Advanced search

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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?

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

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

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?

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.

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?

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?)

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).

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

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.

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.

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

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.

TantrumsAndBalloons Mon 10-Dec-12 14:54:53

oh its very much different and you know it is.

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

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 14:50:43

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

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.

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

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?

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: