To have filmed my ds1s preschool nativity play even though

(283 Posts)
Nooneelseisallowedafergus Sat 08-Dec-12 13:58:40

We were expressly told no filming.

I did zoom in on just him ( as much as was possible ) and only filmed a few short clips, not the whole event.

I felt I would have really regretted not having captured the memory, and my son loves watching himself on film, and has already enjoyed watching the clips and singing along to the songs.

And I just don't see how a video of fully clothed children would be satisfying viewing for a peadophile. With this vein of thought surely we should start making our children wear burkas.

OscarPistoriusBitontheside Sat 08-Dec-12 14:01:12

More likely the school filmed it and want to sell it to you.

KellyMarieTunstall Sat 08-Dec-12 14:01:25

Its not just the threat of peadophiles watching the videos though.

Its the risk of estranged parents finding their children though facebook etc.Its a very real danger to some families.

katykuns Sat 08-Dec-12 14:02:40

You shouldn't have done it, it sets a bad example to your child doesn't it? Like rules don't apply to everyone?

That being said, I know what you mean and agree with you what a stupid rule it is. Our school provides a dvd of the performance we can buy, but its not the same... you film it to capture YOUR child, not everyone elses...

rebecca87 Sat 08-Dec-12 14:02:58

It's to do with child protection as well for example if a mother and her children had escaped an abusive ex and did not want them to know where they lived - if someone has filmed it and it got around that ex would find out and could be a danger to the family again, even if it is your child you are filming you will be able to see some other children. Sorry but the rules are not just there to spoil the fun - there are reasons for them

LynetteScavo Sat 08-Dec-12 14:04:17


BackforGood Sat 08-Dec-12 14:05:00

Of course YABU.
Apart from what KellyMarieTunstall has said - there are all sorts of potential child protection issues you wouldn't be aware of, what kind of example are you setting your child.....well, it doesn't matter if I ignore the rule because it doesn't suit me on this occasion.... ? hmm

DameMargotFountain Sat 08-Dec-12 14:06:37


exactly for the child protection issues highlighted above

and if any children were in LA care their ID often has to be protected..

You know you are being unreasonable.
The rule is there to protect vulnerable children.

You and your child are not so special that the rules that everyone else follows do not apply to you because you would have been sad not to have your child on film.

You have no idea why there's no filming, clearly you didn't think about the fact you might be putting people at risk.

Oh well, as long as you have your video, eh?

Tailtwister Sat 08-Dec-12 14:07:49

Yabu and selfish. Do you think the rules are there just to make life difficult for you? You could have potentially put another child at risk. That's apart from the fact you are setting a bad example for your child.

McChristmasPants2012 Sat 08-Dec-12 14:07:59


It's about child protection, If i was a parent that had escaped an abusive partner I probably wouldn't allow them to be in the play because of numpties who can follow a simple rule of Not recording

TandB Sat 08-Dec-12 14:08:39

These rules are very rarely to do with "paedo-hysteria".

They are in place because the internet is so all-encompassing these days that it makes it much more possible for people to track down children who they should not have contact with. People stick things on facebook, twitter, photo-websites etc, and the schools have no way of ensuring that everyone has appropriate privacy settings. There is always going to be some idiot who has no security settings on their facebook account and sticks up photos or films of children with tags and comments that could lead to them being easily identifiable to someone looking for them.

There have been stories on MN from people whose children HAVE been identified and located due to their images being on the internet, and who have had horrific experiences as a result. Your wish to film your child is considerably less important than another parent's NEED to keep their child protected.

DS's old nursery made thorough enquiries with all parents before allowing any photos or filming of their nativity play, and they asked that nothing be placed on the internet at all. If anyone had expressed a concern then none of us would have been allowed to film it at all.

I wll try to link to an old thread about this where people explained the reasons in great detail.

YABU. You are not above the rules.

WelshMaenad Sat 08-Dec-12 14:08:42

Of course you're not unreasonable. The rules don't apply to you. You're special. And fuck the poor kids in LA care whose location and identity might need protecting, eh? As long as you capture those memories.

BackforGood Sat 08-Dec-12 14:11:09

...and this may come as a surprise to you, but it is actually possible to hold fond memmories of things you don't have a hard copy of you know !

TandB Sat 08-Dec-12 14:11:24
SugaricePlumFairy Sat 08-Dec-12 14:11:39

I understand your desire to film your ds but if the school had expressly asked for Parents not to film why did you feel that you were the exception and then to blithely carry on ignoring their request.

Were you the only one?.

WorraLorraTurkey Sat 08-Dec-12 14:12:05

YABU but then so are the school, to have such a blanket ban.

My DS's school makes it clear to parents that if they don't want their child to be photographed or filmed, they shouldn't let them take part.

They ask parents to only film/photograph their own child as much as possible and not to put the videos on FB etc. They also make it clear that if parents don't comply with that request, there's nothing they can do.

So far (to my knowledge) only 2 parents have ever pulled their kids out and that's been in the last 6 or 7yrs.

So it works quite well.

YABVU and selfish, so long as you have your precious memories on film to make you happy fuck if you are putting someone else at risk eh?

Doinmummy Sat 08-Dec-12 14:14:35

How selfish of you .

YABU. Did you make sure to stand up and block everyone's view and distract them with the screen on your phone? You get more points for that.

ballstoit Sat 08-Dec-12 14:16:14

YABU as is Worra.
Why should any child be either put at risk or excluded from participating to allow you to have a video?

TandB Sat 08-Dec-12 14:17:22

Worra - that would generally work, but it could easily be a year where there are several at-risk children, and the logistics would be too difficult, hence a blanket ban.

Some schools have a much higher-than-average rate of child protection issues. My mum worked in such a school and they had some pretty hefty security measures in place. If there had been the internet back then, I would imagine that school would have had an absolute ban on cameras etc.

AnyFuckerForAMincePie Sat 08-Dec-12 14:17:30

YABU to feel entitled to do what the fuck you like, as if the normal rules (even if you don't agree with them, they are there for a reason and everyone is in the same boat...or should be) don't apply to you

Tailtwister Sat 08-Dec-12 14:17:40

So vulnerable children shouldn't be allowed to take part then worra, just so other parents can have their way? What a shame.

WorraLorraTurkey Sat 08-Dec-12 14:18:08

How am I BU for telling you the rules at my DS's school? confused

WeAreSix Sat 08-Dec-12 14:18:30


A friend has just adopted a child who is at high risk of being taken by the birth family. The child was abused and neglected and if snatched the consequences would be unthinkable.

The rules are there to protect children like this. You filming, even if its zoomed in on your child, will encourage others to do the same. It takes one small clip on any social networking site to potentially identify a child who could be at risk.

Did you not make the rules Worra? grin

EnjoyResponsibly Sat 08-Dec-12 14:19:44

How are you enjoying the play if you're fart arsing around with your covert recording though?

WorraLorraTurkey Sat 08-Dec-12 14:19:53

Perhaps I did in my sleep Sparkling grin

McChristmasPants2012 Sat 08-Dec-12 14:19:54

My DS's school makes it clear to parents that if they don't want their child to be photographed or filmed, they shouldn't let them take part.

I find that sad that a child is not being able to join in a play because of adults. Perhaps they should do the play and not invite parents to watch

AnyFuckerForAMincePie Sat 08-Dec-12 14:19:56

Worra, what a shame that (only?) two kids got to miss the opportunity to take part in the school play with their peers, on top of the rest of the shit they possibly had going on.

MegBusset Sat 08-Dec-12 14:20:39

Yabu and incredibly selfish. These policies are in place for child protection and often because of a specific need in that setting. Idiots who ignore these rules can lead to children having to uproot their whole lives to move schools/areas if their whereabouts leaks onto the internet. You have no clue which, if any children may be affected by this.

DS's school handles this well imo, the teachers take photos of plays, sports day etc and check that any affected children are edited out, then parents get a group shot and an individual one of their child.

SugaricePlumFairy Sat 08-Dec-12 14:20:52

OP must be one of those Parents.

Are you feeling a little bit guilty about sticking two fingers up at the school, hence you looking for validation on here?

Tailtwister Sat 08-Dec-12 14:20:57

Oh yes sparkling, blocking everyone's view with their bloody phones because their children are SO much more important than very one else's. They're so busy mucking about, they don't even see the thing properly themselves.

WorraLorraTurkey Sat 08-Dec-12 14:21:13

I find that sad that a child is not being able to join in a play because of adults. Perhaps they should do the play and not invite parents to watch

That's exactly what they do.

The kids do a couple of performances for the rest of the school.

WeAreSix Sat 08-Dec-12 14:22:14

Worra our school had the same rule as yours up until last year. One parent complained and then the new blanket ban was imposed. There were many unhappy parents! But no, YANBU to share your experience.

Pancakeflipper Sat 08-Dec-12 14:23:00

I think my kids go to the only school that lets parents take photos and film the nativity.

WorraLorraTurkey Sat 08-Dec-12 14:23:07

AF it's a very flexible school...they try their hardest to accomodate everyone's wishes.

Therefore the tiny minority of kids who mustn't be photographed, will still get to perform...just not for the parents/carers.

However, their own parents/carers will be invited to that performance.

It works well, that's all I can say about it really.

teatimesthree Sat 08-Dec-12 14:23:28


YABVU and incredibly selfish. angry

DayShiftDoris Sat 08-Dec-12 14:24:53

So in Worra's school the 'looked after' kids and those escaping abuse are not only excluded but may as well have a big sticker that says 'problem family' as they are the only ones not taking part.

Think your school needs to look at its policies but it's next OFSTED as they look very carefully at safeguarding and inclusion and this policy fails on both counts.

WorraLorraTurkey Sat 08-Dec-12 14:25:03

WeAreSix I think that's exactly what the school is trying to avoid.

In doing it like this, they try to keep everyone happy and to my knowledge everyone is happy this way.

I'm sure if they're not in future, the policy will be reviewed.

McChristmasPants2012 Sat 08-Dec-12 14:25:19

thats good then, i would hate it if a child was missing out.

seems a sensible way to do it

I wonder what else the OP does that isn't allowed at school? sad

Witchety Sat 08-Dec-12 14:25:49

Honestly, you would never 'regret' not having it on film!!

Your life is fuller than that surely??

trueblood1fan Sat 08-Dec-12 14:26:04


I have a DVD of DS1's first Nativity somewhere. I have never watched it and he is now 13. grin

WorraLorraTurkey Sat 08-Dec-12 14:28:10

No, not quite Doris Lol.

The school is in a deprived area and has over 900 pupils, yet to my knowledge only 2 have been removed from the public performance.

And I repeat, no-one has expressed unhappiness so far.

It's also rated by OFSTED as outstanding, so they're quite happy with it too it would seem.

As I say, if something works then it works...can't say any more than that really.

WeAreSix Sat 08-Dec-12 14:28:18

It was carnage at the school office when the rule came out, which was the day before the performances. The school then had a group photograph taken to 'compensate' - when the parent who com

DayShiftDoris Sat 08-Dec-12 14:28:31

Crossed posts with others - a seperate performance only does more to highlight their differences, especially within their peer groups.

