to think THIS is why you shouldn't complain if you can't take pictures of your DC on stage in their nativity play

[Wolfbasher]

There's always a few threads this time of year complaining about schools that have a 'no photo' rule at the nativity play.

Some children need to be protected from having their image spread around, because there are unpleasant people trying to find them. This was one.

BBC link

Obviously there's no suggestion that it was a school photo that helped this particular abuser to track down this mother and child. But there are children in UK schools today who are at this kind of risk. I just don't get why people think their right to bob about taking blurry pictures/video during a performance trumps another family's safety. Take your picture of your child in costume before/after the performance. You don't need to record every second of it.

We didn't have video cameras when i was a child and i am really not scarred by not having a recording of my second-angel-on-left debut.

I think anything where we are bowing to the demands of criminals who would hurt or harm by changing our behaviour, or giving up our freedoms, is something to be avoided.

Terrorism - net effect is loss of simple freedoms (flying with liquids etc)

Fear of criminals - stop taking photos of our children

Fear of men - dress and behave differently

Those in "witness protection" will be well aware of how to protect themselves but the criminal's desire to track them down should not curtail freedoms.

Well, I'm afraid it's going to "curtail freedoms". Because children of families in witness protection are also going to be children whom other parents can't stick up on the internet.

So how about standing up for your beliefs and saying, "I don't think we should have witness protection schemes" outright instead of dancing around the point?

So what's wrong with the mask/beard idea for plays? 3 of us have suggested it and I don't see a rush of people saying "god yes that will make them safer even if there's a no photo rule cos someone might sneak a pic"

Well, if it becomes a general solution, don't you think that will mean everyone in the audience will know that the child in the mask is a child who mustn't be photographed for some reason?

Mind you, if we mask all the children?

I like the mask idea! Have some roles that require masks and some of those children will be children who need protecting.

sickntiredtoo It's selfish because it places the desire for a photo over child safety, regardless of whether it will be shared or not. Child safety is paramount. What's wrong with photos in costume before/after?

Why the fuck have they stated in the article that she now lives in the Midlands Surely that is fucking stupid and dangerous!

Great. So my DD1 would have been unable to have a main role in her y6 leavers production because you want her to be 3rd sheep from the left, or cover her face so no one could see who she was within her own school where she should be able to feel safe and take a full part in the curriculum . Haven't kids who need protecting had enough to deal with without making them have to hide even within their own school?

'Put them in masks' sounds awfully like the solution to a child being bullied - put the victim in a lunch club isolated from the others, and let the bully carry on with full freedom.

A few of you have NO IDEA AT ALL. (And yes I am shouting).

I'm sure teachers are imaginative enough to come up with masks for main roles too

I too think masking is really not an option. Nor do I think this is equivalent to telling women they shouldn't wear revealing clothes.

BackOnlyBriefly you said "But it's not the simplest way possible. People have cameras and photo albums for a reason. They want to take pictures of events to preserve that memory. The argument here is that even if it doesn't really reduce the risk very much we may as well ban it anyway since they don't matter.

The simplest way probably includes giving them a mask or beard or something as part of their costume. That also avoids the chance of someone in the audience recognising them. You don't want them going home and saying "I saw your cousin's, sister's kid playing jesus in the play"

I love the idea of a beard (though it probably means the kid will be playing the part of a male!) and I might well use that idea! Not very fair to children to tell them, because you are at risk you have to be a donkey!

However, on a personal note I do think people in general have a right not to have their exploits filmed and put on facebook or whatever. And once people have filmed stuff it does seem to mean they may want to put it to facebook!

Usually, parents have a perfect right to photograph their own children, no one is trying to stop them talking their photo but in a nativity or other what they are taking is a shot of the scene, with other kids in etc. If they don't want the other kids in the photo, why not take it at home?

Rose the problem is you are describing a parents freedom's not being curtailed because of a risk to someone else . By all means people can do things they want, pursue risky sports or whatever and run the risk of danger to themselves but we are talking about danger to someone else.

This is not the same as an issue of short skirts or being able to use the underground without fear of terrorism.

Backon let me just check I understand your point properly.
In your opinion, the best way to protect my ds is to make him wear a mask in all assemblies.....so that other people can take photos of their child?
Priceless. What a kind considerate person you are. I tell you what. I'll just tell him he's adopted so he's not allowed to be in the assembly. Would that be ok for you?

Because beards/masks e.t.c aren't foolproof. Children playing with masks on stage, beards falling off. And what are you going to do about every assembly the school does that also invites parents in?? Masks then? Ever tried to run a sports day race with a mask or a fake fur beard on?

Not good enough I'm afraid. My dc are not the only dc in my childrens school who cant be filmed for various reasons. I know this year in the nativity one of my dc will be the behind the scenes music person, a job that suits them fine

As far as I see it, I have asked the school not to publish any details of my children outside of the school. And yes, I do see it as the school failing to safeguard my children if they allow parents to film my children.

The lady in the article where it says she lives in the Midlands probably doesnt, it may well be a smokescreen.

And I can see my DD being thrilled about wearing a beard. Like someone else says, until you've btdt, you've got absolutely no idea what its like.

I work in a large comprehensive, and we have several children with good reason not to be photographed. This is normally linked to abusive family members finding out where they live, and continuing to abuse them un less they move again. The problem comes when the school name/school uniform is linked to the child's face (or name, though names can be changed, faces cannot.)

One student's situation was so bad, that office staff were not allowed to confirm that he attended if anyone phoned. So if there was a phonecall saying, "It's John Smith's mum, I have his PE kit", they'd just have to go...oh, erm, right, can't find that name on our registers, will get someone to call you back. And then our children's services team would call his mum, on the number we already had. Who would then often have to inform the police. Again.

Those of you who think this is 'rare' or 'highly unlikely worst case scenario' should be grateful for your bubbles.

ok so we have at least four people saying "oh no they can't wear anything on their face in a nativity play even if it makes them safer"

At least one person making it sound like wearing any kind of costume with some part of it on your face is unheard of.

And at least one person changing it from nativity play to sports day and one saying assemblies (cos lots of parents are there at school assemblies taking photos?)

A suggestion that it would mark out those needing protection (why not make it all those needing protection plus at least 2 others at random?)

Oh and one 'victim blaming' which wasn't said when it was 'don't allow any to be photographed'. Wasn't that victim blaming too?

I expected all that and it's very revealing because if their safety was the prime concern they'd be saying "well that would help in some cases as an extra precaution" and saying stop photos as well as.

But no, we have people arguing against something that might add an extra protection.

The beard/mask idea sounds awful. Why should children who have done nothing wrong be made to wear masks just so that other parents can take photos? And how would that even work for Sports Day? Oh I know, they could make it fancy dress.

It's not always about people tracking children down either, I know of two other families in DDs class (y5) that have not given permission for photos at assemblies etc one because they simply don't want their child's picture putting online, the other they have asked their dc how they felt before signing consent forms and they have said no. Should the children's wishes come into it at all? Would seem unfair to make them wear a mask or not take part in events.

See? now it's sports day AND wearing masks to school.

I'm sure some of the people posting are genuine, but maybe the others would like to start a thread saying "I hate people taking photos and I think I'll use children's safety as an excuse to get my way".