancel all xmas plays & concerts and make sure all parents have their cameras crushed. After all, you can never be too careful and if it saves one child.......

Bucharest Tue 13-Dec-11 09:51:46

"if it saves one child"

That'd be good enough for most of us.

KateMiddlet0n Tue 13-Dec-11 09:52:20

niceguy2 I can only assume you're name is ironic. hmm

There have been many explanations of the dangers - from the most extreme cases of protection from abuse, to the more common adoption/fostering reasons, to reasons like tiger kidnap that could affect anyone with access to a commodity desired by criminals (key holder in a jewellery store, supermarket manager, bank staff etc etc ordinary, run of the mill working people).

There have been suggestions of ways to protect vulnerable children and still enable parents to have a momento of the day.

And yet you post drivel like that? Do you mean to sound so stupid?

KateMiddlet0n Tue 13-Dec-11 09:53:49

Would any parent honestly sacrifice someone else's child's happiness for a photograph? Really?

I cannot believe it.

Step Tue 13-Dec-11 09:54:45


It's completely over the top.

TandB Tue 13-Dec-11 09:55:07

Not exactly living up to your name there, Niceguy, are you?

Perhaps a better approach would be the approach that most schools seem to be taking - to ask people to follow a simple rule that allows all children to participate and doesn't actually hurt anyone.

And yes, your sarcasm not withstanding, if it saves one child, it is worth it. Just because that one child isn't YOUR child doesn't make them any less worthy of protection.

But everyone else's vulnerable children can sit on the sidelines, or take their chances - as long as you get to stick a blurry photo of your PFB in a teatowel up on Facebook for everyone to "aaaaah" at.

TandB Tue 13-Dec-11 09:55:53

x-posted with several others who actually have a grip on reality.

KatAndKit Tue 13-Dec-11 09:56:57

niceguy you really need a new name. You have made yourself sound like a twat.

Nobody suggested cancelling the shows. Just that it is not necessary to videotape them. Or post pictures of them on the internet.

If you have read the thread you will understand why schools sometimes have to put this restriction in place to protect vulnerable children. Have you read nevertoldanyones story? This sort of thing could have saved her and her children a harrowing ordeal. Do you still think parents taking photos is more important?

imogengladheart Tue 13-Dec-11 09:59:45

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

imogengladheart Tue 13-Dec-11 10:10:50

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ChristinedePizanne Tue 13-Dec-11 10:13:05

imogen - I'm sure he does love looking at pictures of himself but there is no reason you can't take pics of him in his costume before and afterwards and talk about the production.

nevertold - I am so, so sorry for your horrific experience. I hope it has made people realise that this isn't a theoretical danger but a very real threat sad

ChristinedePizanne Tue 13-Dec-11 10:14:12

x-posted imogen smile

Step Tue 13-Dec-11 10:15:20

DSS primary no issues with filming taking pics of concerts / plays/ anything else. Parents sign a waiver at the start of the year if they have no problems with it. Don't know any who have not signed it. Maybe just lucky with the school and that no parents have abuse issues.
Went to give a talk there in the summer, my photo taken along with kids' for newsletter. No issues.

How the hell though can you regulate this thing? Kids with their photos taken on the beach, kids on CCTV, it's almost impossible, actually it is impossible. With camera phones, CCTV, and even their mates or older siblings posting to their friends on FB stopping a child's image from hitting the electronic media in any way is dammed hard to do.

KatAndKit Tue 13-Dec-11 10:17:18

As I said yesterday, just because the school can't do everything does not mean they should wash their hands of it and do nothing.

bemybebe Tue 13-Dec-11 10:35:18

My dsc (x4) have plenty of photos of their school performances and we love looking at those. I hope that when time comes for my dc it will be possible to have a photo also. Shame if there will be a blanket ban for one reason or another.

KatAndKit Tue 13-Dec-11 10:42:47

It would be a minor shame for you if you don't get a photo. It would be nice if you can have one, but if you can't you'll get over it.

