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

[Spero]

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.

Christ almighty.

OP you were in a private building. You needed to ask permission to take any photos and when you did, it was not granted.

The owners of that building just needed to say "No"

They are not required to explain themselves to you as to why they said no.

So the idea that a family lawyer would write a strong letter telling me they didn't like my explanation (when legally I don't owe them one) is funny.

If you genuinely don't understand how dangerous it is to have made up Acts of Parliament being used as a basis to curtail my interaction with my own child, then clearly nothing I say here will help you understand as I think I have clearly explained why this is wrong several times.

I will be writing. I want to understand the clear legal framework for this policy.

Protecting identification of children - I understand why this is necessary. But show me the legal justification.

Action against paedophilia? bloody stupid. Show me the legal justification.

Protecting your own revenue because you want to sell photos? - perfectly understandable in commercial context, but admit this is what you are doing and again, show me the legal basis.

Callooh - you also miss the point.

I hope I am not so boorish, selfish or unpleasant to ignore a request not to do something when my failure to abide by it could put at risk an activity which is clearly very important to a large number of children and the parents who have come to support them. My desire to take a picture was not so overwhelming I thought it sensible to provoke a dispute with the organisers 30 seconds before the children went on stage.

However, I mind very much that I am told that I cannot do something for a 'child protection' reason that has no basis in law.

I mind because, as I keep saying - child protection policies matter. It is crucial that they are devised by people who understand what they are doing and that they are clear and understandable to people who have to implement them on the ground. Basing a policy on a law that doesn't exist invalidates whatever policy you are assuming you have.

But I can sense I am slipping into trying to justify myself here. Those who get the point get it - those who don't, won't. So if you don't get it, don't enrage yourself further by visiting this thread when I update to include the response to my letter!

OP, you're a lawyer, did you not actually read the terms and conditions that you agreed to by signing your daughter's entry form?

You know, the bit that says "I have read and agree to abide by the general rules"? Which include no photography in the venue?

SuburbanRhonda: I did not at any point suggest that I found dying children hilarious: like the organisers of this festival, you probably shouldn't make things up. What I find hilarious is people getting all pursed lip about the possibility of a child dying because his elbow appears in someone else's photo - which is what OP was alluding to.

SquirrelledAway, have you not read the OP's posts? You know, the bit where she explains that she wasn't given any entry form to sign?

Please do update with their response, spero, it'll be interesting...

Icimoi - I gave up about halfway through the thread and skipped to the end.

But given that I can find the terms and conditions and the child safeguarding policy in place for the event, you would have thought that a parent of a child taking part might have had the wit to Google it.

Seriously, Squirrelled? Does any parent solemnly go off and google terms and conditions for an event venue? I'd love to meet them.

And, of course, if those terms and conditions are stated to be based on non-existent laws, how much weight would you put on them anyway?

I agree calling it a "law" when it isn't was a mistake. If you wish to volunteer your time to help them write their policies so they're not misleading - you absolutely should!

But they legally don't need to give you any explanation as to why they do not want photos taken on their premises.

Really, they should've just told parents NO photography! No explanations.

That wouldnt have left you upset at all.

thanks Icimoi, precisely my point.

You can't just make up whatever you want as your 'terms and conditions'

If the terms and conditions said 'no black children/no disabled children' would you just be replying 'their venue their rules hun!'

Terms and conditions have to be lawful - as Christian owners of B and Bs find out to their (significant) cost.

O don't worry, I would have found a reason to be upset, I was spending 2 hours listening to 9 year olds recite Shakespeare.

But yes, I accept, just a blanket ban would not have pushed my buttons to this extent. Relying on non existent law does.

time and time again I see cases collapse due to really sloppy evidence gathering by those in authority. Why is it so sloppy? Because they don't understand what they are doing and why it is important. They ignore the important stuff and focus in on utter trivialities. So I guess I am very sensitive about this point.

It's a festival run by volunteers, not professionals, and somebody made a mistake in the initial announcement.

If it's so important to you why don't you just volunteer to help them with their child protection policy?

Its much more than that. I think you need to read more of the thread.

For anyone still interested (I accept this may be a dwindling band) here is the letter I will post today.

14 th March 2015

To whom it may concern

RE Policy prohibiting photography said to be based on the Child Protection Act

On Friday 13th March my daughter was a competitor at the Mid Somerset Festival. There was a general announcement just before the commencement of her acting competition at the Guildhall that all photography in the building was prohibited ‘due to the Child Protection Act’.

This caused me some disquiet, as there is no such Act. I am a family law barrister who specializes in family law.

I checked further the Festival’s stated child protection policy and found this:

PHOTOGRAPHS, VIDEOTAPES and PRESS PHOTOGRAPHY:
The use of all audio or visual recording equipment is strictly forbidden throughout the Festival, except by the official Festival photographer or Press photographers. The official Festival photographer, identified by a badge, will seek permission from a responsible adult attending with a child or vulnerable adult for photographs/video to be taken. Press photographers, also identified by a badge, may take photographs by prior arrangement with Festival organisers. This Policy makes it clear that, where parents do not wish photos to be taken, then the responsible adults attending with children or vulnerable adults are responsible for ensuring that children are not included in Press photos.
THE LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE THAT SUPPORTS THIS POLICY:
The Children Act 1989; The Police Act 1997; The Data Protection Act 1998; The Human Rights Act 1998, The Protection of Children Act 1999; The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000.

