Advanced search

To think that this woman overreacted to a man taking a pic of his DGD.

(75 Posts)
JenniferYellowHat1980 Sat 28-May-16 15:06:17

DD (6) does gymnastics at a big gym attached to an equally big sort play centre, which forms a big part of the viewing area through windows between the two. It's a class of 25 or so, but split into smaller groups of about 5. I was watching DD on the beam through the window, along with a few other people with DCs in the same group. I was shock at the Hedrin thread a bit distracted at the time, and didn't notice until one of the mums made an issue of it that the man next to me had taken a photo of his DGD on the beam. She was arsey about him taking photos of her DD and (understandably I think) he got on the defensive. She said there was a poster stating that no photos were allowed and went around me to point them out, only to find those posters were about something else. She then said she was going to report him and literally flounced off to do so.

The poor kid at reception then got dragged in to ask the man not to take photos - obviously he'd already done so and had only taken a pic of his DGD anyway - and point out that the gym's policy does not allow photos. There was no poster by where we were viewing from though, and unless he's been into the reception / changing area he probably hadn't seen any.

I think he was a bit ill advised taking pics in that situation but largely because of the potential for over reactions like this. He and the woman with him clearly had the care of their DGD and frankly if he'd inadvertently captured my DD in her leotard (arms covered, legs exposed) my first thought would not be 'I must challenge that potential paedophile'.

I remarked to the grandparents afterwards that I thought it was a massive overreaction and they were clearly upset. They said they don't see their DGD often and it had obviously spoilt their morning.

FFS, the gym has a semi-public viewing gallery. AIBU to think that if she couldn't just have quietly made a judgement herself about what they were doing, she could have had a private word with the gym proprietor, who was around, to ask her to police the gym's policy so that it could've been done with a bit of discretion and tact? The whole incident just screamed Daily Mail paedo alert at a granddad who just hadn't seen the signs about photography and probably went away feeling a bit grubby.

WhatALoadOfWankers Sat 28-May-16 15:13:06

I think it's really sad that people suspect any male near children as a danger
A massive over reaction from her

Unicow Sat 28-May-16 15:13:08

It is so difficult these days as people take pics and then spread them all over social media. It is primarily a safeguarding issue. ANY foster children and some adopted children CANNOT have their photos on social media. The onus is on the foster career to prevent this. There may also be similar issues in families with estranged relatives. There are many reasons not to want photos of your children out of your control that are nothing to do with pedophiles.

The easiest safest way to ensure kids safety is to say no photos at groups like this. It is sad but unfortunately necessary as too many people are gung ho about posting their lives on Facebook.

JenniferYellowHat1980 Sat 28-May-16 15:14:04

Ok I see the safeguarding/ fostering argument. It could have been that.

Unicow Sat 28-May-16 15:15:33

It could have been dealt with a lot better but imo she isn't wrong for asking him to not do it. I've had to ask someone not to take photos at my tots group because of a safeguarding issue we have. The rule may seem stupid but sadly is totally needed.

WorraLiberty Sat 28-May-16 15:16:19

If she was concerned, she should have told him photos weren't allowed and left it at that really.

I agree, it sounds like a big over reaction.

Oddly enough, some of the biggest over reacters I know when it comes to this sort of thing, have plastered 100s of pics of their own kids over the internet.

Yet they shit kittens if they think someone else has got so much as their kid's left eyebrow, in a pic they're taking.

RaeSkywalker Sat 28-May-16 15:19:39

I can see this being an issue from a safeguarding POV.

I do feel sad that these rules have to exist, but unfortunately they do.

JenniferYellowHat1980 Sat 28-May-16 15:20:35

He was breaching the policy but she dealt with it in such a confrontational way that it insinuated his ill intent.

OddBoots Sat 28-May-16 15:23:45

My dd does gymnastics and one of the mums was standing right next to a sign saying no photos/videos while taking snaps of the class - it was clear she was only taking pictures when her dd was on the apparatus but other children were in shot.

I'm not worried about pictures of my dd but I don't know how the parents or carers of the other children would feel so I had no idea if I should have said anything or not. In the end I didn't say anything but I still feel bad, maybe I should have.

TravellingLoon Sat 28-May-16 15:33:19

I'm confused, was the woman's DD in the shot or not? If not, it's not really any of her business if there's no rule saying they can't take photos (you said she couldn't find the sign) and only the guys dgd was in the shot...

WeirdAndPissedOff Sat 28-May-16 15:38:45

Poor guy. sad
I can understand I'd perhaps she'd had a quiet word and asked if he could make sure her DD wasn't in any pictures he took, or pointed out (nicely) that photos weren't allowed.
But that was a complete overreaction.

nobilityobliges Sat 28-May-16 15:41:13

If there was a no photo policy, he should have apologised and deleted the photos. Sounds like he didn't (he got "defensive") so getting staff involved sounds reasonable (much more reasonable than her standing there arguing with him). Maybe she didn't express herself well or politely, but overall what she did was fine and he was in the wrong.