The school controlling the photography is an excellent idea

MerylStrop Sat 08-Dec-12 14:29:37

YABU, selfish and a bit thick to boot

Willabywallaby Sat 08-Dec-12 14:29:49

YABU, but then some Mums seem to think rules don't apply to them.

bedmonster Sat 08-Dec-12 14:30:43

AIBU to have filmed my ds1s preschool nativity play even though we were expressly told no filming?

Did you really need to ask the question?

WorraLorraTurkey Sat 08-Dec-12 14:32:15

Doris << Bangs head >>

The separate performances are done anyway for the rest of the school.

It's not unusual for the odd parent who can't get time off work to see that performance (with permission) so no differences are necessarily highlighted.

As I say, they're a very accommodating school.

Witchety Sat 08-Dec-12 14:32:53

Is he your pfb?

WeAreSix Sat 08-Dec-12 14:33:12

Ooops iPod fail!!

It was carnage at the school office when the rule came out, which was the day before the performances. The school then had a group photograph taken to 'compensate' - when the parent who complained was told that this was happening and the school would, of course, leave their child out of the public photo the parent withdrew the complaint and all children were included. It was a shame because this happened after all of the performances to parents.

They do bring the children back into the hall after the performance in costume so parents can take individual photos on the stage, which is nice and works well.

ISeeThreadPeople Sat 08-Dec-12 14:33:39

Of course you're not being unreasonble. You're clearly more important than rules put into place to protect vulnerable children. They should have given you festive treats and a plush throne to enjoy whilst you were filming. You know, in deference to your special status.

ThursdayWillBeTheDay Sat 08-Dec-12 14:33:44

Let's hope Fergus (is his name?) isn't at the same pre-school that my half-sister's child attends.....the child she had taken away from her because she chose her violent child-molesting 19 yr old toyboy over her children. Because those children aren't allowed to be filmed you see...because neither she, or her boyfriend are allowed anywhere near them.

Get it yet?

Didn't think so. You moron. <so delete me>

WeAreSix Sat 08-Dec-12 14:35:18

Where is the OP now, I wonder?

SugaricePlumFairy Sat 08-Dec-12 14:36:26

I wonder whether OP will come back to defend herself or just class us as a bunch of sour, mean spirited vipers who just couldn't possibly understand how she feels!


atacareercrossroads Sat 08-Dec-12 14:38:11

Yanbu as long as you arent planning on splashing it all over fb/showing boring strangers with it etc. I've taken the odd pic of ds at soft play centres when it says not to, I make sure no other kids are in the shot (not really for cp reasons either as I don't share them, just don't want pics of other peoples snotty nosed kids, just my own!)

I'm hoping that this is a reverse AIBU, no one could be that stupid as to seek validation for such a ridiculous question. hmm

WorraLorraTurkey Sat 08-Dec-12 14:39:29

Mince pie anyone? grin

I think the donkey's just shit on the floor...Sugarice be a love would you?

SugaricePlumFairy Sat 08-Dec-12 14:41:56

Worra , no problem, It'll do the winter roses the world of good! grin

Inertia Sat 08-Dec-12 14:43:34

OP, you missed out "PC gone mad" from your original windup post.

If you're genuine, then of course you are unreasonable. It's not about paedophiles- it's about protecting vulnerable children from being identified by people who are not allowed to have contact, or know their location.

Please don't post your video online. It would be totally unreasonable for you to compromise the safety of other children . And if the head has expressly said no filming , there's a strong possibility that your child's school does include children from whom child protection is an issue. But hey, your wishes come first.

WorraLorraTurkey Sat 08-Dec-12 14:44:51

I'm a Quality Street woman myself grin

Or at least I am now....

AllSnowballsAndNoKnickers Sat 08-Dec-12 14:45:01

I'm not sure donkeys are allowed to shit the floor. Did you change the rules so they can worra? Typical.


SilveryMoon Sat 08-Dec-12 14:46:25

I agree that YABU. A friend of mine fosters very young children and many of the children she has had have been moved far away from home, had their names changed all because they are at such risk from family.
I think it is very naive and irresponsible for you to think the only reason people can't be filmed or photographed is because of the possibilities of peadophiles.

WorraLorraTurkey Sat 08-Dec-12 14:47:59

Yes and I hid the sign that says "CAUTION - DONKEY SHIT" grin

<< Living life on the edge >>

OP will come back when she manages to make up a reason for this being acceptable and will then drip feed us info until we say she is reasonable.

I'll help you OP, do you have the same condition as Drew Barrymore in 50 first dates where you wake up every day and can't remember anything about your life? You then need to watch a video every morning to 'catch up' with your life and your DS in the play is an important part of that?

(You are so very welcome)

ilovesooty Sat 08-Dec-12 14:52:23

You were expressly told no filming

I don't think you should have filmed it, for all the reasons outlined above.

WeAreSix Sat 08-Dec-12 14:52:55

Mince pie please. And a nice hot brew

ISeeThreadPeople Sat 08-Dec-12 14:53:24

She'll also reliably inform us that there are no vulnerable dc in their school. Because usually it's branded on their foreheads isn't it?

LaurieBlueBell Sat 08-Dec-12 14:53:41

I think it's sometimes difficult for parents to understand why schools have these rules.
As the mother of a adopted child I have to say of course YABVU and selfish.

As a foster carer of I would go ballistic if ant school tried to say my dc couldn't take part (as in worras example). Looked after children have enough to cope with without schools discriminating against them.

pourmeanotherglass Sat 08-Dec-12 14:54:49

surely the child protection worries only apply if you share the images on facebook.

If they are purely for you and you children to view, then there isn't any risk.

ilovesooty Sat 08-Dec-12 14:56:34

If they are purely for you and you children to view, then there isn't any risk

But how on earth could the school know that?

I think foster parents aren't allowed to give permission for filming. Ds1's school has the rule because they have fostered children attending, ds2 and ds3's school allow filming (quick chance for anyone to object before the performance) because there are no fostered children.

I find the performances without all the shuffling to get the best shot better tbh smile

WorraLorraTurkey Sat 08-Dec-12 14:58:53

Laurie read my post again.

The kids do take part...just not in the public performance.

Their parents/carers get to see them perform in the school performance which is exactly the same.

What if the op shows it to her family and friends and someone recognizes a child and passes that info on to someone else?

The reason for no filming is because there are too many "what ifs"

DameMargotFountain Sat 08-Dec-12 15:01:12

i'm really angry that i fell for this thread too

<brings mulled wine>

Nooneelseisallowedafergus Sat 08-Dec-12 15:01:22

I just had to sort some laundry - hope that doesn't breach any child protection laws.

Thank you for your informative replies. I didn't actually think about the child protection thing. I just assumed it was peadophile prevention policy. PPP.

Anyway. They did allow photos of your own child, as much as was possible on a crowded stage, but no filming. So I can't really see the difference? They did ask us not to put any photos on any social media sites, and of course I won't do that. (even though two of my friends have done this, but instagrammed the other children's faces to make them blurry).

The clips are just for me and my immediate family to enjoy.

But I do take on board all your advise. But still confused how photos are ok but not videos.

SugaricePlumFairy Sat 08-Dec-12 15:02:12


The school forbid any filming.

OP said bollocks to that, I'm filming anyway!

Great respect towards the school. hmm

Nooneelseisallowedafergus Sat 08-Dec-12 15:02:42

And I am not a troll. Just naive.

WorraLorraTurkey Sat 08-Dec-12 15:04:39

Photos are allowed but not videos because it's quite simple to photograph just your own child.

If you're videoing your child walking across the stage and doing whatever their part in the play consists of, you're going to get the faces of a whole lot of others in the shot.

It's not rocket science OP.

WorraLorraTurkey Sat 08-Dec-12 15:06:29

Plus there's sound

So when the teacher mentions "The children here at blah blah school", anyone viewing it on a social media site will know.

Nooneelseisallowedafergus Sat 08-Dec-12 15:06:38

Ok. I admit. IABU.

But the video is sooooo sweet.

RooneyMara Sat 08-Dec-12 15:07:07

Unreasonable and not too bright.

RooneyMara Sat 08-Dec-12 15:08:02

Oh, x posts.

ilovesooty Sat 08-Dec-12 15:08:21

But the video is sooooo sweet

Oh, well that's ok then. hmm

WorraLorraTurkey Sat 08-Dec-12 15:08:27

Everyone thinks their own child is sweet....I'm sure we all do.

However, I tend to view other people's children as annoying little snot bubbles on legs grin

atacareercrossroads Sat 08-Dec-12 15:09:03

In that case op its more likely imo that the school have made a dvd of it and want to rinse the parents of a tenner in the run up to xmas

I honestly don't see the issue as long as you're not one of these parents who shares every aspect of your kids life with the world.

DoesntTurkeyNSproutSoupDragOn Sat 08-Dec-12 15:09:13

instagram is not a verb

YABU for that alone.

Angelico Sat 08-Dec-12 15:09:33

OP I don't know if you are being unreasonable - my first ever sit on fence in 'AIBU'! I'm very dubious of the child protection argument when so many schools do their own recordings and then flog them to parents. And I can totally understand that you would want to record your own child - I would feel exactly the same.

The flip side is that the consequences can potentially be so severe. IMHO it would be better to allow parents to film but ban them uploading - but then it relies on parents making sensible decisions and not being twats and for some this is impossible

So OP I guess my point is I sympathise with your frustration!

RooneyMara Sat 08-Dec-12 15:10:49

Look OP I'd imagine that if any of the other parents noticed you filming it, they probably think less of you because you chose to break the rules while they respectfully adhered to them...what makes you so special that you should be allowed to do this while they're not?

I'm just boggling at your sense of entitlement. Though I am glad to see you accept you were unreasonable from the CP perspective.

MissVerinder Sat 08-Dec-12 15:11:05

As a foster carer of I would go ballistic if ant school tried to say my dc couldn't take part (as in worras example). Looked after children have enough to cope with without schools discriminating against them

^^ What Laurie said with (jingle) bells on.

OP you are being unreasonable. And selfish and thoughtless etc etc.

Oh you should have said the video was sooooo sweet YANBU at all hmm

RooneyMara Sat 08-Dec-12 15:12:25

And of course, there's the yearly thread titled 'AIBU to upload my recording of the nativity on FB?' After all, the school shouldn't have allowed filming if they didn't want people to share footage...

do you see the problem.

TandB Sat 08-Dec-12 15:12:53

The problem is that if you are the kind of person who is prone to such major attacks of PFBitis that you just can't control yourself and find yourself overcome with the need to ignore the no filming rule, you are probably also going to be vulnerable to just not being ale to resist the urge to put it on facebook.

The school can't control what people do with the film once they have it, so they are trying to stop it being taken in the first place.

SorryMyCandyCaneLollipop Sat 08-Dec-12 15:13:41


I have two adopted children who could be easily recognised and traced by their birth family if they were spotted on an "innocent" clip like this.

Schools have rules to protect children like mine.

It makes me very cross that some people just don't bloody think.

WorraLorraTurkey Sat 08-Dec-12 15:13:49

Do jingle bells prevent you from reading?

<< Confuddled >>

Nooneelseisallowedafergus Sat 08-Dec-12 15:15:14

I have never been good at reading with music on.

