Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

That someone is using a made up law to stop me taking a photo of my child

999 replies

Spero · 13/03/2015 15:25

My daughter is in her first ever drama festival. She is very proud and nervous. I want to take a photo of her. I am told I cannot due to the 'Child protection Act'. I am a family lawyer. I have never heard of this Act. Nor has Google.

So the objection is not that I may disrupt proceedings with annoying camera but that the mere act of taking an photo of my own child is somehow a child protection issue.

I am angry - not so much that I can't take a photo of my precious first born, but for what this reveals about the sloppy muddleheaded approach we seem to have about what 'child protection' really means.

AIBU to be so cross? Am contemplating stern letter of complaint. Making up legislation really isn't on.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
Icimoi · 13/03/2015 23:34

It's just funny how the op is frothing about the ignorance of others yet is perfectly showcasing her own in doing so.

Lovely, Yellowbird54321. As you're so convinced of OP's ignorance, could you enlighten us with precise details of the law of which she is apparently ignorant? Because, 250 posts in, neither you nor anyone else has managed to do so.

SuburbanRhonda · 13/03/2015 23:35

icimoi

So you think talking about children dying as a result of people ignoring safeguarding procedures is hilarious?

Original poster
Spero · 13/03/2015 23:44

I have just asked a respected colleague if I am going mad. Her reply:

*Off top of head i think this is the same non existent law that is cited in notices in swimming pools and which prevents me from taking pictures of my kids in school plays.

Its a risk averse insurers defensive practice interpretation of generic child protection duties which has become so ingrained noone remembers the law itself does not specifically require it*

I don't think children dying is remotely hilarious. Children die every day of the week, mostly murdered by their parents or other adult carers whilst we devote time and energy to making up ridiculous laws about photographs.

I do however find over the top pompous pearl wringing very funny and laugh at it wherever I find it.

OP posts:
Original poster
Spero · 13/03/2015 23:47

btw, I knew very little about the festival. It was organised by my daughter's speech and drama teacher. I got a letter telling me to be at X place by X time and that was it.

I wanted to take one photo of her and her alone on the stage but there was an announcement before kick off that no photos anywhere in the building were permitted due to the Child Protection Act.

I am now very interested as to what they would have done if any parents broke that prohibition (none did, all very well behaved). Called the police? Got someone arrested? Because its the Child Protection Act officer!

OP posts:
Original poster
Spero · 13/03/2015 23:50

And yup, I was at the Festival when I posted. As I have said before, other people's children are boring. I had to sit through nearly two hours of other people's children.

OP posts:
SuburbanRhonda · 13/03/2015 23:51

Not sure if that was aimed at me, but just to clarify, it was icimoi who said it was hilarious to be offended by jokes about children dying due to breaches of safeguarding policy.

I don't think devoting less time and energy to developing child protection polices would prevent children from being killed.

SuburbanRhonda · 13/03/2015 23:55

Yes, you've already said several times that you find other people's children boring.

How does that work with being a family law practitioner? Do you have strategies for suppressing the boredom when working with children?

Original poster
Spero · 13/03/2015 23:58

Sigh.

I am a child protection lawyer. That does not involve feigning interest in some school play or delightful drawing.

I never meet the children. I represent their legal interests in court. I imagine I would be a rather less effective lawyer if I spent all my time at their school plays.

I agree with you that proper child protection policies are needed to stop children being killed. And how are we doing with that, as we appear to want to rely upon non existent laws? Just how is that protecting children.

Do please explain because I just don't understand.

OP posts:
FabULouse · 14/03/2015 00:01

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Original poster
Spero · 14/03/2015 00:02

Brilliant idea, but I would rather pitch to the Daily Mail as I think they would give me a lovely frock to wear with my 'sad face'.

OP posts:
SuburbanRhonda · 14/03/2015 00:10

It's not about children's plays or drawings. You said it was the children themselves you found boring, not what they do. Anyway, the fact you don't meet the children in your work explains how you get round this.

I think the festival organisers made a mistake with their terminology. That doesn't mean organisations everywhere are doing the same, nor that they don't have legitimate reasons for wanting to do all they can to safeguard the children taking part in their event.

The problem with this thread is that the fact you were irked by the organisers using the wrong terminology has led to you stating that their whole approach to safeguarding is wrong, and even to some posters suggesting you completely ignore any rules about taking photos, because they used the wrong word.

In your position, instead of getting angrier and angrier about this, I would be offering to help them develop a safeguarding policy based on actual law, or if you don't have the time or inclination for that, writing a polite letter pointing out the errors in it.

Horsemad · 14/03/2015 00:21

YANBU OP.

Experienced something similar years ago with DS when in a football team. Took pics and a mother of DS' s team mate complained to the ref about "Child Protection".

I argued the toss and actually got sent off from the ground by the ref!!!!