It would be a fucking massive tragedy if a child was tracked down by a known abuser due to photos of school events. That child might well not get over it.

niceguy2 'Fuck it, let's cancel all xmas plays & concerts and make sure all parents have their cameras crushed. After all, you can never be too careful and if it saves one child.......'. I don't think anyone has actually said that, but why let the truth get in the way of a good sweeping, dramatic statement, eh? If that one child at risk was your child, would you care then?

Look, the reasons have been explained many times. If people choose to disregard them, due to naivete, a lack of exposure to the type of horrific abuse that goes on (thus the refusal to accept it), or well, the arrogant belief that their child is the only important one, so once they get their photographs, never mind about the safety of anyone else's, so be it. No-one can force you to listen, but can you really not try to understand? Really?

I get that it will be disappointing for some parents to not have the opportunity to take photos of their children during the play. But you can still take photos of your children before and after, with their friends, with Granny when you get them home, and so on. So it's not really the end of the world if you cant snap a few shots during the play, potentially blocking the view of another parent, while your flash distracts poor Joseph who then fluffs his lines and bursts into tears, is it?

canyou Tue 13-Dec-11 11:02:42

We are in the position of no pictures for security reasons sad and due to an unfortunate incident after a parent took a pic and posted it on facebook when she knew the reason for no photo's I enforce this with a letter every term. The incident was the near kidnapping of one of my DC from the school by her Mum's 'friend' drug dealer
There is a compromise here though we send in a camera and DC teacher takes a pic of the group for us with my DC. Then my DC step aside and the 'official' pic is taken by parents after the show. The same with all end of year pics/group shots my DC step aside.
We know we cannot keep the DC 100% safe but if we can make them feel safe at school, allow them play in the yard at breaks without the worry that some one will grab them then yes I think a parent should sacrifice the pictures of the whole group on stage in acting mode and be happy with what the school allows but also we as the parents who don't want our DC pictured need to realise our D will miss out on certain things and that may at times be the fun events such as nativity plays if the trust that other parents will not post pic/films on public websites is not there
Sorry what a confused post

Animation Tue 13-Dec-11 11:11:27

Blimey - things have gotten quite dramatic here!!

Not quite understanding how a photo at a nativity could put a child at risk. I'm all for safeguarding vulnerable children - but please explain what terrible things might happen as a result of such a photograph?

NiceGuy I took to be giving a mock horror response.

ChristinedePizanne Tue 13-Dec-11 11:12:34

Why don't you read the thread Animation? There are plenty of posts which explain exactly what the risks are

Animation Tue 13-Dec-11 11:15:17

Since posting I have just read your post Canyon shock. Sorry to hear - your child was nearly kidnapped as a result of a photo!!

Animation Tue 13-Dec-11 11:17:58

I'm wondering if the solution might be for the vulnerable at risk children to wear costumes that might disguise their faces.

canyou Tue 13-Dec-11 11:18:25

Step My biggest worry is when they move on to secondary school where camera phs etc will be used by the DC. Right now in primary the only problem is the parents with phones/camera's. For me the school is a set place where the DC will be at set times, set days and it is similar to giving the person the DC home address, public places are just that and it is not so easy to pinpoint a definite address from there just a general location.

latebreakfast Tue 13-Dec-11 11:27:34

I'm probably going to regret jumping into this - but it does seem to be a bit like punishing victims - or telling girls that they shouldn't wear short skirts in case they attract unwanted attention.

Why aren't we doing a better job of dealing with dangerously abusive parents - locking them up or tagging them - rather than making kids spend their lives looking over their shoulders?

After all, as canyou says above, kids don't just get photographed by parents at nativity plays - there are cameras everywhere - how are you going to police photos taken by friends and posted to the web?

canyou Tue 13-Dec-11 11:28:55

Animation that is the more dramatic end of the scale and was because a friend of the poster Mum saw the pic and said it to some one who made the connection, we since moved schools,

TandB Tue 13-Dec-11 11:46:37

I have been pondering why people still think the protection measures are daft, even after reading people's personal experiences. I can only assume one of the following:

1) They don't believe the stories - they think people are making them up or exaggerating and that things like this only happen in films or books.