I was further concerned to note this list of primary legislation as I am not aware of any provision in any of this legislation that relates to a parent taking a picture of their own child. The CJCAS 2000 refers only to the penalties for taking of indecent photographs.

Obviously as a parent and as a lawyer I need to have a clear understanding of the legal basis underpinning such policies of child protection, particularly when they are directed at interfering with my interaction with my own child. Equally clearly, those responsible for devising and implementing child protection policies need to understand the legal basis from which they operate.

I accept and understand that as organisers of such an important event, you need ground rules to help parents understand what they can and cannot do. I accept that photography has the potential to be disruptive to a performance and there may be a risk that vulnerable children could be inadvertently included in a photograph which goes on to be published on social media.

I appreciate the risks of that and have no objection to being subject to Festival rules that go to mitigate these serious risks.

However your policy was explicitly declared to me to be based on an Act of Parliament that does not exist. The list of primary legislation you then state informs your policy would not appear to have any direct relevance to the issue of whether or not a parent may take a photograph of their own child within the building where the Festival is being held.

I would be very grateful if you could confirm to me the legal basis underpinning your specific child protection policy that prohibits taking photographs anywhere in the building where a competition is taking place, and also confirm that there will be no further reliance upon or reference to ‘the Child Protection Act’ in any context.

Yours faithfully

This is interesting
Schools often invoke the Data Protection Act 1998, or the Children Act 2004 as the reason for photography bans. "But there is nothing in the Children Act that says 'Thou shalt not photograph children'," says Eleanor Coner, information officer at the Scottish Parent Teacher Council. The Information Commissioner's Office has taken to putting out bi-annual statements refuting the myth that the Data Protection Act prohibits photography. "We call it the 'data protection duckout'," says David Smith, director of data protection at the Information Commissioner's Office. "If there is something people don't want to do, but they can't explain it easily, they say it's because of the Data Protection Act."

In fact, photography bans cannot be traced to any single event or law. Rather, it seems that there was a shift from the early 2000s, when similar regulations diffused throughout schools and sports organisations.

The first widely reported ban was a Yorkshire primary school in 1999, followed by Perth and Kinross council in 2000 and Edinburgh District Council in 2002. The Amateur Swimming Association first drew up a photography policy in 1999 and the Child Protection in Sport Unit published a similar document in 2002, which then spread through sports governing bodies.

Some schools and clubs are more liberal, but these are increasingly rare. When I contacted a number of UK sporting associations, only one (shooting) lacked significant restrictions.

As an example of how attitudes have changed, a manufacturer of children's play equipment asked a photographer, John Robertson, to photograph its apparatus at a variety of English sites: he was shouted at and parents snatched away their children in parks in Nottingham, Cambridge and the Isle of Wight.

The spread of photo bans is not really a response to child abusers stalking school sports days. Instead, it reflects the contamination of everyday adult-child relations – and the new assumption, as the children's author Philip Pullman put it, that "the default position of one human being to another is predatory rather than kindness". Any adult looking through the viewfinder at a child is viewed as potentially sinister and in need of regulation.

From the Guardian, back in 2012....www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/jun/23/photos-children-school-ban

'Interesting' legal update alert.

Well, well, well. I have to admit I am wrong. There IS A Protection of Children act from 1978.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/37

BUT it is 'An Act to prevent the exploitation of children by making indecent photographs of them; and to penalise the distribution, showing and advertisement of such indecent photographs.'

So I will need to revise my letter. There IS a Protection of Children Act but it deals exclusively with INDECENT photographs.

So I don't think my central point is lost; anyone who refers to this Act in the context of children's school or sporting activities, clearly can't have read it. And if anyone is suggesting I want to take an indecent photograph of my child at such an event then I am going to want that suggestion put to me clearly in writing so I can deal with it properly...

SuburbanRhonda: I did not at any point suggest that I found dying children hilarious: like the organisers of this festival, you probably shouldn't make things up.

icimoi, the words I used in my post were "talking about children dying".

I agree with you - it's really annoying when people make things up.

OP, I have to hand it to you for admitting you're wrong about there being a "Child Protection Act", (even if it's probably not the right piece of legislation for this occasion).

If you do intend to amend your letter, you might want to change "go to mitigate" to "help to mitigate".

Just sayin'.

Sorry, only about halfway through and need to put DD down for nap, so this may have been said.

Why couldn't the event simply ask everyone NOT to post any photos taken to social media? Presumably the audience was parents, grandparents, family etc? So they would all understand that vulnerable children exist, that they may or may not be in the show, and that they (as adults) have a responsibility to therefore be cautious in their actions?

Why does it have to be legislated to fuck? Why can't we just ask (and expect) people to behave reasonably? Are there honestly adults out there who would maliciously want to put other people's children in danger, when warned of the danger? FFS. Legislation isn't a replacement for personal responsibility, and trying to replace the latter with the former is dangerous and corrosive.

I don't post any images of my daughter online. Personal decision, she's not at risk. No one has ever done so without asking me first, because THAT IS WHAT NORMAL PEOPLE DO.

Nice one, spero. Expect defensive bs in reply.

Callooh

Me? Challenge anyone?

I am professionally offended at the suggestion.