Photos on social media and so-called "safeguarding"

[TattyDevine]

Okay so our primary school has a no photos of your child in a school scenario in Facebook rule. So whilst you are allowed to take a photo of your child at assembly, sports day, or the nativity, you are not allowed to post it on Facebook, even if it is just of your child and has no other children in the background, and even if it does not identify the location or the school.

In the past, people who have not realised this have posted a photo of their child dressed up as an angel or whatever on Facebook, and have been threatened by the head to take it down immediately or nobody will ever be able to take photos in the school ever again. (She finds out because one of the parents sees the photos and goes and tells her who it was and shows her their facebook page). So it is definitely active and "enforced".

Recently however, the school staged one of those "strange object crashes in field" type incidents for book week or science week complete with fake "news reporters" and people in boiler suits and everything so it appeared quite authentic for the children. Really great for inspiring their imaginations and I love that not all learning has to be with textbooks. But as part of this, an article in the local paper appeared "covering" the story including video footage including all the children filing out the doors of the school to the safety zone and general footage of their reaction, an interview with the head teacher etc, which was embedded into the newspaper article via YouTube link. This video had the name of the school and therefore the location, and footage of the students.

I've always understood that the "safeguarding" element of not sharing photos of children on social media was mainly about children who may be in foster care or adopted who could be identified and located by their biological parents, and other such issues, as opposed to "a pedo might find them" type things, as well as general privacy.

What I don't understand though is how this doesn't raise a safeguarding issue whereas a parent posting a photo of their own child with nobody in the background, is?

Does anyone have a better understanding of these things than I do and if so would they be able to enlighten me? If not, AIBU to think the school is pretty heavy handed about what parents can do considering how relaxed they are about what they can do?

I'm completely behind you Tatty and you've made me giggle at the thought of your Christmas day shots (photos or any other type).

It's because not every parent acts with common sense.

I work in a school and spend many man hours compiling permission lists (some agree to publication within school but not website, some agree to everything, some nothing etc); it is an issue that schools have to take very seriously. I've seen first hand what happens when a mom (and aunt of another child in school) takes a photo deliberately with nephew in background to show granny-ignoring the fact that estranged father is not to find out the school their child goes to, but does anyway through links on Facebook.

It may sound like hysteria to most of us; there but for the grace of god and all that, we are lucky that these things aren't an issue, but for may vulnerable children it is. Schools have the right to protect those vulnerable children, whether it interferes with a parent's social media or not.

I totally get that scenario being an issue Siblingrevelryagain but it doesn't answer my question as to how this video is NOT an example of that very risk being taken? So in effect its the school not acting with common sense as opposed to the parent in this scenario, based on that logic. ?

I would guess that the school knows who can and who can't have their image published. Someone like me at the school will have either released the footage to the newspaper or vetoed what the photographer etc took themselves. So video clip A featuring tom, dick and Harry can be shown but clip B with Rod, Jane and freddy can't because jane's mom hasn't given permission.