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.

But I think those who have pointed out it would be more helpful to be constructive in my letter of complaint are right - I appreciate that the Festival depends largely on volunteers. It was a wonderful experience for my child (if not for me) to have the opportunity to get up and speak in the way she did - I couldn't have done that at her age.

So I will have another think and draft something which aims to be more helpful. But I will be very interested in the reply.

And I am certainly not going to stop or shut up or agree with anyone who thinks this is inconsequential. I will challenge this policy now everytime I come accross reference to statues that rely on possession of indecent photographs because I sick and tired of this being relied upon as the reason that parents cannot enjoy their children's childhood.

The concert tonight simply said, please don't take pictures of the children while they are performing as it is disruptive, and I am fine with that - because it is probably true most of the time.

FFS

Right... Simple terms

Potentially any child is at risk of harm, some children are more vulnerable.

it is not pictures that put children at risk but people.

Assessing risk to individuals and putting specific strategies in place that protect those individuals would be far more useful that banning all photos in case 'someone puts it on FB'

It's a waste of energy and does not protect that child - his birth family might live in a cave but they might shop at ASDA so it would be more useful to avoid Asda than it would be to avoid FB as he is potentially safer on FB than in ASDA. If that is the case understanding the risk would mean that his family would shop in Tesco's and post what they want on FB as that is what their risk assessment would show them.

And actually if the birth family is that much of a risk I would be looking at the law to protect my child with a non mol and I would be very concerned about him being on stage in front of audience that could contain his family than I would be about photos on FB.

Safeguarding is not about policies or law but about children as individuals and their risk of being harmed.

I do get the problem OP, it's happened to me too, and The Data Protection Act in particular is constantly cited to mean the opposite of what it says.
I also get that it's more serious than just whether you got to take a photo.
I also get that you're annoyed.
And I like your made up legislation names very much.

But it would be good if you kept your correspondence positive and useful, not scathing.

There was once a well-known social networking site for mums that had a nonsensical copyright notice. I sent them a friendly note. It's now much better.

I have just been told I should read this book!

I agree it sounds wonderful

www.amazon.co.uk/In-Interests-Safety-absurd-blight/dp/0751553492

Sleepy, I also agree you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Just a few more creme eggs and I will be ready to try and turn the scathing volume down from 11.

Can we just all stop it with the passive aggressive (and aggressive aggressive) digs.

After a creme egg or two the world seems a nicer place. And I am sure we all want the same thing - for child protection policies to actually have a chance at making children safer and giving them childhoods they can enjoy.

thank heavens for 1 click ordering. I have some more reading to do it seems. I hope this book doesn't re-infect me with scathingness.

'There is, though, an unholy alliance of official self-importance, media hysteria and commercial exploitation, with the result that many safety rules enjoy an authority they don't deserve'.

O yes, I am going to enjoy this book.

'The core philosophy of this book is ask for evidence. It's that simple. If either some local or national official or 'The Man' declares that we are not allowed to do something that seems perfectly reasonable, then we ask 'Why? On what basis does this rule exist? Where are the cases of people getting into trouble while doing this? Give us the statistics. Is this rule really making us safer? What is it costing us?'

I feel less alone.

AAAARRRRGGG!!!! Child Protection Act gets first mention at page 7! Man forbidden to take pictures of his son whilst playing football.

But they would have let him take pictures if it had been for the local paper!!

AAAAARRRRGGGG! Woman ejected from viewing gallery at swimming pool for reading her Kindle 'which she might use to take photographs' (it has no camera)

Now do you understand my rage? NOW DO YOU???

Thank god I had the foresight to get a 12 pack of creme eggs from Sainsbos.

I am absolutely with you on this crusade, OP. About photography and other "quote random legislation instead of actually thinking about what the situation requires" topics.