2) They think that families who have horrific things in their backgrounds are lesser/different to them somehow - perhaps that they brought the situation on themeselves through bad choices.

3) They simply think the world is a lot fluffier than it actually is and don't want their bubble punctured by harsh reality - this could never happen to them after all.

If anyone doubts that people like those described by MrsDV, Nevertold and Canyou really exist and really are capable of obsessive cruelty, let me assure you that they do. I do a job where I am regularly confronted with some of the worst things that people do to other people. I have had more than one client moved into witness protection type hiding because of choices they made during their own criminal cases. I have dealt with multiple cases where the victims of domestic violence have been moved to unknown locations and helped to start new lives. I have been visited at work by the police because one client was considered a serious risk, not only to his two ex-partners and children, but also to any female professional who worked with him in any capacity. These things happen all the time. They may not happen to you but that doesn't mean they are just a fantasy dreamed up by those concerned with child protection to piss you off.

These things can happen to anyone. Domestic violence doesn't just happen to people living in sink estates with no job and a criminal partner. Nice middle-class women are beaten up by their financier husbands. Children growing up in leafy suburbia come home to find mummy having the crap kicked out of her on the kitchen floor because daddy has had a bad day. People don't see their entire lives mapped out before them - people make choices because they seem like the right thing at the time. No-one goes into a relationship expecting it to end in a night-time flit from a terrifying partner.

Just because these things aren't happening to you doesn't mean that they aren't happening, or that they aren't important. You might be sitting watching your angelic 5 year-old starring as Mary, in a haze of fluffy, Christmas cheer, marvelling at the lovely display of childhood innocence, your camera finger itching, thinking "one photo won't hurt". The woman three seats down from you might be watching her child in a mix of pride and terror, wondering if someone is going to ignore the "no cameras" rule and stick an identifying picture of her child on Facebook, and whether that might be enough, together with those midnight dropped phonecalls she has been getting and the strange woman who keeps showing up near her house, for the ex who broke her nose and tried to strangle her to track them down.

We all live in this society. Our childrenall reap the benefit of free education - it is everyone's responsibility to protect the vulnerable, because no one child is more important than any other. And certainly no child's right to a picture of their nativity play is more important than another child's right to live free from fear and abuse.

Sorry. Long post, but some of the posts on this thread have horrified me.

KatAndKit Tue 13-Dec-11 11:49:35

Well said kungfupanda. Excellent post. Hopefully some people might actually finally "get it"

Bucharest Tue 13-Dec-11 11:53:55

Kungfu, sadly I think it's a lot simpler than that.The people who refuse to see, just don't give a shit. sad

Longtallsally Tue 13-Dec-11 11:59:47

Kungfu - Briliant post. Hope that it makes it onto the front page/weekly roundup/classics threads, so that others can read and learn

I don't think I would have really understood the connections, in life before MN. It's what this site can do best.

TandB Tue 13-Dec-11 12:23:33

I don't think there is anything wrong with not making the connection if you simply haven't been confronted with the situation. As I said upthread, DP initially thought the whole thing was daft because he was assuming the usual "paedos might see the photos" thing was behind it. But as soon as I pointed out the real reasons for these bans he got it.

I wouldn't have got it at first if it hadn't been for the type of work I do, the experiences of other MNers or the fact that my mum worked in a school where there were several children who had to be very carefully monitored for reasons like those described on this thread.

What I do find unbelievable is that some people can persist in thinking it is all silly and OTT when they have read the stories on this thread.

I wonder if NiceGuy2 would like to sit down face to face with Canyou, look her in the eye and tell her that what happened to her was acceptable collateral damage and that it wouldn't have been worth banning cameras from every school play in the country if it had saved her that experience.

bemybebe Tue 13-Dec-11 12:23:56

"I'm wondering if the solution might be for the vulnerable at risk children to wear costumes that might disguise their faces."

Also, "official photos", "no-photo days" alongside a "photo allowed" rehearsals, etc... There is always an alternative to a blanket ban, it just requires a little imagination, but saying "No!" is just so much easier...sad

KatAndKit Tue 13-Dec-11 12:26:56

Yes but if the vulnerable child is playing Mary, what is she going to be doing during the dress rehearsal??
Also the whole point of a rehearsal is that the parents aren't watching it yet.

