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
Original poster
Spero · 13/03/2015 15:48

Samcro - the Child Protection Act doesn't exist, so how could I have heard or if? I want to know what is the legal basis for preventing me from taking a photo of my child in an public building.

OP posts:
NeedsAsockamnesty · 13/03/2015 15:49

I also call in the George clooney Act and I feel your pain

TranmereRover · 13/03/2015 15:50

They are stopping you taking photos of any child within the building because they want to sell them to you instead.

Original poster
Spero · 13/03/2015 15:50

Littlebairn - what is the legal basis for preventing me from taking a picture of my own child? If you know, please tell me before I embarrass myself with frothing letter of complaint.

OP posts:
pbwer · 13/03/2015 15:52

Photography is public places is a massive free for all - eg you can go to your local play park and as there is no reasonable expectation of privacy you can take pictures of as many kids as you like. I wouldn't recommend it as you'll get an awful lot of funny looks

However in a Private building ( School, church, local theatre) the management have every right to require you to not take photographs and ask you to leave if you do not do so.

They do not have the right to delete any photos you take or to confiscate your camera

anyway. more details here

www.photographers-resource.co.uk/photography/Legal/Access_Rights.htm

The family lawyer (above) ought to bone up on their law before speaking with authority on the subject

londonrach · 13/03/2015 15:52

Not sure if this helps op but quick goggle found this. www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=sn06787

xiaozhu · 13/03/2015 15:52

What are they gonna do? Report you to the police? Sue? Just snap away if I were you.

Floggingmolly · 13/03/2015 15:54

Whether there's a legal basis or not; if they've sold tickets with that condition attached you will be bound by it. It's not unlawful to ban photography in and of itself, when you're the one literally running the show.

LittleBairn · 13/03/2015 15:55

I didn't say anything about the law just pointed out a family solicitor would know why this rules is in place.
Why do you think a photo is more important than the saftey of other children?

LadyTmalia · 13/03/2015 15:56

I would take a picture anyway, its your child. You are a family lawyer, I am certain you can handle the fall out.
YWNBU to then educate them on the law :o

RandomFriend · 13/03/2015 15:57

YANBU, OP. It is perfectly reasonable for you to want to take a picture of your own child.

Have you asked if you can take a photo, or does the programme state "No photos may be taken due to the Child Protection Act"?

Wherever I go, there are loads of parents taking pictures of their children, including group photos, usually on iphones.

I think you are entitled to ask for an explanation; or just to get you phone out at the relevant moment.

RosesAreMyFavourite · 13/03/2015 15:58

YABU -

Firstly it will distract the actors, including your daughter
Secondly there will be agreements with other parents about photographs
Thirdly there are laws about child protection which affect policies in these institutions. As a lawyer you should be gracious enough to advise them that it's the Children and Families Act not the Child Protection Act so they can amend their documents.
Fourthly how would you like to find in 20 years time someone else having pictures of your daughter?
Fifthly, how will your daughter feel about that?

RandomFriend · 13/03/2015 15:58

LittleBairn, how is the safety of other children compromised by OP when she takes a picture of her own child, alone on stage?

Original poster
Spero · 13/03/2015 15:58

Thanks londonrach - I also found that link whilst angrily googling. I thought I might have sustained a blow to the head and missed some new legislation. Doesn't seem that I did.

I get that some children are vulnerable. I'm not takings photos of them. I want to take a photo of my child. I have got to sit through two hours of this, one photo would be nice.

And how does it protect children to rely on made up legislation? This doesn't say anything good about how this organisation understands and applies its child protection policies if it just fabricates Acts ofParliamet.

OP posts:
LittleBairn · 13/03/2015 15:59

Lady that is only going to end up with the poster being embarrassed when asked to leave by the HT. or worse confronted by a parent who would like to know why a photo is more important than a child's saftey.

Why can't any of you answer that: why is it acceptable to put a child's life in danger just so you can have a photo?

lanbro · 13/03/2015 15:59

Ludicrous. Dd aged 2 was in her first nursery performance at Christmas. Everyone took photos, we were just asked not to put them on Facebook etc.

YANBU and you should challenge this.

Original poster
Spero · 13/03/2015 16:00

What section of theChildren and Families Act prohibits photography? I wasn't aware of that. Will google - only another hour to go...

OP posts:
LittleBairn · 13/03/2015 16:01

spero seriously I find it hard to believe you work in family law of you can't work out how this rule protects children. Have you never deal to with child protection issues? Have you never dealt with the consequences of such a child being found?

londonrach · 13/03/2015 16:01

Tbh apart from child protection issue (as a family lawyer im surprised you didnt know abit about it even if school has given (i suspect) the wrong name of the act) having someone taking photos through a performance would really effect, affect (when will someone explain the difference to me) the children and the other parents enjoyment. I think the suggestion someones given before to take a photo before is good!

RosesAreMyFavourite · 13/03/2015 16:01

It might be the Freedom of Information Act or the Civil Liberties Act - I don't know, you're the bleedin Lawyer Spero!

countessmarkyabitch · 13/03/2015 16:02

Why can't any of you answer that: why is it acceptable to put a child's life in danger just so you can have a photo?>>>>

How does it put anyones life in danger if OP takes a photo of her child ALONE on a stage in a SOLO? Hmm
It's this kind of woolly thinking hysteria that is the problem.

Floggingmolly · 13/03/2015 16:03

It's not specifically prohibited by the Act, but the theatre still have a perfect right to ban it themselves, assuming they have actually made you aware of the ruling at the point of being sold a ticket (and they obviously have).

londonrach · 13/03/2015 16:03

And op enjoy the show. I bet your dd is very excited!!!!!!!

fakenamefornow · 13/03/2015 16:04

Why can't any of you answer that: why is it acceptable to put a child's life in danger just so you can have a photo?

Please explain how it puts a child's life in danger to take a picture of your own child without anybody else appearing in the photo?

RosesAreMyFavourite · 13/03/2015 16:05

effect is a noun, something has an effect

affect is a verb, something can affect something

NEVER the other way round, especially on here :)

You could be affected, which means vain.

But most use of affected is that something has affected something

On the other hand something can BE effective, as in, it HAS an effect (or it works) (see above)