SugaricePlumFairy Sat 08-Dec-12 15:16:24

the school did ask us not to put any photos on social media.........even though two of my friends have already done this

hmm do you or your friends have no regard or respect of what the school ask?

5dcsandallthelittlesantahats Sat 08-Dec-12 15:16:51

YABU if they specifically said no filming - there is probably a reason for this ( specific family/child who need to be protected).
At my childrens school they send a letter asking if there are any objections to filming, if there are im guessing it would be banned but since it has never been banned there must have never been any objections!.

I have to say filming the whole performance seems overkill to me. I have a pic of each of mine on stage, the rest of the play is other peoples children and tbh I dont really want film of them grin.

ilovesooty Sat 08-Dec-12 15:19:38

do you or your friends have no regard or respect of what the school ask?

Evidently not, if it means they can't film their own special little snowflakes.

gomummygone Sat 08-Dec-12 15:25:10


And selfish.
And thoughtless.

TalkinPeace2 Sat 08-Dec-12 15:29:06

Did you have a cigarette in the school hall too? As that is banned.

It is such a shame when parents watch their screen rather than their children.

pigletmania Sat 08-Dec-12 15:39:12

YANBU very sad that times have come to this. When I was at primary school it was usual for parents to film school plays. You only get this moment fr. Short time.

pigletmania Sat 08-Dec-12 15:40:55

I think it's fine if op does not put it on Facebook o other media sights, ad just for personal use

threesocksfullofchocs Sat 08-Dec-12 15:43:28

my dd is classed as a "looked after child" hmm
so I would be careful about using that expresion as a reason why people can't film at schools.
she lives at home with her mum and dad.(me and dh)

trueblood1fan Sat 08-Dec-12 15:45:49

am preying op is a troll either that or a very very very stoopid woman who thinks the world revolves around her & her precious dc. if not a wind up, delete your video if it contains other peoples children as you are in the wrong.

TalkinPeace2 Sat 08-Dec-12 15:46:05

What about emailing a still to a friend, who opens the email at work and a person looks over their shoulder

sorry, but the rules are there for sound reasons

at DCs junior school we had a couple of kids who could not be photographed.
The head said no filming but unlimited photos after the play
(during which those children were snuck out of the room)
the court order said no pictures - any parent doing so was in breach of the court order.

And once those kids left, then plays were full of parents looking at camcorder screens rather than the performance again.

DayShiftDoris Sat 08-Dec-12 16:03:21


OFSTED want evidence based, risk assessed policies that are inclusive to all whilst safeguarding children. The very fact that you are aware of how they get round the issue is actually an issue in itself and identifies the children.

A bit of accommodating doesn't cut it...

I wrote policies for the NHS trust I worked for and there are similar issues that HAVE to be written in before they can be accepted in practice. Right or wrong (and I am not sure where I sit here) there is no room any longer for organisations to 'accommodate' as they go along...

There is a huge argument against this but it is the way it is...

My son's school does everything by the letter this way and I fell foul of it because I wanted to opt him out of something but the ethos / policy doesnt allow it unless it's all documented, discussed and evidenced...

DayShiftDoris Sat 08-Dec-12 16:11:09

three socks

Most LA's advise blanket ban photography if there is a LAC child in school - its a box ticking exercise but one that is very necessary for a lot of 'Looked after' children.
They do it to stop individual schools / nurseries making a judgement that identifies a child inadvertently because if that happened the circumstances could be disastrous.

But that said 3socks you are correct their are many children who are LAC but at home who it does not necessarily apply to...

OP... I would NOT dream of doing what you did - apart from anything else did you not consider that you might have been asked to leave or if found out banned from future performances?
In short I would have been too scared of being told off!

NannyEggn0gg Sat 08-Dec-12 16:14:37

My school forbids photos and videos.
We take photos and a pretty good video which looks really professional when finished. The inexpensive CDs and DVDs are designed and printed so look good to keep and make excellent presents.

The other advantages are as follows:

Everyone can watch the performance in peace and the children can perform without random parents setting off flashes in their faces and bobbing up and down.
The school makes a little money that offsets the cost of the costumes etc and extra goes towards bringing in outside groups for other events.
We know which children need protecting and act accordingly.

I couldn't believe the poster who said her school prevented children who didn't have permission to be photographed from taking part - how mean!

NannyEggn0gg Sat 08-Dec-12 16:16:30

Oh, and OP - unreasonable is not what I'd have called you if I'd caught you filming when you'd been asked not to!

MargeySimpson Sat 08-Dec-12 16:18:44

Seeing a child on a ropey phone video on facebook is only the same as seeing them shopping/onthestreet/atathemepark/onholiday and coming across someone they know, who then passes on where they are or follows them. I've seen people from my childhood in disney world, florida on the otherside of the world.

YANBU OP. I wouldn't of done it beacuse I wouldn't of wanted to be in trouble with the teachers, not for child protection reasons!

omgmydd1isnearly16amIoldenough Sat 08-Dec-12 16:19:45

I have also found that the school produced dvd's are done in such a way that they will play on computers etc but cannot be copied or sent to FB or any other social media website.

Most people think this is a way for schools to make money but I also agree with the thread above about watching the performance in peace and it not disrupting the children.

We recently had our dancing show and had to tell two parents to stop videoing who got into a strop and left even before their kids had danced shock

MargeySimpson Sat 08-Dec-12 16:22:36

my ds's nursery has a calender all the parents get, you need to sign a permission form, if you don't return it, they don#t get to be in the calender, end of.

This is probably the only time on mumsnet I agree with Worra!

MargeySimpson Sat 08-Dec-12 16:23:59

In cases of, if you don't let the one who hasn't got permission in the play, it's not fair. I don't think it's fair on the other 99% of the school who's parents can't have a memory of the day to share with family because of one child!

MummytoKatie Sat 08-Dec-12 16:33:27

Margey Seriously?!? You think it is more important to be able to show granny the 37 seconds of your child being second snowflake on the left than it is that a child who has been through an incredibly difficult situation gets to actually take part in the show.

I guess it depends who you think childhood is for - the child or the parents / grandparents / aunties / second cousins twice removed.

I have a very poor visual memory so will genuinely struggle to accurately remember these moments. But I still get the point.

ErikNorseman Sat 08-Dec-12 16:39:28

The school will be privy to any sensitive information and when filming the DVD can ensure that no children are included who shouldn't be. Parents obviously won't have that information. It's not just about flogging DVDs.

MeToo2 Sat 08-Dec-12 16:41:50

I did the same thing. Not the whole thing, just a short clip of my DC singing their little song. I also took a few photos. We were expressly asked not to take photos or video at the beginning of the performance. No forewarning. I had hunted about my cluttered office to make sure I found my camera - I am a proud mummy of 3 year old DC1 and there was no way I was leaving there without a photo! The reasons given for them not wanting photos/video had absolutely nothing to do with child protection. Namely, it was that some children get upset/nervous about it and it can get in the way of other parents seeing performance. I didn't feel these reasons were sufficient for me not to have a record of my child's performance. I turned off flash so children wouldn't be disturbed and stayed in my seat and tried to be as discreet as possible. Actually, video is mainly of two ladies sat in front of me, with DC peeking through a small gap!

I'm not sorry at all. grin I would do it again in a heartbeat, despite the looks and comments. But then, I'm not British, so maybe it's easier for me to not bow to social pressure!

BTW, I don't even put my own kids' pics on FB, so child protection not really an issue.

exoticfruits Sat 08-Dec-12 16:44:14

People spoil it by all filming and photographing -it means that they are not really watching at the time.

jamdonut Sat 08-Dec-12 16:47:12

My daughter's senior school forbids filming for protection reasons...and it kills me becase we have no record of those moments when she was singing solos etc sad in the school's productions,or the talent show. The best we could be allowed was sound recordings on my phone, but it was rubbish reproduction. Its horrible not to be able to capture these moments. Luckily, her Junior school allowed filming, so we have those, but its her grown up performances I want!!

WorraLorraTurkey Sat 08-Dec-12 16:50:14


It's an OFTED outstanding rated school.

The kids are happy

The parents and carers are happy

It works for the school and OFSTED are delighted with it.

Sorry if you don't like or accept that but it's the way it is.

"I did not feel those reasons were sufficient enough"

So you are happy to ignore the rules because you don't agree with the reason because you are a "proud mummy"

So when another parent at school breaks a rule that they think is ok, maybe one that negativly impacts your dc, you won't say a word will you?

What an utterly horrible, entitled, selfish statement.
Proud mummy? Will that be held up as a reason for the next selfish thing you do?

WorraLorraTurkey Sat 08-Dec-12 16:52:09

Oh and I should add, I'm only aware because I'm the Vice CoG.

But either way there are kid's whose parents can't get off work for the main performance so they attend the school one.

SugaricePlumFairy Sat 08-Dec-12 16:55:43


You sound like you're revelling in being a selfish entitled Proud Mummy

Will you too raise your child to feel they can do as they please at school.

"I am a proud mummy of 3 year old DC1 and there was no way I was leaving there without a photo!"


Cannot say what I think or will be deleted.

Doinmummy Sat 08-Dec-12 17:01:18

I didn't feel these reasons were sufficient for me not to have a record of my child's performance

How entitled are you ?

'Tried to be discreet' <arf>

ilovesooty Sat 08-Dec-12 17:24:20

I didn't feel these reasons were sufficient for me not to have a record of my child's performance

I doubt if your sense of entitlement would have seen any reason as valid. Your statements indicate a complete lack of consideration or decency.

Viviennemary Sat 08-Dec-12 17:32:47

YABU. If the school asked you not to film it why did you film it. But on the other hand if all the parents agree that it's OK to film then why not.

NannyEggn0gg Sat 08-Dec-12 17:38:54

Schools really don't stand a chance these days, do they?


LaurieBlueBell Sat 08-Dec-12 17:40:44


All of the above

NannyEggn0gg Sat 08-Dec-12 17:41:05

Apt name.
Can you read? Do you now see that 'social pressure' has nothing to do with it?

manicinsomniac Sat 08-Dec-12 17:44:45

Worra - do you know what would happen if a no-photos child was talented enough to have a lead part? Would they still have to be chorus so that the main show could go on without them? Or would there be an understudy?

Not meaning to be hostile to you, I know it's not your rule. It just seems so mean.

festivelyfocussed Sat 08-Dec-12 17:47:22

Of course.
You broke a rule that is in place for the protection of children. It is not your business to decide that this rule is unnecessary. Ppl with responsibility for such matters have made a ruling to safeguard the children in that school. I can't imagine why you would think it's reonable to flout that.

YoucanringmySleighBells Sat 08-Dec-12 17:48:34

I am estranged from my family due to abuse issues. I would be devastated if they found out which school my dd went to.
Sorry YABU

MrsCampbellBlack Sat 08-Dec-12 17:52:24

Its amazing that people used to be able to watch their children do stuff and enjoy the moment and remember it. Why does everything nowadays have to be filmed/photographed? I just don't get it. People spend so much time filming they don't enjoy the moment.

And that's before all the obvious child protection stuff and how bloody annoying it is to have an iphone waving in front of you.