The school does not exist to provide you with photo opportunities. It is an educational establishment and has better things to do than worry about your photo album. It is easier to just say no than waste valuable time faffing around trying to please people who think their video is the be all and end all of the school nativity.

There is no video of me in my starring role as Mog the Cat in Mog's Christmas, in 1982. It hasn't really affected me.

TandB Tue 13-Dec-11 12:34:11

There's no video of me as a snowflake in "The Snowman" when I was about 10.

It was the only time I wasn't something completely rubbish.


bemybebe Tue 13-Dec-11 12:37:28

it is all about finding the solution that makes sense under the circs, finds a common ground whilst addressing security concerns if any... i would not be so totally dismissive of those parents, who do want to have a picture, although of course in the end they would need to comply with the school policy

canyou Tue 13-Dec-11 12:40:59

kungfupannda brilliant post's. TBH I was a bit naive when we took the 3 DC about the whole safety issue, and was a bit hmm about the photo issue until it was fully explained, and even then with the ban in place when the incidence occurred I was shocked that some one could get that much info from a picture. Any normal person would never even imagine hurting a child or using a child for gain and that is why it can be so hard to understand that the chance to share their DC achievements through social media is censored.
NieGuy2 My DC do not do dance, drama or competitive football, sports as I cannot control the risk and it is not fair to prevent others from filming/ taking pics in those circumstances. Not fair on the DC but that is life and we hope that as time passes so does the risk

VeronicaSpeedwell Tue 13-Dec-11 12:42:31

I cannot fathom, after all that has been said about the reasons for this, including kungfupanda's outstanding and crystal clear post, how anyone can think that the 'sad' face applies to the happy majority who don't have to worry about this. In many schools, this is 'the solution that makes sense'.

And there's no picture of me as a street urchin in Oliver. I am managing to deal with it day by day.

KatAndKit Tue 13-Dec-11 12:44:05

My dad is also managing to deal with the fact that he was at work when I was doing my oscar winning performance of Mog. He also missed me dressed up as a kangaroo. He does not seem very upset about this. He probably still needs therapy for the piss poor school performance of Hiawatha that he was forced to sit through though!

Aliz07 Tue 13-Dec-11 12:44:57

I'm a lurker rather than a poster but I just had to come in on this one.

I'm one of 'those' parents who refuses to have my children photographed. The school do take pictures and sell them, but they ensure my family's safety isn't compromised by my children appearing in the pictures.

We've moved 11 times in 7 years, changed names several times and yet had to move again early this year because someone phoned my daughter's school asking if she was a pupil there.

It's not exactly fun living like this, but the alternative is that my daughter could be tracked down by her biological father or his family, who despite the fact he raped her when she was four, feel he has a right to be in his daughter's life.

No one knows what reasons people have for requesting privacy, thankfully we don't have to explain it to everyone and have my daughter suffer more than she already has.

I'm so tempted to tell people where to stick their photos, despite explanations some are still selfishly claiming a photo means more than a child's welfare sad

VeronicaSpeedwell Tue 13-Dec-11 12:45:44

I am very envy about Mog, KatAndKit. Your user name suggests that it was a defining moment. I cannot say the same of my turn as a 'Japanese lady' in The Mikado.

ChristinedePizanne Tue 13-Dec-11 12:46:50

I had the lead role in two school plays at a time when filming was heinously expensive. There aren't even any photos. Luckily I can relive both outstanding performances in my head

Ihavewelliesbutitssunny Tue 13-Dec-11 12:57:44

Aliz sad for you and your DD.

This is exactly the reason why these bans have to be in place and why anyone who disagrees with them is being extremely selfish.

I don't think my parents have any pics of me in school plays and until reading these threads it hadn't even occured to me that they didn't. It certainly hasn't scarred me.

Miggsie Tue 13-Dec-11 13:10:22

I agree completely with kungfupanda who has summed it up so well.

