To have filmed my ds1s preschool nativity play even though

[Nooneelseisallowedafergus]

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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 :-/

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

I mean photographing them outside of the performance.

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

Exactly.

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

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.

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.

there is barely anyone recognisable

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

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.

"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 ). 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

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,.

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?

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

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.

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?

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