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 the point about 'masks' and 'beards' are that it is fine to use that as an extra form of protection if the parent/child concerned requests it.

Yep. I suspect that if I was in this situation myself, I might well not be adverse to my child being steered towards the masked parts. But that would be my personal decision, as an additional layer of protection, not as the only form.

Quite apart from anything else, my favourite part of DC1's first nativity was the fiddling about with headgear. DC1 sat quietly just like a good reindeer should, with the other reindeer, all the way through some other children's main bits. Then, just before the reindeer were due to move, cutey-pie DC1 started fiddling with the antlers on cutey-pie's head, and all the other reindeer copied. Including Rudolf, IIRC. Then their star turn came, and they realised that it was their bit and tried to hurriedly stick their antlers back on while doing the reindeer bit! DC1 failed most with that.

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

This is what happens in DS's school.

Whoever suggested that just the one, single child should be masked (which would 'out' them) is silly or being deliberately obtuse.

I'm not the type of person who would want to put a child at risk for the sake of a photograph.

If you are that type of person, then at least admit it.

There are lots of ways you can let grannie see you dc sing songs or listen to the line they said, see the costume.

What about Skype, taking a pic of just your child at the end or at home.

I think it is so sad that some children have been through so much and finally found a loving family either adopted or fostered and some random suggests they should wear a bloody mask.
This, just for the sake of being fuckin entitled.

To those who are suggesting just carrying on taking the photos and worst still recording the nativity, do some homework. Find out why some people need to stay under the radar and be so grateful that your dc or yourself don't have to worry about these issues.

Oh, and to all you parents having to cope with the stupid parents my sympathy, and respect for the day to day struggles you must experience.

Somehow people do not have an issue with "no photo" rules in a theatre or a concert.

TheFamilyJammies, can't you just keep your kids home that day? If they won't be satisfied by being relegated to masked parts or wearing false beards?

FFS, as T&T has pointed out already, her kids might want to have, you know, a major part in the school play. Now I don't know about your school, but my DD2's last primary play was Oliver Twist. The year before it was Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. It would be quite hard to act the main parts in a mask.

Ooh, let's make the kids who already have some stuff to cope with in their lives feel even worse because they've always got to play masked parts. Ho yes.

I know! I know! I've just thought of a BRILLIANT solution!

How about the parents that want to take video/photos keep THEIR kids home that day? The kids can dress up, perform (they can even have the main only part) and the parents can record the WHOLE thing from the front only row.

The main play can take place the way it used to when I was a child, with parents sitting quietly and watching, and taking a pic of their child in their costume at the end.

Hurrah! Everyone happy.

Or, you know, we could just have no photos. What with the fact that putting pictures on social media may mean that some vulnerable children are exposed. Radical idea, but it just might work.

Or some vulnerable missing (abducted) children might be found. Just because some people don't want photos of their kids should other children suffer? It works both ways so no easy answer.

There is absolutely no way I would insist on taking photos/film if I was told for the sake of some children in the class it wasn't possible. I feel a responsibility not just to my own children, but each and every child in the school and make sure I follow the rules to guarantee a safe environment for everyone. That includes watching where I park, following the rules for accessing the building during the school day AND not taking photos when I've been asked not to.

Also, I don't put photos of my children on Facebook etc and I certainly don't expect anyone else to either. Parents who bleat on about their rights to do this and that irrespective of everyone else are extremely selfish imo.

The main play can take place the way it used to when I was a child, with parents sitting quietly and watching, and taking a pic of their child in their costume at the end.

^^How about people actually take the time to enjoy the play when it's happening without fiddling with cameras and spoiling the view for everyone behind them. Live in the moment maybe?

Are we now seriously suggesting that it's a positive to film plays and upload them to the internet, preferably using poor security settings so that people whose kids have been abducted can trawl them to hopefully find them??
I'm staggered. No, this really doesn't work both ways at all. Get real.

I think it does work both ways, if your child was abducted would you be prepared to do anything to find them?

The children whose parents don't want them to be photographed because they are adopted or at risk are actually with there parents and the parents can take steps to protect them. The children who have been abducted by an ex who does not have custody for good reasons are at immediate risk. I wonder if some of the people who are making a case for not having photos taken would actually trawl the net looking for missing children?

I can understand why people don't want a vulnerable childs picture on FB or similar but there is another side to it. You don't want to know what it is like to have children you love phoning you begging you to bring them home and there is nothing you can do but wait 20 years and then try to pick up the pieces, of course some people don't even get to do that.

How many genuinely abducted by someone who shouldn't have custody children do you think there are compared to the number of children who have been adopted or escaped from domestic violence? Bonkers idea that they should all be put at risk for a tiny number.

Granny, I understand and sympathise for your sisters plight - losing her children must be devastating. But we are discussing nativity plays and by filming your own children, inadvertently capturing mine on film leading to them becoming vulnerable. That's a choice that some people appear to find acceptable with the proviso that a vulnerable child wears a mask.
You're suggesting that it's an ok risk because it gives abducted childrens parents a trail to find them - so should no-one have security on social media as it stops parents dipping in and out of accounts in order to find their missing loved ones?
Does the right to find a child mean all children should be visible on social media, consequences be canned?

damned

While I do feel that camera bans should be respected if they are there, and I think Facebook is a criminal's paradise for many reasons, I do want to express my agreement with the principle that instituting a camera ban "because of the chance that an abusing ex might locate a child" is, in a way, a victory for abusive exes everywhere. Abusers have managed to make not just their ex-families change their ways, but many others as well.

Abusers, bullies, terrorists and the like often want people to feel frightened, to not do what they would normally do. An abuser has already made one family feel afraid; to then make a whole school feel disgruntled might be an added bonus for them (admittedly, the abuser might not realise that, but everyone else does).

See also:
Children who are bullied sometimes hear the advice "try to avoid the places where they catch you, like the toilets." Yes, far easier to tell the victim to change their ways, than catch the perpetrators.

Should we avoid travelling because there might be a terrorist?

And as for the advice "don't wear skimpy clothing, or there's a chance you might be raped..."

(Now wishing that all abusers and rapists had proper prison sentences, so that the law-abiding don't have to live in fear)

Sometimes giving them a small victory to keep your child safe is better than making a point about abusive people and risking safety of children. I'd rather have cameras banned and people be disgruntled and an ex win that way than an ex find his child or the mother and hurt or kill them.

Is it such an inconvenience - to not film a nativity? Is it worth a child's mental or physical wellbeing?