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.

No, it won't stop them trying, but why make it avoidably easy for them?

freddiefrog How is it easy? Unless those doing the searching are using information other than the video/photo itself then they've have to trawl every video and photo on the internet wouldn't they?

*they'd

I've explained what happened with my FC upthread. No searching was required. A mum posted a pic that she shouldn't have on FB, a member of FC's family saw it.

The pic shouldn't have been on there, she could have blurred out the other children's faces

She didn't. FC's school was traced from the pic, dad tried to snatch FC from school, then on another occasion followed FC home. Parent now knows child's school and home address and they had to move to a new placement

Social services have taken as many steps as possible to ensure FC isn't traced, but as soon as pics are out there on the Internet, we have no control

YANBU to record it but it would be wrong to post it on Facebook etc

However in my opinion all these reasons re estranged parents, paedophiles etc are ridiculous.

mindosa what do you mean, ridiculous?

Do you mean it doesnt happen, or that you dont care?

freddiefrog So the sighting of the pic on fb was:

a) complete chance. Just like a chance sighting in the street. I'd argue we can't legislate against such chance events (or rather in trying to legislate against pure chance, you end up with rules that punish the innocent and STILL don't deter the guilty); or

b) viewed because the family member knew the person who owned the photo may have information about your FC in which case photo or not, they could have still "followed that lead" to find out about the FC.

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?

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

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.

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

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?

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

oh its very much different and you know it is.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

So a child seen on a street can't be followed?

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).

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?)

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?

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.

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?

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