When I was little there were no photos of me in school plays, because we could not afford a camera, I remember my dad first buying a camera when I was 16.
Just because cameras are so accessible these days does not mean we should all be taking photos all the time and blasting them out online to 100's of total strangers, not all of whom are nice and fluffy.

I also feel that 99% of photos of kids taken at school plays are badly framed, badly lit and look terrible. I would much rather sit through the play and watch it.

I do an amount of data protection due diligence as part of my work, am I on facebook? No I'm not, and never would be, nor is any other member of my family. I post here as it anonymous.

nethunsreject Tue 13-Dec-11 13:13:58


No photos of me in nativities either, but I still had fun.

ChristinedePizanne Tue 13-Dec-11 13:14:26

Aliz - sorry x-posted sad I am so, so sorry for your experiences. I hope you manage to find somewhere safe to settle very soon

canyou Tue 13-Dec-11 13:35:39

Aliz sad I hope you and your DC now feel safe, Is your DC old enough to help protect herself? My 2 oldest know enough to step behind a photographer, my DC3 starts nursery after Christmas so we have to start the fun and games with teaching him about personal safety.
BemyBebe it is all about compromise on both sides no blanket ban is needed just adhering to the rules
We also have no photographs of our own school plays either I might have to as did my parents ever even attend or just turn up at the end grin

Ihavewelliesbutitssunny Tue 13-Dec-11 13:36:18

The film 'Dear Frankie' touches on this, as well as being a beautiful film in itself perhaps it would help some people to understand these issues although I don't hold out too much hope hmm.

I remember at my graduation there were parents running up and down the aisles trying to get the best shot of their (grown-up) children. Why not just watch it with your eyes instead of faffing about with a camera, I think it did spoil the occasion a bit.

Kladdkaka Tue 13-Dec-11 13:49:08

A photo of my daughter's nativity play (many years ago) was published in the newspaper. All very nice and lovely and a great keepsake for the parents. I do wonder how many months it took them to be able to sleep again and how many 999 calls they had to make over Christmas. How long did it take them to clear up glass from all the broken windows on Christmas morning?

So it's warm, fuzzy feeling and photographic keepsake vs violence, terror and post traumatic stress. It's a no brainer.

Danlukerphotography Tue 13-Dec-11 14:00:42

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

deemented Tue 13-Dec-11 14:06:42

I bet you would Dan, but unfortunately this is MN and you have to pay to advertise here. TBH i think it's highly unprofessional of you, let alone crass to chose this thread to promote yourself on.

ChristinedePizanne Tue 13-Dec-11 14:07:10

Dan - I've reported your post because a) you're not allowed to advertise without paying (which is what you're doing) and b) it's utterly fucking crass of you to try and capitalise on a really traumatic issue. You should be ashamed of yourself

canyou Tue 13-Dec-11 14:09:37

Danlukerphotography a park is not as identifying as a school though, and if I approached you and said I was removing my DC from the area so you could continue taking pictures and would you ensure no pics of my dc were made public for safety reasons would you not agree to do so? I don't mean delete your pics but blur my DC
Ok am off to do school run wish I home schooled on days like this for the 20 min of school run

Ihavewelliesbutitssunny Tue 13-Dec-11 14:13:29

Dan this is sooooooooo frustrating because you're being an idiot now run along and be an idiot elsewhere

deemented Tue 13-Dec-11 14:15:09

Thanks MN!

Danlukerphotography Tue 13-Dec-11 14:17:54

Canyou: i absolutely agree, I have had this before and have said to the parents that I am happy for them to review my images before I leave and if there are any that they are unhappy with that i would be more than happy to delete them immediately there and then.

Christine: apologies if i offended, non was intended.

I wanted to post to share my frustrations, in future I'll leave my webiste alone. Think that I do have plenty to add to this topic though given my profession.

TheScaryJessie Tue 13-Dec-11 14:22:13

Danny boy, a hearty welcome! To my business blacklist.

BeerGrinchPotter Tue 13-Dec-11 14:29:36

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TandB Tue 13-Dec-11 14:45:52

No, Dan, I don't think you do have "plenty to add to this topic" simply because you are a photographer.