LizzieVereker Sat 28-May-16 15:42:15

I'm torn between heart and head with these issues, and I think YANBU, it could have been dealt with better..

My heart says that a probably perfectly nice Grandad just wanted a nice photo of his DGD doing her hobby to take home with him.

However my heart also says that it's increasingly evident how prevalent child abuse has been in recentish UK history. I think we ought to remember that those parents who apparently "over-react" to perceived threats to their DCs might have been victims of abuse themselves. Perhaps they are terrified of the DCs being endangered, however minor the threat seems.

My head says that in these days of social media we simply cannot photograph other people's children at will anymore, however inadvertently, - as a teacher I know the very real danger this can put looked after children in.

RosieSW Sat 28-May-16 15:45:35

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

RidersOnTheStorm Sat 28-May-16 15:57:30

Total over reaction.

We went to the seaside today and I took a lot of photos of the sea and the coastline. Some have people in and some don't. It's perfectly legal to take photographs in public places and some people need to get a grip.

Different if there's a notice in a private place but I don't see how they can actually enforce that, given how many cameras there are about.

leopardgecko Sat 28-May-16 16:10:46

As a foster carer it could be extremely dangerous for anyone to take photos of some of the children we care for. However, bound by confidentially I could not explain that to anyone (because that in itself could also be dangerous). For all foster children it could potentially create problems, but truly for some it could be life changing if their photograph was ever to appear online or shown publically, or even seen privately by the wrong person. Schools are generally very good at this but it is something which can be very nerve wracking out in the wider world. We have to be quite paranoid about anyone with a camera appears near us!

ScreenshottingIsNotJournalism Sat 28-May-16 16:11:50

I have to say, unfortunately, I don't think this is "safeguarding gone mad". Because these days, people don't take photographs for their own personal use, they publish them publicly

And if photographs of that group are published publically, then it means that children in care or who have to be protected from dangerous family members cannot go there any more as now their whereabouts/movements are easily found.

It is not the same as a beach or a park because there is nothing to say that the people in the background will be found at any particular day or time, they might never go to that park/beach again who knows? unlike a class at a gym where children in that group will be in that place at that time every week IYKWIM

RosieSW Sat 28-May-16 16:26:29

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Scaredycat3000 Sat 28-May-16 16:27:35

It felt really sad to warn my Dad that when we arrived at the public paddling pool for our own safety don't get your camera out. It would have been asking for trouble. Lots of children in small tight clothes, getting changed, male adult (not of usual parent age) sat by himself, big SLR camera, de-generative condition causing physical ticks. Some hysterical harpie would shout pedo whilst leaving their DC with randoms and that would be the day ruined and my Dad's ever decreasing confidence smashed.
Sadly this is life today. Given that most abuse is by people already known to the victim/family it's not helping victims of pedophiles much. And it is amazing how many people if you explain it's for others safety, don't care one bit.

milliemolliemou Sat 28-May-16 16:29:17

Agree with Screen in a way. It's clear children at risk might end up in an photo on social media in an identifiable place eg school plays etc. TV journos/photographers have to check with the school/gym and get the school to check in advance for parental permission so schools/gyms should take it on themselves to make sure everyone knows the policy before concerts, plays, sports day and the like. If someone's using a camera, you can't tell if they are only taking pix of their relative. It was not made clear if I understand OP for the grandfather, and badly dealt with thereafter. The sad corollary is that at-risk children are often removed from enjoyable activities so videos/photos can be taken.

ScreenshottingIsNotJournalism Sat 28-May-16 16:36:08

Given that most abuse is by people already known to the victim/family it's not helping victims of pedophiles much.

Yes it is!

Because once a child is removed from the family abuser, the idea is to not publicise the child's movements so that they can stay safe from now on.

One person's proud moment is someone else's safety compromised.

It's not usually about stranger paedos, it's about known family members/family friends who should not know that the child will be at X swim or gym class in Y public gym on Z days.

These days with digital photography, photographs are more transient in how they're enjoyed to how they were back in the day where a family might have one roll of film for a whole holiday. They're enjoyed so briefly when there's thousands of them on most people's computers - how is one more digital shot more important then keeping children in care or escaping abuse safe?

What's wrong with a pic of the kid after the competition by themselves holding their medal or certificate or whatever. Nobody needs a pic with the rest of the class in it, but some children do need to not be photographed.

Lweji Sat 28-May-16 16:53:42

Rosie, you may only share photos within the family, but you don't know what some relatives may do with them, and many people do share publicly, even if you don't.

dillydotty Sat 28-May-16 17:24:44

Surely a quiet word would have been more appropriate and the GF would have probably apologised and deleted the pictures?

twittwooery Sat 28-May-16 17:43:07

Surely if you're one of the " there's a pedo around every corner" gang after misjudging several times you'd learn to be more polite and discreet

dillydotty Sat 28-May-16 17:55:11

I did mean if there were safe guarding issues. It doesn't bother me if people have photos of my kids unless someone was taking photos in a changing room or something similar.

I guess it would also freak me out a little if someone was taking photos of my child specifically but if it was just caught in the background of another shot it really wouldn't bother me.

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