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.

Carambar - I don't know how many people found it repulsive. I don't really care. It wasn't a remark I made intending to be repulsive.

If you are really that upset about it, then by all means you should take it further and complain to the Bar Standards Board. My name is on the blog post, or if you wish I can PM you my name and Chambers so you can make a complaint.

I am entirely with Spero here. To make a legally enforceable policy, you have to base it on relevant law; if it isn't legally enforceable, or isn't based on relevant law, then don't mislead people by pretending that it is. There's absolutely nothing controversial about that.

I don't like to think I have upset people. But some people like to get upset and it doesn't really matter what you say or do to them, they will find something.

I did not intend to be offensive or repulsive. So I don't care if others found it so. We all have different levels of tolerance.

If you think that is very alarming and requires me to be 'educated' or makes me not fit to do my job, then you have the option of reporting me to my professional body.

Or you can continue to post on here. Whatever you think is the most productive use of your time. I am stuck here until 7pm, so happy to continue.

Well, I wasn't offended by the comment at all. Possibly because I get the point Spero was making.

Sheesh.

What I do find offensive is your increasingly unpleasant comments Carambar.

Have you been here long?

Flower

If your nephews parents don't like the fact that an organisation do allow photography (as some do) then why don't they pull him out and stop him from taking part...

Now do you get it?

The point is taking your nephews photograph or not does not harm him. Neither does putting him on a website - his birth parents finding him would potentially harm so teaching him protective behaviours, having strong security and confidentiality policies / training, good risk assessment and communicating the dangers to all adults involved would go much further than stopping photography.

It's a subtle difference in approach so another example:
Replace photograph being seen to child being seen in the street.

You can either never let the child out ever again OR prepare the child and adults supporting for potential problems and make judgements based upon assessments of the risk about where you walk....

Which is more healthy for your nephew?

What you are saying to me is I either accept policies that don't protect him or I exclude my son and you justify that with an example that does not protect that child either. After all his birth parents could be in the audience

SuburbanRhonda But feel free to jump to her defence, again.

I'm interested in defending the law. Not in getting involved with personal spats and all these strange comments making little digs at people's supposed personality flaws.

There are countries in the law where a recognised form of law making basically vigilitanism, presided over by non-legally qualified religious clerics. Fortunately, in this country, law is either made only by the government (via legislation), or the courts.

I come on here to relax, not because its my whole life. I guess on the internet, a lot of people who you possibly could have a balanced, interesting conversation with are repelled by this sort of heckling that appears to take place. I also have a strong suspicion that it tends to be done by those who are meek and mild in real life, hence the excitement as they hone in "for a kill". Oh how I am glad that I never grew up into someone like that! I'm guessing in real life that such types must have very limited social circles - because who on earth in their right mind would put up with them!

I usually attract the vitriol on here of the SNP supporters, and have been called all sorts, and advised to do all sorts of things with my life so that I can presumably become more like them.

countries in the world

OP, your comment about you leering at scantily-clad children at the swimming pool appears to have gone now, so clearly MNHQ found it offensive, whatever your intentions were.

Its as if the lunatics have taken over the asylum...

Then you are vindicated. Congratulations.

However I don't censor myself because other people may find me repulsive. I will however accept whatever penalty is deemed sufficient if I do overstep the mark.

Provided that penalty is not based on utter nonsense.

I can't believe how many people here seem to think it's okay to invent a law if the overriding intention is - probably - benign.

Spero, if you weren't so far away I'd buy you a drink.

Then you are vindicated. Congratulations.

Still making it about everyone else and not prepared to admit you posted something offensive? Quelle surprise.

I suppose ironic comparison as a discursive technique is a step too far for some.

A fair précis suburban.

Don't hold your breath waiting for my apology.

Thanks Laura, a gin would help at this stage.

What's all this then? A barrister saying something provocative in an attempt to win an argument?

I refer you all to the Bears Shitting in Woods Act 1977.

People are arguing that it doesn't matter, it was just a small mistake but I think Spero is arguing that it does matter, that this type of woolly thinking is part of the slide into muddle-headed restrictions on what we may do or not do based on incorrect understanding of the law. It isn't surprising as a barrister that this annoys her. She's right to be annoyed.

Bore off? Is that supposed to be a witty play on my username, Carambar? How thigh-slappingly amusing.

I've been here about four years, I think. Long enough to have seen Spero take on a group of people who promulgate dangerous misinformation concerning child protection on various websites and media and were spewing their rubbish here. Most of them are now banned, including an MP, who got very nasty about it all, I seem to recall.

Does it matter? Nope. Idle curiousity about whether you'd namechanged to launch your increasingly unpleasant attacks.

HTH

Harsh but fair Analyst.