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.

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?

No, I didn't. I mentioned the Charter, not the ECHR. I did that for a reason. Neither existed in law before the invention of the camera, so your fears are groundless.

I thought it interesting to mention the right to family life because its an untested point. In conjunction with the right to good administration (was a public body or any emanation of the state involved?) it would be interesting to explore at some future point.

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

Lets hope those non-lawyers can tell the different between criminal and civil law then!

The more serious point is perhaps that, while the law applies to everyone, not everyone is (authorised and qualified) to apply the law (much less make new law). No-one has any problem with non-lawyers discussing the law, the problem is when they get it wrong and then perpetuate their mistakes, generally because they don't understand the full implications of what they are saying. Making up laws that don't exist and then using them to control people's lives is not something that is in any way admirable.

SewSlapdash How do you know whether lawyers can make arrests under the Offences Against Lawyers Act 2014 Rhonda? Since its not on the statute books you can't check. See what we mean about made up laws?

What does it matter? Its probably on an internet page somewhere in the world that you misread 4 years ago!

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

I certainly think there is an argument it could be. I have a right to a family and private life which can't be breached unless that breach is in accordance with the law and necessary. Hence my excited jumping up and down about trying to apply laws which are not relevant.

Taking photos and sharing them on social media is a pretty big part of most people's lives now. To say simply 'you can't do that' is arguably an infringement of both private and family life and I want a justification rather better than 'you might take a pornographic picture of your own fully clothed child'.

And anyone who just wants to hate on Facebook et al, have fun but leave me out of it. It was - and is - the best way I have found of keeping in touch with family and friends who live far away. I have got sensible privacy settings.

Spero are you sure they quoted the Protection of Children Act 1978 in the announcement? Given that they quote the 1999 act in their literature and the Police Act 1997 do you not think they are referring to CRB checks for their volunteers?

Given that the information on the festival website only refers to official photographers seeking permission from the responsible adult to take photos under the safeguarding policy (and reiterates that you cannot take photos yourself), and the no photographs / videos is stated under the general rules, I think your actual beef is with the announcement not with their written policies.

Just to point out that the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights and the "European Convention on Fundamental Rights* are two different treaties. The former gives stronger rights in some areas than the latter, which was why I mentioned it.

Aside from the right to family life, the right to good administration would be highly relevant to someone who, in the course of their job, misquoted the law and caused a grievance to a member of the public as a result.

At the very least, they would be incompetent - at least check the law first!

I don't think anyone was actually working (or representing the State) in this case, but it may apply to other cases.

Tinklypink your swimming club is being extremely unhelpful. Remind them that the ASA fully supports swimming for children with disabilities and that they should have completed an assessment of need for him in consultation with you.

The CPSU advice for sharing changing rooms allows for the fact that some children may need additional support and that the other groups may be in the changing rooms at the same time. You need to make a complaint to the Club child protection or welfare officer - they can provide a work around for you, either you would need to be CRB checked, have signed up to a club code of conduct, and there would need to be a second adult present, or it can be seen as a private arrangement if you are responsible only for your own child.

There is no law about the ages when children must use the correct sex changing room - the CPSU suggests the age of 8. And there is a simple reason that parents are not allowed on poolside during lessons - they distract the children.

they simply said 'The Protection of Children Act'

My initial beef was with this announcement as I thought this was a non existant Act.

When someone helpfully pointed out what Acts they WERE actually relying on my 'beef' became something much more serious. Their entire policy is based on legislation which, with the exception of section 97(2) of the Children Act 1989 is completely irrelevant.

See the Police Act 1997 for example.

What's curious is that so many people seem to think that this doesn't matter. That laws are silly little emphermeral things that we can misstate as much as we like with no consequences, anyone who gets upset about this is variously a 'pedant' who can be dismissed with quite nasty personal attacks.

Well, laws do matter. As Julia Somerville found out and countless others who have been investigated and arrested on spurious grounds.

You might find that out for yourselves one day given how shaky most social workers interpretation of 'significant harm' seems to be. I hope that never happens but if it does I hope you find a pedantic and know it all lawyer who will help you.

jemima

The OP could tell her DD's school to shove the stupid bullshit rules up their fat arses but she would look rather foolish if she did because this was not a school event.

The Police Act is relevant in relation to CRB checks, which are specifically mentioned in the safeguarding policy. The Data Protection Act would be relevant for photos being used for commercial purposes.

It seems unnecessary to list the relevant (or not as the case may be) legislation in the policy, it certainly doesn't add any clarity and I haven't seen it listed in other more comprehensive policies. They have most likely used an information pack supplied by their governing body - other similar festivals have the same safeguarding policies and general rules (but don't list legislation).

