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.

Sorry - looking at the OP again I can see this wasn't a school event. Not sure why I thought it was.

In that case the organisers are obviously within their rights to ban photography. It is quite common if the organiser wants to sell their own photos. However, they were wrong to quote a non-existent law.

As someone who is involved in child protection to some degree, I get quite annoyed at organisations that use non-existent child protection concerns to ban parents from photographing their children. It brings child protection into disrepute. It is possible the organisers of this event are aware of legitimate concerns but quoting a non-existent law suggests otherwise.

The festival organisers were no doubt doing their best to ensure they kept children safe while participating in the event. They may have quoted laws and acts that they felt would make it less likely parents would ignore the terms and conditions of the event.

As the OP herself has pointed out, the Act they quoted does actually exist; the organisers didn't make it up. It's just that it pertains to the taking of indecent photographs, so is probably not relevant in this context.

I do hope that instead of writing a snotty letter to the organisers, the OP takes some of the advice given on here and politely offers to use her knowledge of the law to help them re-draft their safeguarding policy.

The organisers were "within their rights"

but why not just own it?

No photography on these premises.

If writing to them about anything, it would simply be that for me.

Don't hide behind any acts (real or imagined!!), just state your policies!

Perhaps they just think it will go down better saying it's against the law rather than saying all these awful pushy parents with their cameras utterly spoiling events trying to take pictures of their precious little darlings are awful and we don't let them take the pictures. Just blaming the law perhaps is just a bit kinder.

I am guilty of only having read the first half of this thread (I know, how rude).

But just wanted to say that this doesn't only happen in the UK, it happens here in Australia too - although I wouldn't know if it happened in the OP's very specific sort of example, because I haven't been in that situation to find out.

I'm quite surprised they didn't have an "official photographer" at the event though, and also surprised that you weren't allowed to take a photo anywhere in the building - I'm sure a blank wall background wouldn't have given much away!

But I do understand the concepts behind the "no photography" issues - we have a few children in DS1's school who are on the list to remain unphotographed, and the school are very good at policing this.

Phr47 - do you have a link to the guidance for schools? Sounds as if it would be very handy.

Tricky, very intrigued to hear about your Fiddle Fiesta. Care to share your terms and conditions?

I think they have their legislation mixed up. This is a helpful read:-

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/jun/23/photos-children-school-ban

mum, this wasn't a school event.

"Perhaps they just think it will go down better saying it's against the law rather than saying all these awful pushy parents with their cameras utterly spoiling events trying to take pictures of their precious little darlings are awful and we don't let them take the pictures. Just blaming the law perhaps is just a bit kinder."

I'm sure a lot of organisations would find it easier to enforce their policies if they were to lie and pretend they have the weight of law behind them, but that's not really ethical, is it?

Except that, contrary to what the OP first posted, there is a Protection of Children Act (the OP posted details of it herself) so they didn't lie and they didn't make anything up.

It would be a lot easier for organisations if parents actually read the information supplied and observed the clear signage and did as they were asked.

IMustGoDownToTheSeaAgain 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).

Well, actually, theres quite a lot of case law on the point that if you aren't given notice of the terms and conditions before the contract is concluded, why it would not form part of the contract in those circumstances (but you may need to take the organisers of the events to go to court to prove it).

The distinction is obvious: (1) a piece of legislation was made up in favour of a law which doesn't exist and (2) the OP in this instance is annoyed because her right to family life (which is a protected right under e.g. the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the EU) was potentially infringed - which is rather more delicate than not allowing dogs onto a motorsport course because they might chase someone (and strict liability applies to accidents caused by animals). (Although I still think the dress code may be caught under the Equality Act as indirect discrimination if anyone challenged it properly).

This is why those who aren't qualified lawyers possibly shouldn't go around trying to dictate the law to others - we are not a nation where our laws are enforced by self appointed individuals. I can think of some parts of the world which are and taking photographs of your children would be the least of your worries there. We have a legislature to legislate, judges to judge and lawyers to do their jobs based on a proper knowledge of that.