So OP you were most unreasonable.

RubyGates Sat 08-Dec-12 17:58:10

I hate the parents that insist on doing this, I haven't seen my son in his Christmas play that he was so excites about because of the forest of waving arms. It's so annoying and entitled. What makes you and your child more important than me and my child?

Strangely, a link form the Beeb, says it's not illegal.

MissCellania Sat 08-Dec-12 18:14:06

I don't really understand the child protection point. If I film, focusing on my child (not that I do, but still), and capture a blurry image of an at risk child, how can that be found by anyone, exactly? By what mechanism is that a danger to anyone else, whether its on my phone or on my facebook? And I mean, how exactly not a vague how very dare you endanger children but I'm not sure how exactly.

It's a very British thing. No bans where I am, no-one seems to be bothered by it at all. And I've never read a school play filming leads to horrible tragedy headline yet.

valiumredhead Sat 08-Dec-12 18:15:59

Its the risk of estranged parents finding their children though facebook etc.Its a very real danger to some families


Does there have to be a horrible tragedy headline before people stop being so selfish?

ChippingInAWinterWonderland Sat 08-Dec-12 18:21:00

There is NO risk if you keep the short snippets of film for your viewing only and do not show friends or put it on the net - absolutely no risk to any other child

valiumredhead Sat 08-Dec-12 18:25:14

There is very little risk, not absolutely no risk.

MissCellania Sat 08-Dec-12 18:25:34

Well there has to be an actual reason to tell people not to, rather just a random notion.

Acekicker Sat 08-Dec-12 18:38:11

The reasons given for them not wanting photos/video had absolutely nothing to do with child protection. Namely, it was that some children get upset/nervous about it and it can get in the way of other parents seeing performance. I didn't feel these reasons were sufficient for me not to have a record of my child's performance.

So if they'd stood up and said "because Robbie is living in a refuge because his dad tried to kill his mum and it is vital that he doesn't find them again" you would have been ok with it? Did it even occur to you that the school might have very good reasons not to want it recorded/photographed but they weren't the sort of reasons they could give out?

Picturesinthefirelight Sat 08-Dec-12 18:44:01


Aside from any child protection issues there are also copyright issues.

If a school has used a bought in nativity which many do especially if none of the teachers are good at music or scriptwriting or simply don't have the time you have to pay for the video rights

You have to send in a form saying how many videos have been produced regardless of whether they were sold or not and pay accordingly.

quoteunquote Sat 08-Dec-12 18:46:14

A friend of ours who fosters, had the two children that she and her husband have had for years, removed from their care and sent else where because it came out that someone had filmed a school event with them in it, and it had been shared.

It was devastating for those children, and heart breaking for the family.

the school had said no filming then allowed some parent to film, the clips were shared, foster mother was horrified it had happened, deputy head thought she was making a unnecessary fuss, and allowed filming.

Some children are at risk, to put them in danger for a few photos or a clip, is horrid.

flowerytaleofNewYork Sat 08-Dec-12 18:54:20

Ooh does being a "proud mummy" entitle me to do whatever I like now?

Leaving aside the very important child protection issues, parents who teach children by example that rules only apply to them if they agree with them are other parents' and teachers' worst nightmare.

Pandemoniaa Sat 08-Dec-12 19:04:33

I am a proud mummy of 3 year old DC1 and there was no way I was leaving there without a photo! .... I didn't feel these reasons were sufficient for me not to have a record of my child's performance.

All of you that think your child is so special that you can disregard the safety of other children should be banned from school performances. I don't care how "sweet" the video is, from comments made on this thread it is perfectly obvious that people will put their videos/photographs on social media since it is clear that whatever the school asks, there are still enough stupid parents that think that sensible rules don't apply to them.

YA all U as well as being entirely selfish and self-obsessed.

photosandvideos Sat 08-Dec-12 19:41:17


And I suppose you'll be putting the clips you have on fb/the internet e.t.c so all your family can admire your son. Bad idea.

I am one of 'those' parents who has refused permission for photographs/videos of my child to be taken, especially when they will appear in public/on websites/newspapers e.t.c

And its got absolutely sodall to do with paedophilia.

I've had a v.estranged family member become obsessed with the notion of seeing my child. And has made (credible) threats to abduct my child should they ever gain access.

Unfortunately, through pot luck mainly, this person has rung every pre-school in the town I live in until they struck pot lucky, and were given precisely the information they needed about my child. They found this out by pretending to be a fictitious social worker.

This person has also been known to trawl facebook, and again throuh pot luck found a picture of a child's birthday party my child had attended. My child was in that picture, with me behind them cuddling them, so instantly recognizable. My child's image was then used in an unofficial 'missing' poster campaign to try and gain more info. Extremely distressing.

I'm sorry OP, but the pre-school wouldn't have said this unless they have very good reason to do so. Tonight there may well be a child at direct risk because of your actions. And unless you have been in a situation where you are trying to actively prevent someone accessing your child/keep them safe e.t.c then you won't fully understand why it seems so petty yet so crucial

Enjoy your pics/vids OP

That's awful photos and a good example of why schools planning for the worst is important.

As well as the should be obvious child protection issues, there is also the fact that watching the Nativity through a sea of video cameras and smart phones is shit. Put the electronics down people and live in the moment. You have this thing called a brain and it conveniently 'remembers' things for you.

Picturesinthefirelight Sat 08-Dec-12 21:16:15

I am a very very proud mum. Last year dd was in panto with an ex soap actor she has danced in an opera with a touring Russian company and sang in a choir with an X factor finalist.

None of which were able to be videoed.

Dressing room photos in costume were tsken& I have my memories.

Performances are meant to be seen properly not through a tiny video with umpteen others videoing getting in the way

Very very selfish.

TandB Sat 08-Dec-12 21:26:01

Does anyone else actually have photos/film of themselves in school performances?

I've got masses of photos of myself as a child, as well as cinefilm, now on DVD. I don't have one single picture of me in any of the school performances I remember being in before sixthform, which would strongly suggest that photography wasn't allowed back then either.

Picturesinthefirelight Sat 08-Dec-12 21:27:24

I have backstage photos of me in amdram but not school performances.

Halfawife Sat 08-Dec-12 21:27:40

Who says OP is going to post it on YouTube and Facebook?? It is a personal recording to be shown in the privacy of your own home for your own memories. Not everything needs to be shared online.

SneezySnatcher Sat 08-Dec-12 21:33:16

YABU. There are children at my school who are at a very real risk of being abducted and taken abroad. We have photos of people who can/can't collect them, passwords and many other measures to safeguard them. It is children like these who need protecting. I'd be completely against the school saying they couldn't take part so that parents can film their own children.

FestiveFiggy Sat 08-Dec-12 21:33:33

Yabu why should you be able to break the rules and have these memories preserved on film whilst other more rule abiding parents miss out!! Things like this piss me off royally!! Great example to set your Dcs OP.

ChippingInAWinterWonderland Sat 08-Dec-12 21:37:33

photosandvideos - Tonight there may well be a child at direct risk because of your actions No there wont. Not if the OP hasn't uploaded it to the internet.

There is absolutely NO risk to any other child what-so-ever with what the OP has done. She has already said she wont upload it to the internet.

Jakadaal Sat 08-Dec-12 21:41:55

Sorry I agree with Sorry for exactly the same reason - my adoptive DCs safety is tantamount to me. I know OP has said that the video won't go on any social networking sites but it could be shown to neighbours, work colleagues etc etc and it just takes one person to 'think' they recognise a child .......

Sorry OP don't mean to be really judgey but this is something adoptive parents have to be aware of at all times

SorryMyCandyCaneLollipop Sat 08-Dec-12 21:47:04

Exactly Jack - 3 degrees of separation and all that.

TheCortanaThatStoleChristmas Sat 08-Dec-12 22:11:24

I think the problem is some schools using it as an opportunity to flog you a DVD and schools doing it for child protection.

MY DS's school sent a photo out of him in the school newsletter (I had ticked that it was not ok to take photos of him for use in school brochures and literature) for all to see, children dropped copies in the road on the way home. I asked for a colour copy to keep (He was holding a fucking falcon!) and was told no due to child protection. I kicked up and got a copy for my own. Everyone else had one so I wanted a nice copy.

Situations like this, where the School shows no common sense give parents a skewed sense of why certain rules are in place and who they are protecting.

threesocksfullofchocs Sat 08-Dec-12 22:18:03

oh give the poor Op a break
if people don't ask, how will they learn?

WorraLorraTurkey Sat 08-Dec-12 22:22:29

Manic there are always understudies for the lead parts so one would play the lead in the school performance, and the other in the public performance.

Which if I remember rightly, they do anyway to give as many kids as they can a fair go.

MyNutcrackerSuiteAudrina Sat 08-Dec-12 22:38:19

DD and I were once in a very vulnerable situation. I used to see a lot of nursery / school play videos and DVDs in charity shops and was always made to feel like a nutter by the staff whenever I raised a concern. I took to quietly buying and binning them instead.

I've just realised they thought I was a "peedo-on-every-street-corner" merchant blush

manicinsomniac Sun 09-Dec-12 00:26:41

Thanks for answering WorraLorra I like the idea of sharing parts like that -a LOT of extra rehearsal work though!

kungfupanda Yes, I have some videos and photos. I have the videos of my nursery school nativity (1987), several dance shows (1986-2001) and 2 different school plays (about 1995 and 1998 I think). So it did used to be allowed in at least some schools etc

imdreamingofaskyebluechristmas Sun 09-Dec-12 00:34:00

I wish I could film my DDs school play but due to some children being in child protection we are not allowed to.

Yes it is annoying but those are the rules and for a very good reason...

NannyEggn0gg Sun 09-Dec-12 01:14:30

What's to learn? She was asked told not to and did it anyway.

And I'm pretty sure she'll do it again. As with the others that think it's their god-given right to what they want as far as their precious DCs are concerned.

zippey Sun 09-Dec-12 01:35:44

Lots of responces - Apologies if this has been said already. If the school said no photos/videos but then are willing to sell the video to people, surely this negates any child protection worries.

I dont think the OP is being unreasonable and Im glad there are people with the guts to stand up to and break stupid rules. If there are child protection issues on hand then without wanting to sound too heartless - that shouldnt be any concern to the OP.

I hope when my kid gets older I will be able to video/picture these moments. I dont see much difference between this kind of event and other events such as weddings etc. Also, Id have no qualms about putting them on the internet.

Privacyrules Sun 09-Dec-12 01:56:26

My dd's suffered serious sexual abuse by a family member which their father discovered and covered up to save his family's 'good name'.

He now has no access to either of them, but I'm pretty bloody certain that if he found out where I had moved us to he'd be here like a shot as he lest feel he I'd any wrong.

Selfish people like you OP put my children's safety in jeapordy, I hope you're proud.

Mosman Sun 09-Dec-12 01:58:22

If it was to protect the schools rights to sell the DVD then that should have been raised in the proper channels, not sneaking around in an underhand manner which makes YOU look suspicious because if I'd caught you filming i'd have knocked your block off.

