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.

You'd get a drink from me too Spero - this thread is fascinating (in a scary way). Child protection requires sensible policies which implement best practice, not knee jerk blanket bans on perfectly legal activities.

Telling people they have to comply with a policy by saying that the law requires it is simply a lie designed to get compliance. Everywhere else on MN people who know the law are advising other people not to comply with things like this and to familiarise themselves with what the ACTUAL law is (whether it's housing, benefits, driving, debt etc). This policy is not protecting anyone - but it probably makes the people who have set it up FEEL that they have 'done their bit' and can tick that box and forget about it.

I was actually trying to be supportive, although now I realise that it sounded like an insult!

An apology from you OP? Don't make me laugh!

Oh, wait - you don't.

Thanks Carambar. Apology accepted.

Not to worry suburban, you have given me quite a lot of amusement so this has not been an entirely wasted hour.

No-one is arguing that inventing laws is okay, are they?

Okay was perhaps the wrong word. Inconsequential, then.

Ticklypink- no I'm sorry, you clearly don't get it.

As I stated earlier, a policy which allowed photography WOULD mean that he wasn't allowed to take part. It would exclude him. The reason why this is entirely different to going into town or to the park is that it associates him with a location- a school, a drama club, a swimming teacher etc etc. The images are highly likely to end up on social media one way or another via one unsuspecting parent or another. The world is a small place and a looked after child is often at risk if his/her whereabouts are known.

Well suburbanrhonda you're nothing if not determined........but you're punching above your weight I'm afraid.

Your post makes no sense at all, nana.

Lordy. All this toss-arguing about a photo.

No I understood - I am not stupid but how are you are NOT protecting him from his birth family by banning photographs.

His birth family could be in the audience. His birth family could simply Google search the programme for his name. They could see him in ASDA and make an assumption that he lives in an x mile radius so you are wrong to think walking down the street is safe.

You are perfect illustration why the OP in the first place raised this: not taking a photograph does not protect a child and if you assume that it does then you actually risk putting a child at risk. It's like you think your nephew I safe performing PUBLICCALLY because the 200 strangers, one of whom might know him do not have a camera.

You are wrong and it saddens me that you can not see it. You need to take different steps, more holistic steps to safeguard children.

Not at all. I don't think it makes him entirely safe. Truthfully, he will probably never be entirely safe. It just makes him very slightly safer- and that makes it worthwhile.

Where do they get off citing a made-up law? I'd definitely write to the head.

OP can I ask a genuine question?

If the announcement had said due to our child protection policy & copyright rules no photography or videography is allowed inside the festival would you have accepted that?

NanaNina

bathsheba

This wasn't a school event.

You're being incredibly rude, NanaNina

Maybe the blanket 'no photos' rule is so they don't have to justify why you can, but someone else can't, or have to stress over policing whether or not some inattentive parent or grandparent gets other children in the background.

But, you certainly could question them in lawyer speak, and offer to clarify what they have misinterpreted, mis-stated or just screwed up.

*OP can I ask a genuine question?

If the announcement had said due to our child protection policy & copyright rules no photography or videography is allowed inside the festival would you have accepted that?*

I did accept the rules of festival. I did not attempt to take a picture inside. I agree that there are legitimate concerns about identifying vulnerable children.

(Deep breath) the point I am making is that I object to a child protection policy based on laws that are not understood. This is because it immediately raises serious question marks over how this policy is devised and implemented and whether or not such a policy can actually make children safer.

I think the clear answer to that last question is of course it does not. But it lets people tick a box. Lets them feel they have done 'something' - even if that something is simply to smear attending parents as paedophiles.

The reason I ask is that child protection aside it is accepted convention that photography is not taken at dramatic performances or festivals out of respect for all the competitors.