As the OP herself has pointed out

The OP has not pointed out any such thing. There is a Protection of Children Act which is close. However, contrary to your statement, it says absolutely nothing about photographs, indecent or otherwise. It is purely about allowing the government to keep lists of people who may not work in certain positions. So they did lie and they did make things up.

do you have a link to the guidance for schools

You will find it here. It is from the ICO and relates primarily to the DPA which is another law often cited by schools. At least the DPA has the advantage of actually existing. This is the only official guidance issued to schools. Apologies - I confused the press release (which encourages parents to challenge bans) with the guidance (which does not).

prh, this is what I actually posted, not just the extract you quoted:

As the OP herself has pointed out, the Act they quoted does actually exist; the organisers didn't make it up. It's just that it pertains to the taking of indecent photographs, so is probably not relevant in this context.

And this is what the OP said about it:

Well, well, well. I have to admit I am wrong. There IS A Protection of Children act from 1978.

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.'

DrankSangriaInThePark 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.

Can I just point out that I am really proud to have had "one of those mothers", who stepped in on occasion to correct the school when it was wrong. One of those occasions was when the headmaster told her "we don't expect anyone from this school to go on to university, another time was regarding Home Economics only being for girls. She marched up, clearly informed them that her daughter would not be using school time to cook and clean, and that I would be doing technical drawing for the second half of the year. I've always been good at DIY ever since. Thanks Mum!

As for the more general point, thankfully not everyone is of the sit quietly and let it all wash over persuasion. I do think a tendency towards an illegal ban on photographing our own children is one of those areas important enough to warrant action, particularly if we are in a position to act.

If its that important (and indeed that permissible a ban) parliament would legislate on the matter.

SuburbanRhonda I had no difficulty in reconciling what the OP wrote rather clearly about differing statutory titles and content.

But it's not an illegal ban on photographing children in this instance. You either agree to the Ts and Cs of the competition (which was quite clear on the photography policy) or you don't enter.

Good for you, chandler.

Can I just point out that I am really proud to have had "one of those mothers"

Me too chandler.

I think you're right OP. You shouldn't pretend you have legal backing just to get your own way and avoid difficult conversations. Same as people hiding behind health and safety or data protection.

It brings the whole business of legislation into disrepute.

I probably wouldn't write the letter, I'd just be annoyed. But then I don't work in your field. It's obviously an important principle for you. It should be for everyone really.

prh, I think you will find that there are guidelines other than those of the ICA with which schools have to comply. The DfE have their own instructions, regardless of whether they are underpinned by legislation as part of its 'safeguarding' policy and this includes not allowing photos at events. As non-compliance can result in a failed Ofsted inspection, schools toe the line.

Spero, sorry I can't share the Ts & Cs of the Fiddle Fiesta, as we are so irresponsible we neither asked for nor were given them.

Bearing in mind the length of the fiddling at the Fiesta, and the fact that only one's own kids' performances are truly interesting, maybe Boring Sawing would be a more appropriate ( and more seemly) name.

On reflection, I am actually quite pissed off I am being told not to make a fuss about things because it might embarrass my child.

Great feminist message right there.

I know what kind of mother I would rather be.

So best just to say no photos. I have been at events where the parents are literally pushing up the aisles or you're trying to concentrate on the last notes of a wonderful Handle piece and you can see the camers out of the corner of your eye. It is not the thing. It's rude, pushing, un English as if these people have never been taught how to behave at concerts and the like. The parents at these festivals need a course on parental etiquette at events rather than to be complaining about camera bans.

Tricky, I will of course now have to ride my High Horse to picket the Fiddle Fiesta for the sole purpose of highlighting your shameful failure to have in place terms and conditions approved by the Lord High Chancellor, as this is clearly what I live to do.

Spero, I think you are right to make them explain themselves, especially as they cited the law inaccurately as a way of trying to manipulate everyone. Good for you. What a terrible lesson to teach children - never question authority or ask it to explain itself.