O dear Sock, didn't you know that the Jason Impregnate Me Now Act 2015 was repealed last week? I am afraid your claim must be struck out. I am still hopeful however that Schedule 1 to the James Masters Take Me Now Act of 2013 remains in force

Now that is a bummer, best I go and remove my make up and go take off this fancy dress

What of the child who is fostered or adopted and whose location has to be a secret? Photographing that child could lead to a birth parent finding that child and potentially putting them at risk. Your intentions are clearly not in any way harmful but if anyone can snap away freely then how will vulnerable children be protected?

Flowergirl, it's about the OP taking a photo of her own child.

Yes I know but unless the OP is proposing a system for ensuring only the parents can take a photo, how can she be sure that others aren't also taking a photo of her child, or other children?

Well, what you could do is have a system in place where all photos are taken by an official photographer who will ask permission from the parent / guardian to take photos.

Oh, wait a minute ...

It isn't just about the OP taking photos of her own child though, it is about allowing all members of the audience to snap away at any child during the performance. I'm all for challenging the uses of non-existent laws, however this should not involve removing necessary protections from vulnerable children.

But the legislation quoted on the festival website isn't non existent - it relates to festival staff that may be in sole charge of children or vulnerable adults being CRB checked, and to the official photographer being required to request permission from the responsible adult.

OP's issue is with the announcement given prior to the performance - was an inaccurate announcement made or did the OP mishear?

Apart from one section of the Children Act 1989, the legislation they rely upon is either NOT RELEVANT or does not support prohibition of photographs - see Data Protection Act.

I explain it here www.childprotectionresource.org.uk/category/taking-photographs-of-children/

Am I inadvertently posting in Sanskrit or something? Why is this fundamentally alarming point whizzing far above some people's heads?

My issue is not with the announcement.

I have already explained that.

Shall I say it again? In bold?

My issue is not now with the initial announcement, it is basing a child protection policy on laws they clearly have not read or do not understand

Please don't keep repeating back inaccurately what my concerns are. Answer my concerns, don't make up an argument I am not making just because it serves your purposes better. Although what those purposes could be I find it hard to guess.

Because the ban on parents taking photographs forms part of the general rules - not part of the safeguarding policy.

Is that so hard to understand?

The safeguarding policy refers to Acts which are not relevant or don't apply to the prohibition on taking photographs.

So what else in their safeguarding policy is based on woolly, muddled, sloppy thinking?

What is so hard to understand about this?

what possible relevance does an Act have to ANY safeguarding policy when this is an Act that simply increases penalties for possession of indecent photographs? Yet they rely on this.

What possible relevance does an Act have to ANY safeguarding policy when it talks about creating a list of people who can't work with children? Yet they rely on this.

Why does relying on an act that deals with indecent photographs protect fully clothed children at a drama festival?

Its insane.

It's hard to answer concerns from someone that seems to be unaware of the practicalities surrounding safeguarding requirements for voluntary organisations working with children and vulnerable adults.

The safeguarding policy deals with the official photographer and CRB checks. The general rules deal with the photography ban - it even specifically cites copyright requirements for this ban, no mention of safeguarding or child protection.

So please stop stating that the photography ban is due to child protection - it isn't.

OK, then we are back to the announcement, which you are very keen that I must have misheard or misinterpreted.

Somebody told that person to say that. Somebody thinks that is what their child protection policy is.

This is relevant opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com2015/03/02/why-our-children-dont-think-there-are-moral-facts/

Sample quote :We can do better. Our children deserve a consistent intellectual foundation. Facts are things that are true. Opinions are things we believe. Some of our beliefs are true. Others are not. Some of our beliefs are backed by evidence. Others are not. Value claims are like any other claims: either true or false, evidenced or not. The hard work lies not in recognizing that at least some moral claims are true but in carefully thinking through our evidence for which of the many competing moral claims is correct. That’s a hard thing to do. But we can’t sidestep the responsibilities that come with being human just because it’s hard.

Good grief, have you not had to fill out Disclosures or PVGs or self-declaration forms for helping with any of your child's activities? The 1999 act set up the list that the CRB uses - you seem to be stuck on the 1978 act of the same name that deals with indecent photographs. Which act is listed in the safeguarding policy?

Perhaps you could bestow the benefit of your vast knowledge by redrafting the announcement for the organisers then, you know, do something useful that supports a voluntary organization that has given your child an opportunity to perform on a stage for the first time?

We are going round in circles. The 1999 Act will not help anyone formulate a child safeguarding policy or carry out a risk assessment. Putting the emphasis on indecent photographs does not protect children in these kind of environments, rather the reverse.

But as this is the 24th time (I think) I have said this, it is quite clear that you don't accept it. Just as I am not going to change my mind because you tell me I must.

so maybe we had better leave it there.