The issue is not the mechanics of taking a photograph - it is the practice and theory of child protection by whatever means is necessary.

KateMiddlet0n Tue 13-Dec-11 14:50:34

What are you on about Kungfu? Did you not see the man is a photographer?!

Now, Dan, tell me. At what point in your photography studies did you cover child protection, domestic violence and witness protection schemes? Did they do a whole module on it at college?

You'll have to forgive my ignorance Dan, because all the photographers I know just do photography so I really don't know about this special photography you do.

TandB Tue 13-Dec-11 15:38:04

[hangs head in shame]

Sorry, Kate. I forgot about all those emergency situations where someone screams "For the love of God, is there a photographer in the room?" and the said photographer rushes in and saves the day with his special skills.

Sorry, Dan.

KateMiddlet0n Tue 13-Dec-11 15:46:48


Ihavewelliesbutitssunny Tue 13-Dec-11 15:50:10

Dan if you really want to discuss photography go elsewhere on the site and/or start your own thread. What you are posting here isn't really appropriate for this thread. Also you could maybe pay for advertising on mn if that is what you want.

VeronicaSpeedwell Tue 13-Dec-11 15:50:12



KateMiddlet0n Tue 13-Dec-11 15:56:00


KateMiddlet0n Tue 13-Dec-11 15:56:52


Pendeen Tue 13-Dec-11 16:48:32


The whole business is PC-crazy.

annaklingon Tue 13-Dec-11 16:51:41

So, Pendeen, you have read the whole thread and read the harrowing accounts posted by MNetters where they were found and raped and beaten for 2 days as an example, where they had broken windows, kids snatched, purely on the grounds of a photo being put in the public domain, and you think it's PC-crazy?

Words fail me.

niceguy2 Tue 13-Dec-11 16:52:14

I see I'm getting the usual insults and being accused of not getting it, selfish and worse.

All I'm arguing for is balance. If it were me and there was such a perceived risk that someone with a camera might take a photo and that was so unacceptable then surely the logical thing to do is withdraw my child? Rather that than risk them getting photographed??

Firstly that removes the risk completely rather than in effect just lowering the risk by getting camera's banned but you can't guarantee no-one's snuck one in can you?

Secondly surely I have to consider others as well since I am part of the community. Surely as a sensible and considerate member of the community I should consider the enjoyment of other families and respect their wish to get a photo of their child whilst they are young. Why should they ALL miss out because of my personal but tragic circumstances?

I'm not an ogre and if asked I would respect another families wishes. But that would be my personal decision. What I'm saying is that introducing a blanket ban is a case of the tail wagging the dog.

KateMiddlet0n Tue 13-Dec-11 16:59:25

Yes, yes you're quite right niceguy. What you want is more important. YOU are more important.

Let's exclude anyone who is different to you. Let's exclude anyone who is suffering and has misfortune. And let's keep excluding until there's only you left, or until something happens and it's you that get's excluded.

bemybebe Tue 13-Dec-11 17:00:18

my parents did not own a car and it didn't damage me in the slightest, however, if anybody suggested blanket ban on driving because tens of thousands get killed or injured on British roads every year I would argue it impractical and unnecessary

Pendeen Tue 13-Dec-11 17:00:48

Not al, but enough and how often does that happen. There are always exceptions.

PC-crazy it is.

JamieComeHome Tue 13-Dec-11 17:02:26

niceguy - I am pretty sure we debated this very thing about a year ago. You don't seem to have thought about it any more deeply since then

JamieComeHome Tue 13-Dec-11 17:07:51

you aren't an ogre but I wonder if you aren't able to put yourself in the shoes of a small child

Ihavewelliesbutitssunny Tue 13-Dec-11 17:09:36

nastyguy1 stop being so silly. Not having photos taken does not spoil a parent's enjoyment of the play. Pendeen you are silly also. Now why don't you both run along and make a thread together instead of bothering people here, bye smile

JamieComeHome Tue 13-Dec-11 17:28:44

Every time some amateur photgrapher blocks my view of a play or concert I feel my Human Rights have been violated ....