DC's school fortunately has a sane policy involving asking all parents under what circumstances they are or not ok with photos being taken, and acting accordingly, so I would need to look further afield than that for daftness to challenge. My parents, however, are both in the habit of taking pictures of random DC being picturesque in random places, and I am always torn between saying "don't do that" and thinking that actually, they are spectacularly unlikely to end up in any identifiable place (parents don't do FB, for a start), so unless someone actually does object, why the hell not?

I bet you the remaining two of my creme eggs that someone does object in the next few weeks and cites 'The Child Protection Act' whilst so doing.

And have a look at this - the consequences for child safety of making out that adults are likely predators.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/24/approach-child-lost-video-two-girls-pretending-shopping-arcade

Ooh can we talk a bit more about crème eggs........I've heard that the recipe for the chocolate has been changed and they taste really unpleasant, which has stopped me from buying one - yet. Can anyone confirm or deny this, based on evidence of course?

In fact I was prevented from taking photos of them in our local Tesco Express as it was against the "Egg Protection Act 2014" which came into effect on 1st January 2015. I think the legislation relates to all eggs, be they chocolate or ones laid by hens - could someone clarify. Doesn't matter if your a lawyer or not, a good guess will do.

Are we talking milk chocolate eggs or "sweetened processed lactose-enhanced cocoa-enabled ovoid facsimiles"? Don't forget that there is strict legislation as to the classification of what constitutes "milk" "chocolate". I think it was the European Egg Chocolate Reclassification Act of 2011.

I fear this thread could become eggsplicit.

I have no concerns about the quality of my ovoid facsimiles, having carried out extensive quality control over the weekend.

Nana has rightly queried my phrase 'most social workers have shakey grasp of what constitutes significant harm' - what I should have said was 'most social workers I have met since 2013 appear to have shakey grasp'

There is a really good post by a retired social worker who sets out his concerns that the test for what identifies abuse is not fully understood and therefore little thought is given to the evidence needed to prove it.

I do think this is the inevitable consequence of encouraging a culture where we are prepared to impose (and accept) serious restrictions on our activities without proper justification.

www.childprotectionresource.org.uk/the-children-act-1989-deeply-flawed-legislation/

Curse One-Click - it appears that book is on its way to me.
And I can just tell that it will elevate my blood pressure….

YABU referring to Creme Eggs all the time btw - they are vile and contravene the Quality of Chocolate Act 2012. Cadbury's is in breach of that act all the bloody time

Pacific, I am writing you a very stern letter.

Very interested on what else you discover Spero.

I'm very concerned how our freedoms are being eroded often through elf and safety. We even help Their cause along by shouting ' more should be done' when anyone sticks a microphone in front of our faces.

I did a little googling of my own and discovered this link:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/safeguarding-children-and-young-people/safeguarding-children-and-young-people

It includes "reference to all associated policies and procedures which promote children’s safety and welfare eg with regards to: health and safety, anti-bullying, protection of children online, and photography" as essential inclusions for a child protection policy. This could conceivably where they got the idea that a photography policy must be included within a child protection policy... maybe.

Thanks Laura - at first glance that looks more directed to safeguarding in terms of possible care procedures; the legislation relied upon is the children Act 1989 and the children Act 2004 (interestingly the latter didn't feature at all in the festivals policy)

But I will have a closer look tonight when I sit down to draft my New Improved and Less Scathing Polite Letter of Inquiry Re Appropriateness of Reliance on the Children Act 1978 with Regard to Prohibition of Photographs of One's Own Children.

Oh Spero that letter must be taking a long time....or are you just scoffing crème eggs?

Fuck, I'd just take a pic of my kid and be damned.
I would obviously ensure no other kids were in the photo
This is just getting totally stupid!!

O dear, slightly diverted by two enormous lever arch files which had to be read between 6pm and now. Will now have to go to sleep as am knackered and have run out of ovoid facsimiles, so I guess Suburbanrhonda can be chuckling about karma...

But hopefully tomorrow.