Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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
Spartak · 14/03/2015 10:05

Is this festival professionally organised? Or is a volunteer who gives up their time to put on an event for your child going to be receiving that letter.

Surely an offer to help them with the correct wording of their policy would be much more beneficial than sending a lengthy letter pointing out that you are a lawyer.

Imustgodowntotheseaagain · 14/03/2015 10:05

For people actually interested in the issue, as opposed to the OP who is obviously determined to stay on her high horse, the law is explained very clearly in this pdf, written by a specialist in media and privacy law.

Note the advice given that you should check the rules even if you are the parent of the child you want to photograph....

www.sirimo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ukphotographersrights-v2.pdf

DrankSangriaInThePark · 14/03/2015 10:12

Is it really worth it Spero?

Just to be right, and to be seen to be right?

I hope your daughter won't be too embarrassed at having the dog-with-bone mother determined at all costs to prove her point. Because I was that child a long time ago, with a mother forever harrumphing and writing letters, and I was mortified. And she was actually writing letters about stuff she disagreed with, not stuff that she actually approved of, but disliked the wording.

You say yourself that you have no objections to not being allowed to take a picture.

Honestly, there are times for fighting battles, and in the past, you know I've stood by you waving pompoms and cheering you on, but this one?

Nope. You're just being daft.

SuburbanRhonda · 14/03/2015 10:15

Thanks for posting that very useful link, imust.

Although it makes clear that it was the OP's job to check the rules around taking photographs, she maintains that unless the rule is underpinned by legislation, she can do as she pleases.

Perhaps what she has failed to appreciate is that the festival organisers are perfectly within their rights to set terms and conditions they believe are in the interests of safeguarding and she is perfectly at liberty to withdraw her child from the festival if she cannot accept those terms.

The OP stated that the sport of shooting has very relaxed rules on this - perhaps that would be the way for her to go Smile

Callooh · 14/03/2015 10:20

This reply has been deleted

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

JillyR2015 · 14/03/2015 10:24

As a lawyer you know that anyone can decide what is done on their land.

Also I detest parents filming and taking photos at school events. It makes the event a cattle market. The British sit silently and watch. It is how we do things. The more rules to stop pushy parents taking pictures at these kinds of events whether at a school or festival the better.

Instead of quoting the law they should say photos are disrupting and not allowed.

Trickydecision · 14/03/2015 10:33

Perhaps what she has failed to appreciate is that the festival organisers are perfectly within their rights to set terms and conditions they believe are in the interests of safeguarding and she is perfectly at liberty to withdraw her child from the festival if she cannot accept those terms.

But the organisers took no steps to ensure parents were informed about the 'rule'; the OP says she was just told to turn up at X at X time. Yes, I appreciate that the link also says it is the parent's responsibility to check the rules. However after many years of attending DCs' and DGCs' similar school and non school events, it has never occurred to me to ask for such rules in advance.

And yes, DrankS, it is really worth it. Why should we be at the mercy of stupid people making up arbitrary rules and claiming they are the law?

SuburbanRhonda · 14/03/2015 10:46

Tricky, there's a link a few pages back to the rules of the festival.

I imagine every entrant would have had to read and accept these terms and conditions as part of their application.

Original poster
Spero · 14/03/2015 10:47

Perhaps what she has failed to appreciate is that the festival organisers are perfectly within their rights to set terms and conditions they believe are in the interests of safeguarding and she is perfectly at liberty to withdraw her child from the festival if she cannot accept those terms

this is the fundamental point, with which I disagree. Like I said - what if the terms said - no disabled children? No non christian children?

I am afraid my poor daughter is stuck with the mother she has. I have not and will not involve her in this crusade at all but even if she does find out and is embarrassed - tough.

I have to go out now but I will be back tonight and I am going to try a blog post about this as I think it is really important - not because of what happened at one drama festival on one afternoon but because what this says more widely about child protection policies. I have been coming up against this for years now in a variety of contexts. I don' t think its trivial, but if you do that is your perogative.