MrsHoarder Tue 13-Dec-11 17:53:19

niceguy2 but that means you are excluding children who may well have already had a traumatic time from partipating. These are the children who need the positive time of joining in with extra-curicular activities the most.

Can't you see how this is more unfair than you not getting to take a photo during the play? You can still take one of your DC one their own at another time.

VeronicaSpeedwell Tue 13-Dec-11 18:11:27

Hmm, let me see:

The feelings of a 5 yr old child, who has constantly moved house, away from friends and familiar places, who wants to be in their first ever performance at their place of full-time education, in which all their friends are appearing, who will all be watched by their parents


the disgruntlement of an adult man who feels his album is not complete if there isn't a photo of his child actually on stage at school, at this one particular event, to go with all the other photos he can take of his DC all the rest of the whole bloody time, if he so wishes.

No, somehow I am not persuaded that we were missing a crucial perspective on this debate.

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Tue 13-Dec-11 18:31:01

I think its a bit pointless.
If people are still whinging and calling PC gorn mand (yawn) after reading the thread.
There is no hope.
Unless something happens to them.
That is the only thing that will change their mind.

As I would not wish misfortune on anyone (bar a few people not on this thread) I cannot hope that this will happen.
So they will just continue to think their right to take photos is more important than anything else.

JamieComeHome Tue 13-Dec-11 18:38:18

Mrs DV - I think you may be right. This thread is a carbon copy of one we were on this time last year.

SantieMaggie Tue 13-Dec-11 18:47:32

I have a relative who escaped DV and has had to move several times due to parents/newpapers/etc taking pics and posting them online and them then being tracked down.

Surely a child has the right to live as normal a life as possible esp after experiencing something as horrific as some of the stories on here? and not taking any photos is a small price to ask?

does the OP know it wasn't due to medical reasons?

NinkyNonker Tue 13-Dec-11 19:22:32

Do grown adults really get het up about this sort of thing? Really? I mean, you can't take a picture, at a couple of the many events your child will hopefully participate in over the years. A grip needs obtaining I think

I return to my previous question, how did our parents cope without the prolificacy of recording/photographic equipment we have now? Are we all traumatised? As one poster claimed earlier.

lockets Tue 13-Dec-11 19:43:37

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SugarPasteChristmasCake Tue 13-Dec-11 20:37:19

Posts on here from MrsDv and Kungfu need a bloody medal.

As a parent how can you possibly feel that it's OK to put another child at risk? Or that a disadvantaged child should be singled out and excluded because of shit that happened which wasn't their fault and beyond their control?

If that's the degree of compassion and sensitivity that you are raising your kids with, then god help the next generation. The self-entitlement is breath-taking. God forbid that one of you ever ends up on the other side of this equation.

TheScaryJessie Wed 14-Dec-11 00:38:25

You know what I don't get? The contradiction in terms at the heart of some posts.

If being denied the opportunity to record someone else's nativity appearance is so agonising, then how can you conclude that it won't be upsetting for another child not to even get to appear?!

Either nativities and other school plays are really special and important, or they're not. But you can't argue both ways.

xyfactor Wed 14-Dec-11 00:44:31

I'm quite old and have never had my picture in the paper or online once.
And even if a picture was online of me I wouldn't know where to start to look for it.
Check youtube for videos of schools and their inhabitants the whole site is heaving with kids making vids and slapping them up for the world to see.
And why isn't it a rule that covers all school plays and schools so parents could have a say in it?

iscream Wed 14-Dec-11 05:15:51

Just get some pics of your child with the teacher and a few school mates who's parents are there, and say ok.

see Dd and ds3 are those dc that will mean you cna not take pictures of the school play as it is likely to mean that their school could be identfied there for exposing to large risks.The same risks that meant me and my dc had to flee a house which we lived in for 12 years with just a couple of suitcases on advice from the police after our house was targetted with petrol through the door that failed to ignite

So school state at the beginning that you mat take pictures of your own child after the event ,

Yes it is uosetting not to be able to video it but sorry be dam site more upsetting for me if my dc are harmed or killed angry and yes theres a chance of this , hence we had rl name changes .There is a contact ban restraining orders the whole lot which will last till they are 18

I have a child who is not mine biologically. I would not want photographs to be taken at school of him either.

