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!

[2anddone]

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

Blimey. That is a sobering thought.

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

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

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

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

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

Then I read the thread.

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

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

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

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

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

CotherMunkigFuniticalChristmas - me too.

It never occured to me that parents who ask not to have photo's taken are doing this to protect their children from abusive and dangerous relationships. I too was on the vein of yanbu. I am so bloody lucky I don't know it I don't think, I know no child that this would be the reason not to take photo's and my god I am so grateful for this.

For all of you who have to protect your children, god bless you and for those of you who took on a child who has severe abuse in their past, I cannot believe their are people out their like you, if only I had the courage to do this I really bless you all and hope you have a fantastic and safe christmas.

however i think there is a solution.

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

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

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

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

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

Of course the school are going to be vague.

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

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

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

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

YABVU

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

does it matter who gets lead roles.

it about children taking part

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

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

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

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

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

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

but thats a diffrent thread all together.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

perhaps the simple solution is having a CD of the children singing, and perhaps the parents can take photos of there own child....with technology these days you can make a little vidoe at home like this

(best example i could find on youtube )