Privacyrules Sun 09-Dec-12 02:07:17

That should read, 'he doesn't feel he has done anything wrong'.

bunchamunchycrunchycarrots Sun 09-Dec-12 02:27:02

Facebook is the work of the devil. Fact.

I have nothing else to say...

zippey Sun 09-Dec-12 02:39:17

bunchamunchy - just because you say its a fact doesnt make it so!

Shame you think that about Facebook, some would say this about MN, I dont believe either is the case. Both are actually excellent ways to communicate with other people.

My DS is only 1 so not at this stage yet...but surely children shouldn't be performing in the first place if their identity would put them at so much risk? Don't we have CCTV everywhere and so-and-so who knows so-and-so that still would be putting them at risk anyway? Are we really living in an age where I can't record or photograph any of my son's actions because of the likelihood that a kid in the background might be identified? Where do we draw the line?

Mosman Sun 09-Dec-12 05:36:56

You can record away in your own home as much as you like. Or if you promise not to put the images out into the public domain where you loose control of what happens to it that might be a compromise. In fact that may well be the way forward, I can sue you if I find my child online after you've promised not to forward it, that works.

Muminwestlondon Sun 09-Dec-12 07:09:47

My DD's primary school had no problem with parents filming and in fact made their own video as well, copies of which could be bought.

My DD's music club however had a blanket ban on filming. They said it was to prevent embarassing clips ending up on You Tube, but the real reason was because they had children who have been removed from their parents contentiously.

If you cannot influence the policy, then you have to grit your teeth and bear it. There cannot be blatant disregard of the rules by one parent; it really pisses the other parents off for a start!

I agree FB is the work of the devil. I have a 13 year old son though and the problems it causes.... I know schools hate it too.

Anyway why do people find it so hard to stick to the rules as far as schools are concerned? There are always the few that don't like to be told what to do.

auntpetunia Sun 09-Dec-12 08:41:36

Any parent Who takes photos when expressly asked not to is so Selfish in my opinion. But I can guarantee they won't have any idea of the problems it can cause when suddenly an estranged parent or other family member turns up .I have had parents and children hiding in my office whilst we wait for the police to remove the family member from site, children have had to then leave their school and friends and go to emergency accommodation, all because some "proud mummy " put a video of school show on Facebook and she didn't have tight security so friends of friends could see it." schools dn make these rules for fun. But equally they can't and shouldn't stop children who are vulnerable taking part just so proud mummy can take her PFBs picture.

freddiefrog Sun 09-Dec-12 08:55:51

I'm one of those parents who say no to kids being photographed. I don't mind mine being photographed, but my foster child is not. My FC is not allowed contact with their parents. FC's parents are not allowed to know where they live or go to school and if FC is found they will have to be moved from here for their own safety

Our school do not have a blanket no-photo ban but parents aren't allowed to post up pics or videos on FB that include children other than their own. If any are ever found there will be a blanket ban

zippey you are truly disgusting.
You'd have no problems putting what you want on the Internet, even if it means putting a child at risk?
But as long as it doesn't effect you eh?
Let's hope you are never in a position where you or your children need protecting because sadly there are always selfish idiots who will plaster stuff on the Internet for the world to see.

Kungfu I have photos and videos of both me and my sisters' school and dancing performances. Back then parents weren't allowed to take photos/film because there was a "proper" copy being made and the school said they didnt want it ruined with cameras/video cameras getting in the way.
This is obviously pre internet and pre camera phone, so the schools were then completely using their copy as the reason rather than child protection

While I'm a bit hmm if the school are filming and selling their own copy in your school OP, I assume they get the money from this and it will benefit your child, so is a good thing smile If it is for CP reasons, then there is obviously no argument. If you try to argue with CP reasons, it just makes you sound like a bit of a twat tbh.

You may not be going to upload it to the internet, but that doesnt mean everyone else who saw you recording and decided they didnt have to follow the rules either would be as sensible. And making it "the rule" that videos cant be uploaded would be a lot harder to police than a blanket ban...

Plus, blatently breaking rules is hardly a great example to set your child.

Slainte Sun 09-Dec-12 09:17:48

zippey your post has left me speechless. Your utter disregard for the safety and feelings of others is astounding, especially if you've actually read this thread. angry

trueblood1fan Sun 09-Dec-12 09:21:38

wonders where op has gone?! hopefully deleting footage but cant see that happening?!

ChristmasTreegles Sun 09-Dec-12 10:33:53

It's a clear case of selfish people who feel the rules don't apply to them. They are teaching their children the same mindset. The very definition of entitled.

Utterly selfish. Completely uncaring about how it could affect another child.

But they would be the first ones to kick off if it was THEIR child that was at risk.

Soopermum1 Sun 09-Dec-12 10:46:46

Aside from the serious issues mentioned. It is extremely annoying when you're trying to watch these things with everyone waving cameras, phones, tablets and video camera around. When I attend, I take a couple of snaps on my phone and I'm done. I enjoy the rest of the performance. What is it with 'recording the moment'? There will be plenty of Nativity plays/ Xmas concerts to enjoy, will you record them all?

fairylightsandtinsel Sun 09-Dec-12 10:52:22

sorry, haven't read whole thread but could the OP not get her son dressed up and have him do the songs at home and record that? For all the CP issues mentioned on p1 and the basic principle of sticking to rules, the OP is BU.

Smellslikecatspee Sun 09-Dec-12 13:10:59

To the OP and other who agree with her can I suggest you wander over to the other thread about this subject (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!) and have a look at these 3 posts, actually read all of it but these 3 highlight personal experiences.

nevertoldanyone Tue 13-Dec-11 07:43:19
Aliz07 Tue 13-Dec-11 12:44:57
canyou Tue 13-Dec-11 11:02:42

And then if you still think that is just so not fais that you cant take pics/video can I respectfully suggest that you are a twat.

Mosman Sun 09-Dec-12 13:47:55

It's the same people who get their bloody phones out at concerts, Disney parades, carnivals etc just live in the moment if you ever watch that video back I'll eat my hat and how much do you miss buggering around with the settings trying to get the angel right etc etc

MummytoKatie Sun 09-Dec-12 14:24:27

zippey Lots of people have posted very eloquently about why videoing and posting on FB puts vulnerable children at risk. For whatever reason you choose to ignore these risks for other people's children.

But have you thought of the risk you are putting your own children in? I'm as fluffy a liberal as they come but even I realise that if a family are escaping from someone then that someone is probably not a "lovely chap but a bit misunderstood".

But in fact they are a danger to children. And you want them outside your child's school gates?

If someone is violent and wants to get at their child do you think they would be concerned about whether your child got knocked over and injured in the process?

Do you really want someone who watched your FB video of your child being Mary 14 times so they could identify if "third shepherd on the left" was the child that was cruelly snatched from them to be close enough to your (now nice and familiar) child to touch them if they abused their own child?

Yes - the risks for your child are low but they are not non existent.

Flossiechops Sun 09-Dec-12 14:37:18

Yanvvbu!! Parents like you also attend my dc school. They are very special and exempt of the rules that apply to the rest of us. They sit there with their iPhones on and film the whole thing then put it on fb. I do wonder which part of 'no filming' they don't understand angry

Flossiechops Sun 09-Dec-12 15:44:45

Meant to say YABVVU! But I think you may have got that message by now!

Very interesting thread! Do the same rules apply for official class photographs? What happens to the at risk children for these? Are they left out of the pic? <genuine question>

Can't help but think people's anger should be directed at members of society who's actions have resulted in these rules, rather than having a go at the OP for wanting to film some precious childhood moments.

fossil97 Sun 09-Dec-12 23:57:32

It's a nightmare. My DS are not meant to be photographed for reasons already mentioned on the thread. I fill in the form at every single thing they go to. To avoid it they would have to do no Cubs, no team sports, no school events, never win anything, not be in the school play or sports day... Being left out is pretty crap.

The class photos are fine - they just sit on people's mantelpieces, but if they had done that "Starting at school" newspaper supplement thing in DS's year I'd have pulled him out of it.

The Beavers leader rang me up once in a panic that a small picture of DS (not named) had appeared on a website of an area-wide event, but then I picked him up the next week and there was a press cutting on the noticeboard showing him receiving a badge - I never knew.

FWIW our school has a rule - fine to photograph or video for private use, but no putting on the Internet or facebook. I think that seems fair. The sort of people posing a danger are not usually private investigators but anyone can hang around Facebook or read the local paper.

MyLittleAprilSunshine Mon 10-Dec-12 01:10:14

I don't think you're being unreasonable, as long as you don't post it to a public website such as Facebook or YouTube where anyone could get it. If it's just in the family home, I can't see it putting yours or any child in danger.

MrsTerrysChocolateOrange Mon 10-Dec-12 01:20:16

The problem is that this is a clear case of the-rules-don't-apply-to-me. So, the school says no pictures and people take pictures. Everyone says it's OK because they won't post them on FB. So, the school allows pictures but please don't put them on FB. Everyone puts them on FB.

The school can't win, the vulnerable children can't win but that's OK because some random you are friends with on FB got to see your PFB in a play. hmm

MyLittleAprilSunshine Mon 10-Dec-12 01:32:35

But if nobody knows, it's surely not hurting anyone.

It's hard to say, because my parents were always allowed to have videos/photos of me now it's protection mad. Now when my little girl is a child of course I want her safe, but isn't there a certain line that's being crossed here with the overkill? Why isn't it OK anymore.

Just a personal opinion. I've never done it myself and probably wouldn't or perhaps I'd take a photo before the show with a couple of their little friends and ask the parents if it's OK (no reason not to really).

IneedAsockamnesty Mon 10-Dec-12 02:39:11

Cameras phones memory cards ect get lost or stolen all the time, things get put of laptops that then may get sent off to repair or binned or stolen.

Over the years I have relocated hundreds of families for the second or third time due to twats who are to stupid to think beyond there own wants.

Not directed at anybody just advisory information but if you help violent abusers track down people who had to flee from them because you are to stupid to know better and to selfish not to, them you are a total cunt.

AltinkumATEalltheTurkey Mon 10-Dec-12 07:03:03

I get annoyed at this, but can see it from so many levels.

I get in our school they state its for child protection, but yet sell the production cd for £5. Where is the child being protected in this instance???

However I do like it that no camera or photography is allowed for the benefit of the children and also the childrens health (epilepsy etc..)

In our school you need 100% written consent for the production to be recorded, if not it doesn't go ahead.

But I see it as a easy way to make money for the school which tbh is always a good thing.

DoesntTurkeyNSproutSoupDragOn Mon 10-Dec-12 07:06:57

...but yet sell the production cd for £5. Where is the child being protected in this instance???

Any vulnerable children could have been positioned at the edges so that they are easily edited out/not filmed.

AltinkumATEalltheTurkey Mon 10-Dec-12 07:09:59

Not at our school, I'm on the board, if 100% written permission is not given, then the filming doesn't go ahead, we brought this in a few years ago, this was implemented a few year ago, when their was a big media upheaval with it.

Our school still cite child protecting as a ex social worker this is balloons also.