The Football Association's policy said they "positively encourage the taking of photographs". I'd read it on their website but foolishly hadn't printed a copy.

Anyway, I continued to take pics with a super zoom lens the other side of the field but the whole episode annoyed me.
The following evening, the team manager called to ask if he could give the ref my phone number to contact me: the ref had checked with the FA and had been told photos were acceptable!

I had apologetic calls from the ref and club chairman and the following week I was back there snapping away. Smile

People's confusion about CP is frustrating Angry

balletgirlmum · 14/03/2015 00:26

Drama festivals have strict child protection procedures set nationally. Photos & videos are not allowed. They take place on private property & it's your choice whether your child takes part or not.

The children attending are not known to the organisers, neither are the parents. And it would also be incredibly distracting for cameras to be going off during performances.

TheFormidableMrsC · 14/03/2015 00:30

This whole thing is utterly ridiculous. I, along with other parents, were asked not to take pictures of our children's nursery nativity play. A big thing for me, my son is autistic and the fact he was joining in was amazing! I get the protection thing but most of us just want a record of their achievements. Spero's experience is extreme in my opinon...perhaps you could have her pixellated instead yawn

Original poster
Spero · 14/03/2015 00:37

The problem with this thread is that the fact you were irked by the organisers using the wrong terminology

No. No. No.

I will try one last time before I go to sleep and if you continue to repeat this point (I think this is the third or fourth time you have said it) I will have to assume that you are either unwilling or unable to understand a fundamental and important point.

Which is this. When you are talking about law, 'terminology' is everything. It isn't me being fussy. Its the difference between breaking a requirement of a statute and not complying with a policy. There is a world of different between the two - how they are enforced, what the penalties are for non compliance.

Further - when people in charge of developing child protection policies do not understand this, an immediate and serious question is raised about their competence to understand anything in their field. If they don't even know what Act governs their policy, how can we have any faith in that policy.

And finally - what kind of issue would they have made of my breaching their policy, given that they clearly thought they had the weight of not one but several Acts of Parliament supporting them?

OP posts:
Horsemad · 14/03/2015 00:40

Whoops, my post should have read "Child Protection Act".

Italiangreyhound · 14/03/2015 00:45

Spero I think the idea of you helping them sort this out would be very good.

When I asked my school if parents had the right to put class photos on social media I was told that the school could not tell parents not to do this, they could only request it and remind people of the reasons behind it.

Personally, I feel it is a shame they cannot do more and actually have a policy which they can enforce in some way.

The idea that my son's location could be revealed because the photo goes on social media is somewhat worrying. And because it is a school photo, taken on school premises, with kids in school uniforms I really feel strongly that the school should have the right to make this a 'policy'.

balletgirlmum · 14/03/2015 00:46

Basically you have a choice, adhere to their rules or your child doesn't take part.

SoleSource · 14/03/2015 00:47

When I have taken photographs of DS at school or at the horse riding centre I have to show the teacher or the horse leading person the photographs.

Original poster
Spero · 14/03/2015 00:50

My au pair, who also works for Action for Children is very interested, as she doesn't know the legal basis behind a lot of the 'child protection' policies they are told they must adhere to - such as taking photos at contact centres. She says it is inconsistent and seems to change from week to week. Some parents are allowed to take photos, others told they can't with no rhyme or reason.

I think it may be time for an article. I think this is getting out of hand. We need policies about privacy and photographs that are actually underpinned by real law.

Will write polite letter and do article next week if I have time. This has been bugging me ever since Cardiff so will be cathartic.

right! must sleep - as neither dogs nor child respect my Human Right to a lie in.

OP posts:
WereJamming · 14/03/2015 00:53

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Italiangreyhound · 14/03/2015 01:02

What I find so very frustrating is that if we could trust parents not to post things on line I am sure many of us would be quite happy for people to take some reasonable photos (as long as their camera is not in our faces the whole time during school productions).

I never worry when my friends take photos at family or friend events because they all understand why we do not post things to social media.

And exactly because we cannot trust people to do the right thing we do need policy or law on this! And it seems especially important when it is connected to a school/school uniform which is so identifying.

Callooh · 14/03/2015 01:23

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Aridane · 14/03/2015 07:47

OP - making up fictitious laws to justify a policy - well, of course YANBU. To do so trivialises the real issues that might underly the policy.

PacificDogwood · 14/03/2015 08:02

What I find so very frustrating is that if we could trust parents not to post things on line I am sure many of us would be quite happy for people to take some reasonable photos

That is what frustrates me so much - we cannot trust that this does not happen.
And no legislation in the world will make any kind of difference after the fact. Once a picture of a vulnerable child has been posted, the damage is done even if there is then a legal aftermath (which there should be of course, but law alone, if there is one, does not prevent anything, only gives the legal framework for redress).

One of many issues that did not exist before social media.