OP posts:
Original poster
Spero · 14/03/2015 10:49

And thanks for that link Imust - I will read it carefully, on first glance it looks like something that should definitely be more widely circulated. I hadn't seen that before.

OP posts:
Trickydecision · 14/03/2015 10:54

SuburbanRhonda

I imagine every entrant would have had to read and accept these terms and conditions as part of their application.

Not so:

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.

SuburbanRhonda · 14/03/2015 10:59

tricky,

Where does the OP say she didn't have to read and accept the terms and conditions of the festival?

SuburbanRhonda · 14/03/2015 11:04

Like I said - what if the terms said - no disabled children? No non christian children?

On what planet would that even have been a possibility, OP? You're being ridiculous now.

Trickydecision · 14/03/2015 11:06

She didn't say it but it is implied, surely in the above quote. Sorry but I don't quite see the relevance.

SuburbanRhonda · 14/03/2015 11:09

It's not implied, tricky.

You inferred it.

Trickydecision · 14/03/2015 11:11

Well we will have to differ on that.

SuburbanRhonda · 14/03/2015 11:14

No, we will have to wait until the OP clarifies whether she was asked to read and accept the terms and conditions when applying or not.

If she wasn't, you are right.

If she was, I am right.

SquirrelledAway · 14/03/2015 11:14

Tricky Just because someone else has done your child's entry on your behalf does not abdicate you of the responsibility of understanding the terms and conditions of the entry.

Trickydecision · 14/03/2015 11:25

Fair enough, SuburbanR.

God, Squirrelled, I have clearly failed as a grandmother in that I did not quiz the DGCs' parents on whether they had read the terms and conditions thoroughly before allowing the kids to participate in the Fiddle Fiesta.

P.S. just dawned on me that a different name for it might be a good idea.

LittleBearPad · 14/03/2015 11:31

Grin Tricky

Yanbu Spero.

SquirrelledAway · 14/03/2015 11:31

Yeah, Tricky you did Wink.

I organise sporting events, sometimes I do entries for other people's kids for sporting events, and sometimes other people do my kids' entries for sporting events. But I always read the entry conditions regardless of who is doing the entries.

prh47bridge · 14/03/2015 11:44

Quite apart from inventing a law to justify its position, the school is acting against official guidance.

Schools were given guidance 4 years ago that they should allow parents to take photos for personal use. They were told that they should only stop photos if parents objected but, even in that situation, objections from one or two parents should not result in a ban unless there was a genuine safeguarding concern, not just wild speculation about photos falling into the hands of paedophiles.

The same guidance said that parents should challenge any schools or councils trying to impose bans on photography and, in most cases, ignore the ban. So, even if the school had communicated terms and conditions specifying no photography, the OP has official backing for challenging and ignoring the school's ban.

Sadly 1 in 6 schools still ignore official guidance and ban photography, often on spurious grounds such as the Data Protection Act (which does not apply to photos taken for personal use) or made up laws such as the OP reports.

prh47bridge · 14/03/2015 11:46

Just realised I should have added...

The school can legitimately insist that any photos are for personal use only and must not be posted on social media (e.g. Facebook). But they should allow parents to photograph their children.

SuburbanRhonda · 14/03/2015 11:48

It wasn't a school event, pr47.

Imustgodowntotheseaagain · 14/03/2015 11:51

Here are 2 other examples of restrictive terms and conditions:

(1) I love motorsport. I would like to take my dog with me to watch motor racing, but most organisers put in their T&Cs that dogs are not allowed at the event.

I bet if I said "what law tells me that I cannot being my dog to the event" they would be hard-pushed to find one.

But the rule is clearly in place to protect participants from the risk of hitting a loose pet, and for the general comfort and well being of the rest of the spectators.

I accept the T&C when I buy a ticket and leave the dog at home.

(2) I was barred from entry to a posh sporting event because I was in trainers. I hadn't seen the T&C as they were printed on the back of the ticket - which I was collecting from the box office in the day.

What law exists to say that I had to wear high heels or smart shoes to get into a horse race?

I didn't get in. Even thought I hadn't had the chance to read the T&C, I was still bound by them. (I did get a refund).