Help Quickly Please - Christmas Concert

[GirlsWhoWearGlasses]

Sooo...DD's concert is this week. It was a bit of a disaster last year and she was pretty much shoved in a corner of the stage behind the teachers. At the time I spoke to the Head about it not being ideal and also subsequently the LA about connected issues around filming and social media. I was promised changes. I have raised it over the course of the year.

I asked last week what the plan was for this year and was met by blank looks. They plan to do the same again, stick her in a costume and we are just supposed to hope for the best, or we keep her home.

They say they've been advised by the LA that it's a big deal for parents & they don't want to be seen to be killjoys. They have also been advised that they have no right to stop people filming or posting on social media.

DD is so excited about the concert.

Her position is not the riskiest on here, but it's by no means risk free.

Can anyone advise if parents can be told not to film, or if there's any come back if they film and then post on social media after being asked not to?

Our school asks them not to film during performance 'so as not to distract' the children and gives everyone a chance to take photos at the end. My DC are quietly removed as soon as the concert finishes.

It absolutely does not stop people taking photos during though.

I'd have thought on school premises its absolutely at school's discretion, but if the school's not on board...

I'm not thrilled about it but our school - after an open-minded chat with the head - took the position that parents can film from the very back of the hall, but absolutely must not put it online anywhere and are forbidden from taking photographs during the performance. The rationale is that photos are permitted after the show, on stage if they want, which allows some families to whisk their kids away fairly discreetly. The head believes even if a video was posted online, it's less likely to be subject to people scanning for images. Not sure how far I buy that, but since LO detests every aspect of school plays/concerts and rushes for cover, it's not yet critical.

There isn't a vast amount that can be done once film/images are shared, but you could raise it as a breach of child safeguarding. Obviously that's bolting the stable door after the horse... But if it were determined by the local child safeguarding board to be a breach, I wonder if the school might find they are made to change their policy for the future? In an ideal world, they'd have thought about it earlier and worked with you to minimise risk. Sigh.

In our previous school and our current school both allow parents to photo and film - and we sadly have taken the decision to allow dc to be in dress rehearsals only :(....they don't mind but understand the reason why - during the actual concert they do something 'fun' in school.

with my older dc the school (private) has said no photos and an opportunity will be given after the show....much more helpful!!!!

it seems to vary by LEA and by school within the same LEA. when I called the LEA for clarification they said it has nothing to do with them and it is the schools decision and if we were not happy to speak with the school governors :(

for us it is too big a risk as parents do post the photos online.....but other adoptive parents have their children in the play - only you know what the risk is....not helpful sorry!

Our school don't allow pictures or filming except at the end

DD's school make everyone sign in on a sheet that states any photos or videos are for personal use and are not to be shared on social media. This is repeated at the start of the show. No idea how they police it though...

Ours say no photos with any part of any other child not to be put on social media. I agree though i dont know how it is policed. Bsck in the day with my older dds no parents were allowed to film but a video company did it

Thank you all. Ideally we'd like a 'no filming or photos but you can take a pic of your own child at the end'. The school don't seem to think they can police that. We're thinking that medium-term going down the SW route and getting them to educate our Education Dept may be the most practical approach. They also said that if I could get a letter from SW saying she was officially 'At Risk' then "that would be different". So frustrating, as obviously she was, but the whole point of adoption is that she no longer is, but that doesn't change the reality of the safeguarding issue.

Our school have an announcement at the beginning of every show saying you are welcome to take photos and videos bug they are for personal use only and must not be shared on social or made public.

I've never been aware of anyone flouting the rule but can't see that there would be much could be done if someone did share publicly. It would be a bit late by then.

Our school allows photos for personal use - you must have permission of other parents if you post on social media.
Filming usually banned from shows due to licensing, but when allowed the same rules apply.

In the past other parents have 'policed' this for me (I don't use face-book) and have contacted other parents saying to take down photos including one of my DCs.

Our school has quite a few pupils who do not have photo permission, either due to background or because parents can't be bothered to return the forms. When they do publicity shots for local paper, these children are discretely removed. DD2 has acted as 'photographers assistant' on more than one occasion, and once DD1 was give the job of showing VIPs round when a TV news crew came in. It can be done easily if the school is willing.

Of course parents can be told not to film! I'm so angry for you! They don't want to be killjoys and would rather put a little girl at risk?

THAT'S NOT THEIR FUCKING JOB THOUGH IS IT?

Thank you conserve. I was so floored that my little girl's safety was seen as insignificant in the face of their grand production that I almost burst into tears. I held it together though and pointed out that actually as this was a safeguarding issue then yes it is their job to come up with a solution that is about the kids, not the parents.

It's staggering, isn't it?

I just keep on thinking how we all managed to get through school without being photographed every five minutes...

We've just had DS nativity this morning, nursery wrote to all parents prior to say no pictures or videos then announced prior to the show that the nursery safeguarding rules applied (venue was not nursery) and that NO pictures or videos could be taken. Nursery took a number of pictures that will be shared in nursery and on the parent portal. This allows them to ensure pics of the adopted and LAC children are only shared with their own family/carer. Still had idiots taking pics though...I may have made loud PA comments about it!