ChristmasTreegles Mon 10-Dec-12 07:46:52

<<<<The problem is that this is a clear case of the-rules-don't-apply-to-me. So, the school says no pictures and people take pictures. Everyone says it's OK because they won't post them on FB. So, the school allows pictures but please don't put them on FB. Everyone puts them on FB. >>>>>

This. Exactly. If people weren't so blasted entitled about "rules don't apply to me", then this wouldn't such a huge risk. I guess perhaps those that don't like the rule and do it anyway should take a long look at themselves and realise that they ARE the reason this rule exists.

<<<<Any vulnerable children could have been positioned at the edges so that they are easily edited out/not filmed.>>>>

So you're allowing the vulnerable children to participate, but limiting how they can participate. It's okay as long as they're on the outskirts of it all. How charming.

I cannot for the life of me understand why people find it so difficult to understand.

DoesntTurkeyNSproutSoupDragOn Mon 10-Dec-12 07:48:06

Clearly you misunderstood what I was saying.

DoesntTurkeyNSproutSoupDragOn Mon 10-Dec-12 07:49:20

I was explaining how the school who was selling DVDs could be doing so without compromising child protection, not making a suggestion.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 10-Dec-12 08:00:19

There has to be a balance when deciding on these rules, and I don't think a blanket ban on pictures is fair to everyone.

School Christmas plays, especially nativity plays, are special for parents and its perfectly understandable that they should want to film them. It's not the filming of the plays that's a problem, it's the fact that they might be put on social network sites. But let's face it, most parents can be trusted to take a film and then keep it private, I don't see why we shouldn't be trusted.

I don't want my children's school to treat me like an idiot. I have enough common sense to work out that I have no right to put pictures of other people's children on the Internet whether or not they are at risk, so why should I be prevented from filming my own child at a special time in their childhood?

Our school allows filming, but the head asks that any pictures or films be kept private, and that is enough IMO.

Schools should do a performance that is allowed to be filmed and one that isn't if they have a child that requires extra protection.

Jingleallthejay Mon 10-Dec-12 08:40:48

so the ruled dont apply to your son then he is a special child hmm yabu and wrong to flaunt school rules about filming because you wanted to capture a memory

Jingleallthejay Mon 10-Dec-12 08:41:22


herethereandeverywhere Mon 10-Dec-12 08:51:24

OP I think YANBU and these rules infuriate me. We are expected to forgo a proper memory and record of these special events because of hysterical rules.

1. Paedo mania. I really don't understand what is so enticing to a paedo about a school play. It's a bunch of kids being kids. On that basis we she never let our children into a public place during daylight in case a paedo looks at them? hmm If it's being able to replay the recording in private that's the issue then sky+ and many cbeebies programmes would do exactly the same job.

2. Child protection. How many estranged families of abusive threatening parents that require their location to remain secret are there in each school? The average must be less than 1 per school. Therefore special rules should be put in place where these exceptional cases are, rather than a blanket ban for spurious reasons. If there is real and present danger then a ban on filming school plays seems wholly inadequate anyway.

3. As mentioned above I'm unsure why you wouldn't want these images of your child made public but if that's your view then don't let them be in the performance!

4. Rules are rules. I'm not sure that teaching a child to blindly follow rules is necessarily a good thing. Are all rules right because they are a rule? My school had a "girls are not allowed to play football" rule. But everyone's entitled to parent moral codes as they see fit.

I genuinely think that schools and kids clubs feel duty-bound to take this ridiculous approach to filming and photos without actually having properly examined WHY and IF those rules are needed.

DoesntTurkeyNSproutSoupDragOn Mon 10-Dec-12 09:10:47

If you don't like a rule, you challenge it in a sensible manner. You don't just ignore it.

cory Mon 10-Dec-12 09:42:48

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 10-Dec-12 08:00:19

"It's not the filming of the plays that's a problem, it's the fact that they might be put on social network sites. But let's face it, most parents can be trusted to take a film and then keep it private, I don't see why we shouldn't be trusted. "

Isn't this a strange response to an OP that specifically states that the poster chose to ignore the request made to the school and where subsequent posts made it clear that she had no idea of the child protection issue? And on a thread where other posters have stated that they think it's their right to put pictures up on facebook?

This thread has made it perfectly clear that not all parents can be trusted. The school has no way of policing what happens once those cameras and phones have left the school hall: the only thing they can influence is what goes on under their noses.

cory Mon 10-Dec-12 09:43:54

herethereandeverywhere Mon 10-Dec-12 08:51:24
"OP I think YANBU and these rules infuriate me. We are expected to forgo a proper memory and record of these special events because of hysterical rules.

2. Child protection. How many estranged families of abusive threatening parents that require their location to remain secret are there in each school? The average must be less than 1 per school. Therefore special rules should be put in place where these exceptional cases are, rather than a blanket ban for spurious reasons. If there is real and present danger then a ban on filming school plays seems wholly inadequate anyway."

I could think of several even in ds's small infants school- and I had no special insights into the school, so there may well have been more.

"4. Rules are rules. I'm not sure that teaching a child to blindly follow rules is necessarily a good thing. Are all rules right because they are a rule? My school had a "girls are not allowed to play football" rule. But everyone's entitled to parent moral codes as they see fit"

Yes, but it is also our job to teach them to distinguish between a moral code and a code of conduct pertaining to any particular building or institution. Or do you go into work and refuse to follow workplace rules because you are entitled to have your own moral code? Basically, if you teach your child that anything they happen to want is their moral right and that rules only apply to other people, they are going to find it very difficult to get any learning done.

I would be very proud of a child of mine challenged a rule on moral grounds. But I would be thoroughly ashamed if a child of mine believed that "I'm speshul" constituted moral grounds.

well if you dont understand after reading this thread, i feel sorry for you. If you cannot comprehend the very real dangers of idiotic, selfish, entitled parents ignoring the rules and filming when it isnt allowed, sticking it up on you tube and facebook for the world to see, then there really is no hope is there?
I do hope none of the rules put in place are ever there to protect your child, I would imagine people like you and the OP would be the first people starting threads about "how dare x ignore the schools rules and put my child in danger"

ChristmasTreegles Mon 10-Dec-12 10:01:54

<<<<<<<We are expected to forgo a proper memory and record of these special events because of hysterical rules.>>>>>

Oh for heaven's sake. How overdramatic. A "proper memory and record of these special events"?!?!?!?! The memory centre in your brain not working? Not able to simply take a snapshot of your child in costume AFTER the nativity/programme??

You know... before the whole routine use of videocameras (and even regular use of cameras), schools still had nativities and programmes. Parents still attended, children still participated, and <gasp> just watched. LOADS of people don't have pictures or films of their childrens (or their own from childhood) school events... I hardly think they're traumatised over it. I know quite a few people that have videos of their children's programmes that have never even watched it.

It's a nativity play, people. Not the Olympics.

Jingleallthejay Mon 10-Dec-12 10:19:39

Oh for heaven's sake. How overdramatic. A "proper memory and record of these special events"?!?!?!?! The memory centre in your brain not working? Not able to simply take a snapshot of your child in costume AFTER the nativity/programme??

^ ^ this my mum can remember me in a t towel sitting sulking in the nativity 36 years ago, you dont need to have video snaps of every bloody section of your childs life, OP are you intending to disobey all the school photography rules through out your child school career, you are as well to start as you go on eh.

precious parents get right on my wick

Tanith Mon 10-Dec-12 10:23:20

Years ago, there were no mobile phones, no videos, no cameras at the school plays. Parents sat and watched, applauded, took their kids home.

Despite all this lack of hardcopy, my mother remembers my very first performance at age 5 of Little Miss Muffet (I got an encore smile). She remembers my brother's as a cat and my sister's as a rabbit. She'd never forget them, or her pride in watching us.

The world did not end because she could not film us, and the plays were so much better without some annoying pest ruining the performance and the kids' concentration by bobbing up and down to take photos. She remarked as much at my niece's play last year.

Jins Mon 10-Dec-12 10:29:18

YABU but it looks like you've been told this already

Focus on watching and enjoying the experience as it happens. These years fly by.

Jingleallthejay Mon 10-Dec-12 10:34:45

These years fly by.

yip before she knows it her child will have left school and grown up and you really dont need all the photies and vidoes you really don't

Picturesinthefirelight Mon 10-Dec-12 10:35:10

Pity, pity. We're tax collectors. WE HAVE NO PITY!

Etched in my Dads brain.

I hope some of these parents get sued for copyright for videoing without a licence.

Kendodd Mon 10-Dec-12 10:35:41

YABU but...

As long as the images are not made put on the internet, even by emailing to friends family, then I don't see how anyone's child is at risk.

Jingleallthejay Mon 10-Dec-12 10:50:59

our primary used to do a photo session in classrooms for nativity that seemed a better idea this was when dd2 was higher up the school though I can remember hers with the parents with the telescopic lens cameras flashing away hmm I also remember parents taking pictures of their kid at 1 christmas concert and then leaving after they had been on !

warriorwoman Mon 10-Dec-12 11:56:27

I think that schools could explain why they don't want parents to film. I never even thought of child protection issues before, although I have been in that situation, not wanting my child to be identified by an ex... Of course, it makes sense, but if there is no explanation, then as a parent you can feel these rules are made purely because of potential paedos.

It is more common for people to post videos and photos on the Internet now and I myself feel very uncomfortable when other people take pictures and I am included in them and then they're posted on social media sites.

I think YABU, but perhaps you didn't fully realise the consequences...

ChristmasTreegles Mon 10-Dec-12 13:02:21

I imagine schools do not go into details about WHY parents can't film because of the self-righteous arrogant prat parents that feel no matter what, the reasons aren't important, that their need to film precious baby's little play is so much more important. hmm Just like on the thread, no matter what reason is mentioned, people argue it.

<browses back through the thread> Yep.. sadly quite a few of them...

fossil97 Mon 10-Dec-12 13:15:21

Exactly, people need to bear in mind that the school doesn't want to identify/highlight to the public at large, including parents, that any particular child is adopted/fostered/looked-after. There may well be children in the school where you don't know about their situation, rightly so. It is a bit of a contradiction that you have to try to protect them without going into too much detail why, but that's the way it is. Certainly in our school there are at least 2 families I know of in this situation - I would be surprised to find a school that didn't have any.

Unfortunately FB Twitter and the internet generally have made it much easier to find people and information.

DoesntTurkeyNSproutSoupDragOn Mon 10-Dec-12 13:17:41

because of the self-righteous arrogant prat parents that feel no matter what, the reasons aren't important, that their need to film precious baby's little play is so much more important. hmm Just like on the thread, no matter what reason is mentioned, people argue it.

<browses back through the thread> Yep.. sadly quite a few of them...

And some where you have misunderstood the post.

DoesntTurkeyNSproutSoupDragOn Mon 10-Dec-12 13:19:22

I think that schools could explain why they don't want parents to film

Of course, a less Frothing Berserker response to this suggestion would be to realise that a simple "For child protection reasons, we can not permit filming of this performance" would be all that is necessary.

herethereandeverywhere Mon 10-Dec-12 13:20:52

cory I still do not understand WHY filming school plays is dangerous! Is it really all of the so-called dangerous estranged parents who are prevented from even knowing the location of their children? How are these dangerous estranged parents using facebook to find their children? Has there been any reported cases of this? Are they watching every video posted by every person??? Or using other contacts such as known friends/associates/geographical locations - in which case school play excerpts are irrelevant. And is the best way to deal with a tiny minority of seriously problem parents to ban all filming and photographs in every school play and child's club in the country? Really?

