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.

I like the blog post - thanks for linking.

Not quite on point - but I loved the Infomration Commissioner's office having to try to counteract what they call the 'data protection duck out'

"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.”

I think #oneofthosemothers is already trending.

I wonder if the embarrassed and sleepwalking will object?

Op - I'm with you.

It's troubling that people do not question this sort of thing more often.

Thankfully our nurseries/ schools/dance classes all seem to allow photography. They send out a letter saying people will be taking photos etc and please contact them
If there are any issues.They request that people do not post the pictures on social media.

When I was a newspaper reporter I was taught that we could take photos anywhere of anyone at all and publish them if the photographs were taken in a public place. Except railways /rail stations.

Later PCC guidelines were to seek parental permission before publication of images of under 16s - I think that's right - but not taking the photo, just publishing it. (Am rusty but I think that's correct)

I'm one of those grannies, having been one of those mums and also the daughter of one, of whom I am very proud.

Just out of interest, icimoi, what would happen if a new chld started at your school for whom your policy on photographs needed to be changed in order to protect their identity and location? How would you ensure that parents didn't make the connection between the arrival of a new child at the school and the change in policy?

There are a number of answers to that, one of which is that it's not a decision for governors to take. Clearly it hasn't arisen yet, but given that the reality is there are only limited occasions when parents may want to take photographs on school premises, it would have to be quite a big coincidence for the child's arrival to coincide with one of those occasions. For this to matter, the child or children would have to be the only new pupils, there would have to be no more new arrivals between their entrance and the first school play or whatever when the new rule would be announced, one of the very few parents who actually knew there are new pupils would have to make the connection (but, face it, they could never know for sure that there actually is a connection and it's not something the school has just decided to do off its own bat), they would also have to be parents who would decide to publicise it, and they would have to do so to someone who would actually take an interest. It doesn't render it impossible, but the chances are pretty minute, and there is a higher chance that the facts surrounding the new pupil would come out by other means.

But my main answer is that we are following clear DfE guidance. Your question is perhaps better asked of them.

Thank you for replying, icimoi.

In most schools, the governors approve new or amended polices, so it would indeed be a matter for the governing body if the policy needed to change. In addition, if a new child arrived at the school, the amended policy would need to be in place straight away, not when the next photo-opportunity took place. There are also other occasions when parents want to take photos, such as class assemblies and other more low-key events. Parents would need to be informed about the new policy as soon as it was amended.

I agree the chances of a child telling their parent that a new child had joined their class (the usual way parents find out about a new arrival) and the parent realising this coincides with a change in the safeguarding policy may be remote, but it is a chance nonetheless. Maybe the governor responsible for safeguarding needs to have a contingency plan for this and not rely on it not happening.

The DfE would probably expect the school to decide how to manage the situation itself and wouldn't stipulate how they should go about doing that.

thechandler, are you really suggesting that taking a photo of a child is a protected right under the ECHR? How on earth did we enjoy our right to a family life before the invention of cameras?

Also, I think you'll find the law in this country is upheld by non-lawyers, they're called juries.

No, Suburban, we've already approved the policy on the basis that it will change if a child is potentially in danger. If a child is moved to the school at short notice, it would obviously be wrong to insist that the original rule stay in place until a meeting can be convened.

My point was that, although a new policy would be put in place straight away, parents would not become aware of any change unless and until a performance of some sort happened when it would actually come into operation. Even class assemblies only happen at most once a term for any one class: if, for instance, the child in question was in year 1, there would be no need to impose the policy immediately simply because year 5 was about to have an assembly.

prh47 helpfully set out DfE policy upthread. As I pointed out, Ofsted had no issue at all with how our school deals with this issue.

Imust, one would hope that everyone upholds the law. What Chandler suggested was that people who aren't lawyers possibly shouldn't go around trying to dictate what the law is. Juries don't do that.

On a personal level, I wouldn't seek to prevent non-lawyers doing that: in some areas, non-lawyers know the law very well indeed - accountants could probably run rings round most lawyers on tax law for instance. But it is certainly try to say that if you are going to cite the law you should do so accurately and you should be very sure that you know precisely what it means.

What cockbollocks said! At our school we have a signed disclaimer on photos that we will be extremely careful with any photos of other people's children, ie not display them anywhere and it is left at that.

You're totally right and quoting a law that does not exist makes their whole argument ridiculous in my view!

I think you'll find the law in this country is upheld by non-lawyers, they're called juries

Thechandler never said otherwise. Of course, juries are told what the law says by judges. They do not have the power to make the law, interpret or extend it. Juries simply decide on the facts of the case. As the OP has pointed out, none of the legislation cited by the organisers supports their position.

Can't be bothered to read through 17 pages, to check if anyone has mentioned that in the UK it's not breaking the law taking photos of children, the issue is about safeguarding children against what could happen if photos havs been taken.