I'm dreading school as I don't know if they will be as on board as nursery, nursery staff have been really good at ensuring DS is included in everything and they find a way to make it work safely.

I would write to the school govs asking for an explanation as to why other parents right to take pics and vids/post to social media out weighs the safeguarding of vulnerable children.

UPDATE.

I appealed in writing to the Head, who referred it to the LA (no governors here). They have come back with a bit of a fudge, they will do 10 minutes at start for people to photograph their own child, ASK parents not to take photos and not to put any child other than their own on social media, BUT this will not be policed at all and there will be no come back if they do.

Interestingly, I was told that it would be different if she was under a Care Order. I pointed out that this was nonsense as clearly, what with her being adopted, she would no longer be under a Care Order. I got the impression this was just a random term thrown in by the LA to try to sound official and they didn't actually know what it meant.

So some progress, but, I agreed with the Head that it would be helpful, and I apologise in advance as this is totally stomach churning, if I could provide a dossier of examples of things that have happened due to children being identified through social media. She admits herself that she doesn't get it and thinks the LA are in the same position.

I'm reluctant to ask if any one can help me with finding the stuff of nightmares, but I think it is the only thing that might change the policy of the LA. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

So neither your headteacher nor the LA can understand why it might be bad if the birth family of a child who has had to be adopted can find that child?!?!

Where the fuck do you live? I want to move there! You clearly have absolutely zero crime rate that everyone is so fucking naive.

Arseholes.

FML! Would it be worth asking SS after adoption to speak to them if you can actually reach anyone at after support and they'd be willing

So, the head wants evidence a child has been murdered or abused, before she will take action to prevent a child being hurt?

Right. That's how we make all health and safety policy, isn't it? Check an innocent somewhere is dead before we will change our procedures.

Just exactly what I was going to say giraffe.

Have any under 3's been killed using chainsaws? No? Must be ok then...

I know, I know, but they just don't seem able to make the link between a photo on social media and harm to a child. It seems staggeringly obvious to me, but I am clearly missing something in my explanation. I think it's partly that they think I should give them detail of DD's back story so they can 'see' the risk. I am not willing to do that. Apparently anyone could claim their child is at risk

On the asking SS to speak to them. I do have a call in to them, but...

Why do they think she was removed? Too many blue smarties?

I'd put everything in writing - it sounds as though they are taking the path of least resistance so let them see that's your way!

Could you draft in adoption UK or something? Surely there must be some basic safeguarding guidance out there you can quote.

Also be clear about what you want them to actually put in place? You could say 'other schools have...'

I have been shocked how people need this spelling out in words of one fucking syllable. I explain how insecure social media is, people are starting, but only starting, to get that. Then explaining that there is image search software that is only getting more and more sophisticated, looking for certain features. Those features that we are born with, cheek bones, chin shape, eye shape, nose etc. It can search quickly through many many images, to shortlist those that have those features. Then they find x child. Who is pictured with their sibling or parent. Then they search that face. And they find the sibling's school, the parent's place of work. They find who looks after them, when. If I'd had my child taken, I'd stop at nothing. This is also why when the child benefit office rang, and immediately asked for my address and child's name, I was cautious!

Then I ask them to consider what type of abuse could make a court remove a child? To consider the news reports of what children who weren't removed had happen to them. That sometimes, not always, but sometimes, that has happened to our children. Sometimes the threat is "just" contact before the child is ready. Sometimes the threat is so much more.

Can they imagine living under that threat? Most people genuinely can't, because they never have. Most people give out their details loudly in shops with no qualms.

Some of us know we can't.

Of course anyone could say their child is at risk. But the overwhelming probability is that anyone saying their child is at risk, probably is.

That accusation of lying, or paranoia, alone would have me threatening to remove my child from the school entirely.

Perhaps we could collaborate and write a little story for them, with pictures and everything, to help them understand

Also, of course the child continues to be "at risk" from their birth family - the only reason they are no longer on the at risk register is they don't live with them any more. It's not because the original family risk has reduced, is it?!

Perhaps someone from children's social work, or children's safeguarding team, could help by highlighting the patterns of experiences these children have had? The whole point of the adoption is the safety and wellbeing of the child. Their protection has surely got to be paramount? I get the sense our head sort of thinks "but what are they going to do even if they do find a picture online?" Um, take it to the media with a false story? Trace it if the pic has an identifiable location such as a school, and appear whenever they feel like it? Potentially identify where we live? Try and approach a child or another family directly with a fake story? Basically penetrate our lives and take away the fragile sense of safety we've been straining to build up...

A judge has decided, three times (care order, placement order, adoption order) that each of these children has an absolute right to a family life free from fear. Who the feck thinks breaking anonymity and opening a door to unplanned, unsupported contact / media exposure fits with that? (I am in favour of the option of highly structured direct and indirect contact by the way, but only in such a way that keeps a safe secure base for my child.)