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.

SuburbanRhonda OP, I hope you'll be gracious enough to concede that the sarcastic and dismissive manner in which you've responded to many posters on here who have had the temerity to disagree with you will inevitably result in some of them replying in kind.

Aside from the fact that this is irrelevant, and the OP is hardly the only poster to have been sarcastic (several posters who clearly didn't have very much clue what they were talking about were very scathing to me in presumably trying to catch me out) -

If you are being a bit of a fool and pretending to know more about something than you actually do, such as making up laws that don't exist, chances are someone will eventually catch you out.

Blustering, accusing or complaining about that person's attitude (is there a standard attitude that people are meant to have? If so, where is it listed?) is just covering up the fact of that initial mistruth. Whether it was a deliberate or careless lie. Nothing can cure that. The information given was wrong. We do not have such a law in this country.

There may be such a need, in certain circumstances. If so, then the appropriate action is for the government to legislate.

I personally think getting the law wrong and making cringeworthy mistakes is about as bad as it gets, and certainly ranks lower than supposedly being dismissive, never mind the classic one of those mothers. Theres some advice you do listen to, and some you don't...

Tinkly we have a number of swimmers with disabilities. Every parent is expected to volunteer and help with the entire squad, it's how it works - that includes the parents of children with disabilities. Every volunteer has to go through the Disclosure system. If you have been asked to go through DBS and help with the squad then that is no different to any other parent of a child in the squad?

I do not consider your son collateral damage, I'm sorry if you feel that your son has been sidelined by your local clubs. The club I volunteer with is extremely inclusive and we give our time to help all the swimmers reach their potential, no exceptions.

You DONT understand safeguarding because you DONT accept that the policy you are peddling creates a situation of potential harm for some children? You are hiding behind the ASA policy rather than embracing the principles of safeguarding in order to protect children from harm. I understand that children in swimming clubs are vulnerable but historically they have been vulnerable because of the behaviour of coaches and older team members NOT their parents yet ASA policy focuses on keeping parents away from their children and does not give children the skills they need to keep themselves safe.

I too am an unpaid volunteer representing families and children with SEN and / or disabilities - it doesn't mean I can just be blinkered to what I am told is policy - far from it.
I can't even just take my own experiences - most families I know can't access swimming at all because of these ridiculous 'child protection' rules. One families was in the disabled changing room when a lifeguard walked in on her naked as the door does not have a lock and doubles as a locker room. You have NO idea because you refuse to see outside of your world....

I should not have to volunteer to have my son included in your club.

I could produce posters for your club say - do my bit but I don't need a DBS. If I was poolside or in a changing room I would be caring for my child as he would be requiring 1:1 support from someone who knows him well. I do not / would not be able to support another child if I was caring for mine....

Or are you suggesting that I provide my son's support AND care for everyone else's child too?

Spero my understanding of why the 1999 act was listed is because it allows for the list of inappropriate persons to be drawn up that is used for the CRB checks, and relates to the statement about festival staff having undergone the Disclosure process. I do believe I have already said that.

The policies you peddle exclude... The club didn't sideline my son - you tell me what specific support you provide for a child with ASD and anxiety?

Social stories?
Complete visual approach to instructions?
Additional support?
Specific ASD training for coaches?
Consideration to the environment - such as changing rooms?
Alternative provision at competitions to support independance and down time?

What do you actually DO other than let them join in and DBS the parent so they can be the changing room and volunteer on poolside?

Sorry but the last thing I want to do is volunteer for another role - I have 6 voluntary role - if he is achieving something I just want to support and watch not be worrying about the club

Tinkly every child in our club has a parent volunteer. It is necessary as it is the only way that we can operate on a voluntary basis. The level of involvement can be minimal - ie, one parent has to be on the parent rota - or it can be more, such as helping on the committee, being a technical official, fundraising. Our parent rota does not involve the changing rooms, it requires a parent being present poolside during the session as a spotter and to assist the coaches.

Tinkly I haven't peddled any policies. Yes, our coaches do have specific training for swimmers with ASD. We cannot control environmental issues such as changing room layout, we have to work with what we get. Swimming at a high level requires active parental support - you don't just get to sit back and watch.

Ian Huntley would have got a clean CRB and DBS check on the day he killed the girls in Soham.

He did not work in the school they attended so their parents would have been unaware even if there were problems with his CRB / DBS

At which point I realised that CRB / DBS were a nice little money earner for Crapita and had little to do with child safety.

My two children have ASD, my ds competes in festivals. Someone taking photos at a festival would completely un-nerve her.

It's not allowed, it never has been, for those of us who have been involved in speech, drama & music for the last 20 years it's just the rules. You don't photograph a dramatic or musical performance.

Official photographers are generally well trained in when & where they can take photos.