And if you know of several children in a school whose location is to remain secret has every parent signed a confidentiality agreement? What's to stop parents or school kids talking about the children's location in a public forum? On the bus? On the internet? Is it just assumed everyone will know of the "special situation"? Unless all of these points are adequately dealt with, banning videos is going to do absolutely nothing.

It is a totally spurious reason born of media hysteria. It's the rule that is overdramatic, not the argument against it.

As for memories being in your head, it's rather difficult to share them from there. Yes, I can enjoy them personally - so far as I remember, but grandparents, DH if in work etc can't. And I have to say without photos and videos I'm liable to forget 99% of all the lovely things my kids do. I often look back on what we've taken and realise I'd completely forgotten until I saw it. At my primary school in the 80s everyone's parents took loads of photos and to a lesser extent videos (with huge on the shoulder cameras!) I'm so grateful to my dad for the pics he took.

And it's nothing to do with being "speshl". I question rules before I obey them. If a rule is ridiculous, I'll say so. I've already let my daughter's nursery have my comments on the photography permission form.

I cannot believe we live in a country where parents are admonished for taking photos and videos of their children in school plays!

DoesntTurkeyNSproutSoupDragOn Mon 10-Dec-12 13:22:53

What's to stop parents or school kids talking about the children's location in a public forum? On the bus?

Unless the child is called Titsalina Bumcheek they're not going to be readily identifiable are they?

BreconBeBuggered Mon 10-Dec-12 13:23:24

I remember one thread a year or two ago where a sizeable proportion of posters insisted that any footage or picture taken was their property and that the school had NO RIGHT to dictate what happened to it once they were off school premises. This is the kind of attitude that forces blanket bans, since the school's primary duty is to protect any vulnerable pupils rather than ensure selfish parents can wave their cameras around throughout the performance.

In any case, doesn't filming/looking for that perfect picture detract from the experience of watching this special event? Some people need to remember what it feels like to live in the moment.

herethereandeverywhere Mon 10-Dec-12 13:29:05

So anyone can freely state that X child attend Y school anywhere, to anyone and it's fine, just don't for heavens sake take a video. Phew, that's child protection sorted then. hmm

DoesntTurkeyNSproutSoupDragOn Mon 10-Dec-12 13:30:42

A video or picture of a child is immediately identifiable. A name is not - especially as you are unlikely to use their full name.

lifeintheolddogyet Mon 10-Dec-12 13:33:21

Thing is, until these things happen to you or someone you know, it does all seem a bit far fetched. I think kungfupanda 's link in her post of Sat 08-Dec-12 14:11:24 illustrates very clearly the chain of unintended consequences single tiny acts can have.

I'd prefer to err on the safe side for one child than ignore the rules set down by the school. They're there for good reasons, most of which I hope I never have to encounter.

I'll be photographing my DSs on their own, or with their friends in their respective performances and just sitting and enjoying the performances, as I have, reasonably, been asked to do.

NumericalMum Mon 10-Dec-12 13:33:37

I can't see how a video makes the slightest difference. Call me crazy.
Thankfully our school has no restrictions on filming anything unlike DC's ballet school which charged £18 for a DVD :-/

freddiefrog Mon 10-Dec-12 13:33:59

* How are these dangerous estranged parents using facebook to find their children? Has there been any reported cases of this? *

My foster child was removed from their previous placement for this exact reason.

FC's birth parents must not know where FC is, another parent posted a photo from a school production on FB, a member of FC's birth family saw it and told birth parents, birth father tuned up at school and attempted to remove FC.

So, yes. It does happen

Does this innocent child have to keep having their life turned upside down by having to be moved to a new area, a new family, new school, new friends, etc just so people can have those all important pics?

No one's going to come to any harm if you don't get to take a picture

lifeintheolddogyet Mon 10-Dec-12 13:34:44

I mean photographing them outside of the performance. blush

lifeintheolddogyet Mon 10-Dec-12 13:35:32

No one's going to come to any harm if you don't get to take a picture


NumericalMum Mon 10-Dec-12 13:36:25

And just in case you think I am ignoring all the heartfelt messages above there is barely anyone recognisable in a video of our school's nativity. You would have to have expert skills to spot them anyway... And of course know they were at tht school in the first place etc etc

MrsMelons Mon 10-Dec-12 13:42:05

YABU - my friend would love to film her DS when he's old enough but he is adopted and SS have said definitely no (in case it is put on FB) and also he is not allowed his photo taken for the news or anything like that.

We are allowed to video at both my DSs schools as no one has objected but sadly when my friends DS is at that age she will have to be the parent that says no.

If you only ever use it for watching at home and not on FB then you are not causing an issue but I think it is unreasonable to do it if you have been asked not to.

herethereandeverywhere Mon 10-Dec-12 13:43:24

But in the example given by freddiefrog did they really search the entire internet at random until they came across it? Or were they actively searching/using other information in their possession? The member of FC's family could have just as easily found out that information without a video on facebook - and if it really was a chance sighting, then they happen without videos too.

What I'm saying is the rule does not prevent the "bad people" from doing or trying to do bad things. It just punishes those going about their business innocently.

WeAreSix Mon 10-Dec-12 13:45:30

there is barely anyone recognisable

Sometimes that's all it takes. Not worth the risk imo.

herethereandeverywhere Mon 10-Dec-12 13:49:45

No one is going to come to harm if you don't take a picture. Really? What a beautifully simple solution to crimes involving children.

Well let's make cameras illegal and retire every social worker and child protection officer in the country.

DontSweatTheSmallStuff Mon 10-Dec-12 13:49:50

"In any case, doesn't filming/looking for that perfect picture detract from the experience of watching this special event? Some people need to remember what it feels like to live in the moment. "

Exactly. We had ds2's nativity last week, along with the special parents who ignored the no filming rule (and the ones who ignore the no siblings rule and proved exactly why there is a no siblings rule hmm ). Filming it as well as trying to watch him would've really detracted from just enjoying watching him.

How on earth did our poor parents/grandparents cope without their video cameras etc

freddiefrog Mon 10-Dec-12 13:50:52

Mum A posted a pic on FB. She was unknowingly friends with member of FC's extended birth family. Birth family member saw it, informed the birth father

As simple as that. No malice intended, no one searching for anything

Yes, there is always the chance that the parents may find them another way, but why make it easier for them? Its avoidable, why take the risk?

Actually, it's nothing to do with me. It's court and social services ordered.

if parents used their common sense and did not put footage of other peoples children on to the internet whilst knowing nothing of their circumstances then maybe a blanket ban would not exist.
But for the people who are refusing to see why vulnerable children all over FB might be an issue, you are clearly the lucky ones.
Maybe you should try and think of other peoples dcs rather than the fact you think the rules are stupid and you have the right to do as you please,.

BreconBeBuggered Mon 10-Dec-12 13:52:00

herethere, so why do you imagine certain schools put these rules in place? Do you think the staff like being pestered every year about how unfair it is? It would be a helluva lot easier to let parents have free rein.

can you not actually just think for a minute?
If there is the tiniest teeniest chance that allowing the school play to be videoed would cause harm and distress to a small vunerable child, would you not think to yourself, ok, id love to have a video of my dc BUT keeping small children safe is much much much more important?

freddiefrog Mon 10-Dec-12 13:57:43

herethere. Yes, banning photography in schools completely is a beautifully simple solution to stop thoughtless parents putting pics of other people's kids on the Internet

herethereandeverywhere Mon 10-Dec-12 14:04:23

I think the rules are put in place as a knee-jerk response to media hysteria. I think they are put in place without being thought through. I think that schools believe that "erring on the side of caution" with a blanket ban will make it all okay.

For the small minority of serious child protection/identification cases which do exist (and which examples have been given on here) far more stringent and complex protection needs putting in place than banning every parent in the country from videoing school plays.

Every time we drive a car down the road there is the "teeniest tiniest chance that harm and distress [could be caused] to a small child". We don't ban cars because of the risk of road accidents.

herethereandeverywhere Mon 10-Dec-12 14:07:21

freddiefrog but to follow through your reasoning, banning pics of other peoples kids on the internet won't stop criminal estranged parents from trying to track down offspring they want to find, will it?

freddiefrog Mon 10-Dec-12 14:11:20

Unfortunately, those knee-jerk rules have to be put in place because people insist on sharing their video of little Johnny playing 3rd shepherd on the Internet, regardless of who else is in that video

Regardless of whether children like my innocent FC has to be moved again and have their whole life turned upside down again

freddiefrog Mon 10-Dec-12 14:13:50

No, it won't stop them trying, but why make it avoidably easy for them?

herethereandeverywhere Mon 10-Dec-12 14:16:36

freddiefrog How is it easy? Unless those doing the searching are using information other than the video/photo itself then they've have to trawl every video and photo on the internet wouldn't they?

herethereandeverywhere Mon 10-Dec-12 14:17:23


freddiefrog Mon 10-Dec-12 14:23:12

I've explained what happened with my FC upthread. No searching was required. A mum posted a pic that she shouldn't have on FB, a member of FC's family saw it.

The pic shouldn't have been on there, she could have blurred out the other children's faces

She didn't. FC's school was traced from the pic, dad tried to snatch FC from school, then on another occasion followed FC home. Parent now knows child's school and home address and they had to move to a new placement

Social services have taken as many steps as possible to ensure FC isn't traced, but as soon as pics are out there on the Internet, we have no control

mindosa Mon 10-Dec-12 14:24:37

YANBU to record it but it would be wrong to post it on Facebook etc

However in my opinion all these reasons re estranged parents, paedophiles etc are ridiculous.

mindosa what do you mean, ridiculous?

Do you mean it doesnt happen, or that you dont care?

herethereandeverywhere Mon 10-Dec-12 14:30:33

freddiefrog So the sighting of the pic on fb was:

a) complete chance. Just like a chance sighting in the street. I'd argue we can't legislate against such chance events (or rather in trying to legislate against pure chance, you end up with rules that punish the innocent and STILL don't deter the guilty); or

b) viewed because the family member knew the person who owned the photo may have information about your FC in which case photo or not, they could have still "followed that lead" to find out about the FC.

WeAreSix Mon 10-Dec-12 14:30:39

I agree freddie

It only took one incidental online pic to identify my friend's adoptive DCs. They had to move house, school, take a complete identity change. New names, everything.

Surely these children are worth protecting, no matter how small the perceived risk?

freddiefrog Mon 10-Dec-12 14:38:27

Yes, but walking along the street is unavoidable and necessary unless we keep FC locked up for the rest of their life. Mum A talking to FC's family member is unavoidable. Pics on FB are completely avoidable and unnecessary

It's not difficult, just don't post pics of other people's children on the internet, or if you must, blur out their faces

MrsMelons Mon 10-Dec-12 14:38:31

The trouble is I think a lot of the headteachers or people involved with the schools do not actually understand why there is a ban on these things hence why people starting going on about paedophiles etc.