Schools, clubs ect whete children attend are encouraged to implement a policy to safe guard children regarding their photo being taken.

www.safenetwork.org.uk/help_and_advice/best_safeguarding_practice/Pages/photographing_children.aspx

I see where your school is different from the school in which I work, icimoi.

When we amend a new policy or write a new one, we inform parents straight away through the usual channels.

I guess if you don't tell parents until it could become an issue, the chance of anyone connecting the arrival of a new child with a change in the school's safeguarding policy becomes a little less likely.

It's possible that Ofsted didn't inspect your policy on taking photographs rather than directly approving it, as obviously they can't cover everything in one inspection.

Oh OP I was about to post that you shouldn't go to a swimming pool or join your daughter up to a swimming club because those places are full of 'Child Protection Act' rules....

Then saw you had been there and missed a trick

I have a son and I am single. He has ASD.

We haven't been to our local pool for 2yrs because I can not enter the changing room he must use 'by law' to check that he is ok. Last time he was in changing room alone 3 boys whipped him with towels as they were unsupervised and he is vulnerable.

Worse this is during swimming lessons so no general public swimming or changing - if I was a father taking my son to lesson I can go in the changing room regardless of his age. Similarly if my son was a daughter I could take her in the female changing room with me regardless of age. This too is 'child protection law' and I was threatened with the police if I breached it.

So we go to a pool with unisex changing village - his swimming club then tell me 'by law' I am not allowed to be in the changing room when club swimmers are changing due to 'child protection'. The general public IS allowed because they share the facilities....

I am also not allowed on poolside due to 'child protection' but if I pay the entrance fee to the pool I can stalk him as much as I like.

All of the above are POLICY - some ASA and some policy relating to sporting communal changing rooms. I hve challenged it numerous times with facilities and pointed out that their rules but MY vulnerable child at risk of harm. At best you get a shrug - disabled changing rooms are often a corridor or toilet and woefully few so to send us in there is just causing a new set of issues....

You are so correct to challenge this but I will guarantee few will understand

My DS school just tells you not to put pics on Social Media - which of course everybody does!!

*in other words: its their child protection POLICY. They made a mistake. That might seem crazy to someone like the op who has no doubt made any mistakes ever in her life, but it happens. Get over it.

the fact someone cocked up the explanation to you doesn't make the background child protection issues any less real*

I find this incredible. They haven't just 'made a mistake'. Their entire 'policy' is based on legislation that almost entirely does not apply

I am not just going to 'get over that' and nor should you. A child protection 'policy' based on offences around indecent photography is a great big steaming pile of crap for all the reasons which I have explained, over, and over and over again.

No wonder we are sleep walking into all kinds of shit when people are not merely apathetic about this issue but actually angry and prepared to insult me personally when I raise it.

Very slow handclap.

Tinklypink - your experiences demonstrate perfectly and chillingly how corrosive this emphasis on indecency has become.

how sad and bizarre that some on this thread not only don't care but think it is variously 'smug' or 'daft' to raise it.

Can't be bothered to read through 17 pages, to check if anyone has mentioned that in the UK it's not breaking the law taking photos of children, the issue is about safeguarding children against what could happen if photos havs been taken

Its a shame you couldn't be bothered, because then you would have seen the issue is about something else entirely; the reliance on statute prohibiting the use of indecent photographs to create a child protection policy.

Which is both ineffectual and positively dangerous. In my opinion.

But thanks for that link passthewine from the Safe Network - I have added it to the blog as I think it is very sensible.

I like the point that it is also about educating the children about what makes them feel safe - this is a crucial point and seems entirely missing from a lot of safeguarding policies which appear to focus on the children simply as victims of adult paedophiles.

Utterly bloody ludicrous. OP, take the bloody picture and be proud of your child and tell the school to shove their stupid bullshit rules up their fat arses. How pathetic that we as a nation have come to this. If you (general) as a parent don't want pictures of your child taken then don't let them be in the bloody school play, but nooooo, everyone else's fun and proud memories have to be ruined as a result of a few precious peoples' ridiculous fucking paranoia! Jesus wept.

I want to obey rules that are sensible and for the benefit of everyone. We can't function as a society if I just run about saying 'stick up your arse' everything that annoys me. That would probably take up about 95% of my waking hours.

I can see the sense in rules based around protection of vulnerable children from identification

But I am going to remain profoundly worried about rules based on the assumption that all photographs taken are indecent.

Remember Julia Somerville?www.independent.co.uk/news/julia-somerville-defends-innocent-family-photos-1538516.html

This quote from that 1995 case remains very on point
Either children who are being abused are not being protected properly, or a whole new group of children who were never abused in the first place are being traumatised. Six out of seven of these investigations are dropped

goodnessgracious, OP isn't a solicitor and doesn't claim to be.

I note you don't challenge the description of me as condescending, obtuse, know it all pedant

I need more effective sock puppets!