And I've seen it ftom he other side too. Children competing for msybe the first tune, for whom its a big deal suddenly being distracted because mummy is waving at them or daddy is taking a photo & they forget what they are supposed to be doing.

The CRB checks are about as useful as your car's MOT certificate. But it is the system we have been stuck with and that we have to operate within. The local authority requires 14 year olds to go through the Disclosure system.

balletgirl
Someone taking photos at a festival would completely un-nerve her.
You are utterly kidding yourself
Lots and lots of the people in the auditorium will have had their phones out.
Have you tried a google images search for the event?

GET REAL
Pictures will be taken
Do not make up fake laws
rely on other than box ticking to protect the vulnerable

No one has ever taken a photo at a festival we have attended.

They are very strict, they would be asked to leave.

I will support - my child - my child's needs mean I can not provide support to anyone else. I would be happy yo support admin away from the times I need to physically support my child and I do not need a DBS to do that.

Do not turn it around to me not trying - part of what I do VERY successfully is knowing when to sit back and not interfere but in your world - I am THERE, I am VOLUNTEERING to the club and you protect my child by DBS checking me whilst ignoring the fact that your communal changing room with no adult supervision puts him at risk.

There are things you can do - you are blinkered to them that is all, just like you are blinkered to the principles (not policies) of safeguarding. If you truly have had ASD training you would NOT be thinking of environment in terms of physical structures for a start and if you understood safeguarding you would not consider DBS checking parent volunteers or controlling poolside access or control of photography as safeguarding.

Unsupervised changing for swimming & my 11 year old ds would = complete chaos.

I feel for you

thechandler, my comment is entirely relevant and was in response to the OP's complaint that she couldn't understand why some posters had been mean to her.

But feel free to jump to her defence, again.

Tinkly- I actually think the issue you are faced with is entirely different to the OPs and has little to do with it. My comments to the OP were, simply, if you are not happy with the policy on photography then pull out.

I have an adopted nephew. If policies like this didn't exist then he wouldn't be allowed to take part in such events at all due to protection issues. He would be excluded purely to allow someone else to snap a picture of their child.
Would that be fair??

Are there laws against making repulsive and inappropriate comments, dressed up as jokes? I don't know

There may well be some section of some criminal Act that you could use against my remark, I don't know I am not a criminal lawyer.

But the problem you will have is that one person's 'repulsive and inappropriate comment, dressed up as a joke' is actually another person's joke or another person's frustration expressed as sarcasm. If you are happy that you could always neatly define such behaviour then a 'law against it' might be appropriate.

However, linking criminal behaviour to the degree of offence one causes another is always fraught with problems, not least because I bet you could find at least one person prepared to swoon in horror at what they deem 'repulsive and inappropriate'. Are we then all to be judged by the standards of that minority?

If you find my comment so appalling, I am sorry I cannot assist with a criminal law you can use against me. I suggest you report my comment to HQ and request that I am banned. If they agree with you, then I would have to accept I had overstepped the mark.

Suburban - I am not curious as to why people are being 'mean to me'. I am curious as to how people think this is productive use of their time and how they think it will have any positive impact on the reader. If you think my arguments are wrong then show me how. Insulting me personally is not an effective way of dealing with my arguments.

But I think we have established, this is nothing to do with the argument.

Squirrel - no. You haven't answered my question. I would be grateful if you could point out to me which section of the 1999 Act is relevant to the issue of a child protection policy that prohibits photographs of one's fully clothed child anywhere in a building where other children are gathered.

I didn't have any particular intention. It was an expression of my frustration with our current climate that any adult sitting and watching children swimming attracts suspicion. I bet if I had been a father sitting there for two hours someone would have said something.

I don't know how many people found that comment repulsive. So far I think it's two?

But even if it's everyone on the thread, just what are you suggesting? That I should be punished for that? What kind of punishment did you have in mind?

Suburban - I am not curious as to why people are being 'mean to me'.

That's not what I posted.

I am curious as to how people think this is productive use of their time and how they think it will have any positive impact on the reader.

That's not what you posted.

O dear. Then the gulf between us and our respective understanding of each other grows ever wider.

Shall I put it another way? I am not upset/worried/losing any sleep over people 'being mean' to me on the Internet. I have had years and years of this, from much worse people.

I am intrigued and interested at the level of abuse from people who appear angry that I make the points I do. Particularly interesting is the suggestion that I shut up lest I embarrass my daughter, which I found quite chilling and I am glad others did too.

I am also intrigued as to why you keep having digs at theChandler because you perceive her as being supportive of me?

Its a fascinating glimpse into human psychology and as ever, I am very grateful to the internet as I face another interminable two hours of watching other people's children perform and being told I am probably a padeophile so put that camera away.