In many schools there is no issue and a sensible HT will allow filming if all parents agree but if there is a safeguarding risk then surely anyone would be happy to not film.

Some parents cannot help themselves from putting these videos/photos on FB which is where the problem is caused. I put loads of photos on FB but never of random children I am always careful but it is easy to forget which is why some schools enforce a blanket ban.

MrsTomHardy Mon 10-Dec-12 14:50:43

YABU and shouldn't of done it....good job you didn't do it at my pre-school angry

herethereandeverywhere Mon 10-Dec-12 14:50:43

But freddiefrog banning pics on facebook won't protect the child because of the other avenues of access which remain open.

Putting pics on fb is no more risky than the child walking down the road so why try to ban it?

MrsTomHardy Mon 10-Dec-12 14:53:26

You can't stop people putting pics of other people's kids on fb BUT if a parent was to come to me and say she didn't want any pics if her DC to appear then I wouldn't let anyone even take pics....the preschool would take individual pics of the children

oh its very much different and you know it is.

BreconBeBuggered Mon 10-Dec-12 14:55:08

Isn't it social services and the courts that ban it in certain cases? Schools don't actually get the right to override that kind of instruction, and neither do any random parents.

freddiefrog Mon 10-Dec-12 15:03:22

Of course it's different

Steps have been taken to minimise the risk of FC being spotted in the street, but once a pic goes on the Internet it opens it up to a much wider audience, we're relying on other people having strict privacy settings and not having a member of the birth family on their friends list. We can control where FC goes, we avoid the area their family lives. And I can't keep FC locked up for the rest of their life

And yes, it's nothing to do with me. Even if I did think it ridiculous I couldn't change it. It's what was ordered by the court and social services

mindosa Mon 10-Dec-12 15:54:49

Tantrums I mean that yes recordings can (but shouldnt be) put up on the internet but its a nativity play - nothing grotesque, nasty or indeed titillating.

Re the estranged parent and Freddiefrogs story, 1 story isnt enough reason as to why these videos shouldnt be taken. The child was clearly within their parents social sphere so does anyone really think that those children wouldnt have been found by the parents anyway. We live in an internet age and that makes these things more difficult but
I havent found enough good reasons here as to why parents shouldnt be allowed to record, particularly when so many professional recordings are made available.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 10-Dec-12 16:46:56

I don't agree with any rule that punishes the majority because of a small minority of stupid people.

If a school has been told by SS that they have an extremely vulnerable child, then of course the school has a duty to protect that child. But clearly, as this thread shows, the head standing there at the beginning of a performance asking people not to take pictures just isn't going to do the job. In circumstances like this, they need to have a procedure in place so that there is a performance that can be filmed, and one that can't be. Or they need to explain to parents that they are in a position where they simply cannot allow photos to be taken, but provide another opportunity to do so. Or they could have a staff member dedicated to watching the audience who will ask parents they have caught using cameras to delete, or at least check that there is only their own child in the picture.

It is not fair to prevent the majority of responsible parents filming a moment that is important to them because of a few fuckwits, like people who would abduct a child.

If a person is a risk to a child, then they should be locked up, they shouldn't be able to make other innocent people be denied something that should be harmless.

Pompoko Mon 10-Dec-12 16:47:40

The problem with a picture/ film on facebook is that its easly traced back to the school so estranged family can look online for address of it; easly wait outside at pick up time. Spotting a child on the street is different, they are only in that spot for a moment. The child might have been on a dayout and never in the area again. So the child spotted on the street is untracable
Also, some people will befriend everyone and anyone so easy for one pic to be seen by hundreds

herethereandeverywhere Mon 10-Dec-12 16:54:41

So a child seen on a street can't be followed? confused

Tantrums "oh its very much different and you know it is." Err, no I don't. That's precisely the point I'm arguing. With no other connections to a child someone would have to search every image on the internet - ample anonymity and similar to going about your everyday life. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why it's so different (clue: "the internet" isn't a reasoned answer).

Jakadaal Mon 10-Dec-12 17:08:06

As the adoptive mother of a child with complex needs as a result of receiving a head injury from birth parents as a baby I believe that my child has a right to try and lead as normal life as possible (enduring brain injury allowing) and this includes taking part in mainstream school activities such as Christmas performances. I also believe that she has the right to remain safe and allow to emotionally heal from her traumatic start in life - this involves her dealing with attachments issues and coming to terms with her adoption. I doubt if anyone could argue with these 'rights' and most of them are approved by the justice system (educational statement and adoption)

I do not believe that anyone has a 'right' to put my child at risk by acting entitled and flouting a common sense rule to please not film a performance.

(as for DVDs sold by schools - I remove my child from these performances .... imagine how that makes her feel hmm?)

BeanieStats Mon 10-Dec-12 17:10:05

So what happens if said vulnerable child is caught in the background of a picture published in their local paper? Or is in caught on camera in a piece broadcast on the local television news?

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 10-Dec-12 17:17:22

If we are talking about rights, no one has a right to put a child at risk, obviously, but they do have a right to argue that they aren't going to be putting a child at risk just by filming their own child and keeping the result private. It's no different to those people watching it in the first place. People have a right to argue that a blanket ban isnt a common sense rule, and that is a restrictive, unfair and unnecessary rule, because quite often, it is.

I don't think others have a right to tell me I can't film my own child because of something that is nothing to do with me when I'm not putting anyone at risk.

crashdoll Mon 10-Dec-12 17:36:30

It's a shame that some people feel their right to film their child overrides a child's right to feel safe in their own community?

crashdoll Mon 10-Dec-12 17:37:16

Idk why there is a question mark at the end of that.

BreconBeBuggered Mon 10-Dec-12 17:59:14

Posters here don't have any right to make demands about your behaviour, of course, but a school isn't a public place so they can impose restrictions as appropriate and ask you to leave if you won't stop filming when they've asked you not to. How are they to know you can be trusted to keep the footage private if you have already ignored the request not to film it?

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 10-Dec-12 18:03:19

If they didn't impose a blanket ban on filming, and made provisions for the majority of parents who probably want at least one photo, then people wouldn't have to break the rules.

It is the schools duty to protect the child, but they also have an obligation IMO to cater to the reasonable and simple desire of the majority of parents.

Schools fail vulnerable children when they don't make fair provision for the majority because of the fact that parents will understandably be very tempted to break the rule.

getoutofit Mon 10-Dec-12 18:10:46

Aside from the various serious child protection issues could it also be so the children aren't just performing to an audience of held up phones. Nothing I hate more than going to any kind of performance to sit behind a sea of blue screens. And the quality must be shite - especially if filmed 'illicitly'. I say go old skool and use your brain to remember special moments!

StarOfLightMcKings3 Mon 10-Dec-12 18:13:56

'And I just don't see how a video of fully clothed children would be satisfying viewing for a peadophile'

Rules don't work like that. They aren't issues with a caveat 'If you can't see no rhyme nor reason for this rule or don't agree with it, feel free to ignore'.

It's a shame you can't have a recording of the event, but other parents who stuck to the rules haven't one either. YAVVVU

MummytoKatie Mon 10-Dec-12 18:25:47

Ok - let do the maths of Facebook. Average school size is 200 kids. So assume 200 sets of parental units. (Yes - kids have siblings but a lot of them also have parents who are no longer together so those kids will have two sets of proud parents.)

Average number of friends on FB? Maybe 100?

So that's 20,000 people who can see the photo. Obviously there will be overlaps and people abroad so let's cut that down to 10k different individuals. In the Uk there are maybe 45m people who are old enough and young enough to use FB. This group is pretty identical to those young enough or old enough to be a threat to a child.

10k / 45m = 0.022%.

Now in a child's life there is maybe 20 people who can recognise them instantly I'd say.

So probability that there is no overlap is (1 - 0.022%)^20 = 0.9956.

So probability of overlap is 1 - 0.9956 = 0.43%. Ie 1 in 228.

So for each child at risk that has a filmed nativity play with parents popping it on FB there is a 1 in 228 chance that a close family or friend could have the picture on their computer screen.

Ok - my numbers are not perfect as I've made enormous assumptions but I think I've shown that the risk is not so small as to be non existent.

babybythesea Mon 10-Dec-12 18:36:28

"I think the rules are put in place as a knee-jerk response to media hysteria. I think they are put in place without being thought through. I think that schools believe that "erring on the side of caution" with a blanket ban will make it all okay.

For the small minority of serious child protection/identification cases which do exist (and which examples have been given on here) far more stringent and complex protection needs putting in place than banning every parent in the country from videoing school plays."

I suspect that what happens is that the school have asked permission. When they get a 100% 'yes, no problem - take photos' then they don't worry about banning it (which is why some people are on here saying 'My school don't have a problem with it'. That should probably mean 'There are no parents in my child's school/class who have objected, for whatever reason'.).
However, if a parent says on their form 'No photos' then the school may discuss options and one option is just to say No photos. It might not be the most imaginative one, but if they've taken it then there is almost certainly a child somewhere in there who can't have pics taken. Otherwise they wouldn't bother. And it will be just one aspect of the 'stringent and complex proetction measures' taken. An aspect which other parents seem to feel free to come along and over-ride.
You could say they only need to ban posting them on FB or other social networking sites. All you have to do is look back at the earlier stages on the thread where one poster proudly announced that not only would she take photos but she would continue to post them on the internet to see why this might not be the best solution.
The point is, you won't know as a parent if there are kids like this in the school - they don't walk round with labels. But it's more common than I think people realise.

I have worked with kids (at a visitor attraction) for over 10 years. I work with both school visits and holiday clubs. I came across at least four cases (either siblings or individual children) where foster parents told me certain information to help safeguard the kids (who could collect them, no pics allowed etc). And that's just where I was told. Around 25% of parents ticked 'no photos' on the form - we liked to take pics to help us promote future events and also use to illustrate any articles etc we might write so always asked. I have no idea what most of the reasons were, but this is just for a holiday club where kids spent a couple of hours a day.

People have also asked about kids appearing in newspapers etc. I don't know how other places handled it, but if we were going to have a reporter up, we checked in advance with the school. Sometimes it would be a yes, other times they'd pull us to one side and point out a child or children for whom the answer was no. We got 'no' for at least one kid in the class maybe 1/3 of the time. Then we'd work really hard to have that child elsewhere (without them realising it) while the photographer was around. So when you see a pic of a class on a day out somewhere, you can't assume that 'how come they can have their pics in the media when I can't even take a picture at the school play' because chances are, those kids aren't in the pic. It will have been organised.

Rules are put in place because there are children in very real and dangerous situation. If you've never been made aware of it, you're very lucky. So are the kids you know. It's not media hysteria. It's what a scary number of kids have to live with.

BombayBadonkadonks Mon 10-Dec-12 19:10:18

This has made for an interesting read.

DS's school have said no filming as they are going to record the dress rehearsal. Reasons given are that patents can watch without having to record it themselves and the sound quality will be better.

After reading this, I suspect it is to protect vulnerable children who won't be in the dress rehearsal but will be in the main shows.

I would also like to add that disobeying any school rule in such a blatent manner does undermine the school and the teachers and sets a very bad example.

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