The reason for this though is that we live extremely close to his BP's and his BM's family are extremely rough and troublesome. I have no doubt that he will end up going to school with some child known by their family if he goes to the local one here. Almost everyone I know uploads school play photos onto facebook as I've seen loads this week!

I do think facebook is the biggest problem here.

I am hoping to move away by the time he starts school though as I have a constant worry about it all. If we do end up moving completely out of the area then I wouldn't be at all bothered about photographs as I know they're not likely to be accessed by these people.

If his personal circumstances weren't as they are I wouldn't have any problem with photos at all.

So, some people do have their reasons and I think it would be more unfair to eliminate a child from a school play rather than tell parents not to take photos.

andaPontyinaPearTreeeeee Wed 14-Dec-11 07:00:27

It's only since being on MN that I realise all the possible reasons for avoiding photos - stalkers/abusive exes etc. It is not just parents being precious.

That said, I do think it's unfair that every single other child and parent is 'penalised' for it. I would've been very sad if I'd not been able to take even far-off blurry snaps of DD in her play.

I think it would be reasonable to give everyone a photo opportunity at the end, after the finale/bows. They could say "no photos during the play as it will distract performers". 2 children could very easily be ushered off without anyone even noticing - even in our little school this would be easily achievable. And it wouldn't need to make the DCs feel bad, as they could be nominated for a special job to help the teachers, like holding a charity collection plate at the door or something. It's easily fixable and seems quite lazy to just do a blanket ban.

Pointy that's what dd school does and is done caregully so looks like dd is getting a treat infact couple other kids complain not fair smile

which im happy with . But think the op was complaing about she can not do while play is going on and on that case she is being unreasonable . Pretty sure she hate to read of a child injured or killed all for some pictures

DumSpiroSperHoHoHo Wed 14-Dec-11 07:29:28

It is bloody frustrating but the 'no photos/video' rule is there for good reason.

I would say the school are being unreasonable but not offering an alternative.

My DD is in yr 2 & her school have only just gone down the blanket ban on pics route sadly due to a rise in the number of children affected by it.

They usually put a video on their secure website for a week or two afterwards & send home photos of individual children, so we don't miss out and tbh I think it's nice to just enjoy the experience rather than spend it faffing about behind a camera/phone.

antsypants Wed 14-Dec-11 07:37:45

I would be fine with parents taking photos and videos if it was for their own viewing, but 99% of the time it ends up on Facebook, I have pictures of my DD on my page, but I don't have one person on it that I don't know in person.

Do YABVU take photos before and after.

TandB Wed 14-Dec-11 07:44:04

I just caught up with this thread again and was highly amused by the following comment from the thoroughly misnamed Niceguy.

"I see I'm getting the usual insults and being accused of not getting it, selfish and worse."

The clue is in the word "usual". If you are "usually" accused of not getting it or being selfish perhaps it might be an idea to examine your attitudes and see if the problem is really everyone else misunderstanding poor you.

imogengladheart Wed 14-Dec-11 08:01:52

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

archilles Sun 09-Dec-12 07:24:24

It is a small price to pay.

No one is allowed to take pics in my ds class because my ds and I fled 300 miles to escape abusive ex. Thank your lucky stars that you clearly have no idea what this entails.

DoingTheBestICan Sun 09-Dec-12 09:33:54

I remember about 9 yrs ago around this time of year i was in work and about 5 of us were outside having our coffee break when a car pulled up and a man shot out and demanded we tell him where the womens hostage was.

It was just round the corner from our work but noone really knew whereabouts it was,we just blanked him and he called us stupid bitches and stormed back to his car.

I dread to think what he would have done if he found it,we went back inside straight away and our boss rung WA to tell them to let our local refuge now there was a nutter asking round.

If one child can feel as safe and secure as my child then i for one will not take any photos on school property.

FamiliesShareGerms Sun 09-Dec-12 09:49:46

*zombie thread klaxon*

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now