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.

tinkly - I totally disagree with your simplistic approach to risk assessment.

Children placed for adoption undergo significant risk assessment in relation to
a) the risk posed by their birth family
b) the risk of their birth family "finding" them
These factors are all taken into significant account when placing children for adoption.

All adopters are warned about the new and real "danger" of social media and the internet for adoptive placements. Adopters will generally know the whereabouts of their child's birth parents and where they shop, what their usual movements are etc (this all forms part of the risk assessment on placement - and as to whether the placement is appropriate). They can therefore fairly easily avoid these places. It would also be highly unlikely for a child to be placed in an area where a birth parent might just "pop up" at a concert or similar.

What is FAR more difficult to control is the spread of information by social media and the internet as it is so much easier, quicker and not geographically (physically) limited. Pictures of adopted children, where there is a potential risk, are not put in the local media, or on any school publicity to minimise risk of the birth parents finding them and working out which school they are at etc. This is not only as there may be a risk of significant harm to the child from their parent, but also simply it is a matter of the adoptive family being free to live their life without the thought that the birth parent knows where they are and could "pop round" or pop into school at any time - it is normal peaceful family life with the freedom for the child to then explore their feelings about meeting their birth family at a time when they are settled and ready - when and if they wish to.

Where a member of the public unthinkingly puts a picture of this child on their facebook page it is far easier for a birth parent to stumble across it. It only takes a friend of a friend to comment on the picture, then it can appear on even more news feeds and it is actually extremely difficult to stop the spread of info. If you use facebook you will probably have come across the relatively common situation of seeing a friend comment on a friend's status and thinking "Oh I didn't know x knew y", or seeing your friend in a familiar place and deducing that they must have been visiting the area or similar...

That is why people in those circumstances are very careful to limit the exposure of their children to any more public arena. And flowergirlsmum is totally justified in accepting the instructions she has clearly been given about photos of her nephew without needing to fully understand the reasoning (or challenge it).

I am not arguing for the "no photos at all" side, but I do think that all parents have a duty to respect the wishes of other parents with regard to a photo of that parent's child. I would not put a pic of another child on any website or anything, other than if it is a close friend who I know is fine with it. One of my close friends doesn't like photos of her child on facebook at all - not my decision, I just edit her out if I'm putting a photo up. Tbh my DD is 10 and I now ask her permission before putting her photo anywhere, just manners IMO. So whether or not you agree with the the whole risk assessment and whether or not an adopted child could be put on facebook is irrelevant anyway IMO, if the parent doesn't want their child's photo out there you need to respect the decision.

So you would agree with my point that it is better to educate people about risks of social media than to simply tell them they can't take pictures of their own children in case those pictures turn out to be indecent?

Forgive me if I am still rather confused about this, but I do think this is important.

In the OP you state that the festival organisers are using made up legislation ("Child Protection Act") which you have never heard of and can't find on Google.

Then after a while you do find a Protection of Children Act 1978, which relates to obscene photographs.

Did the organisers say "Child Protection Act" or specifically "Child Protection Act 1978" in their announcement?

If I Google "Child Protection Act 1978" then the first hit I get is the Protection of Children Act 1978, so I'm wondering why you didn't get this coming up on Google immediately?

The organisers published safeguarding policy refers to the Protection of Children Act 1999, and is relevant to CRB checks for festival staff. There is nothing relating to the Protection of Children Act 1978 in their safeguarding policy, and the photography ban is listed as part of the general rules anyway - it is the official photographer that comes under the safeguarding policy.

You see how it is quite important whether the organisers said specifically "Child Protection Act 1978" in the original announcement or not?

Because if they didn't, and just said "Child Protection Act" (which I happily accept is incorrect, as no such act exists) then I think you are doing the organisers a great disservice by constantly referring to them wanting to use legislation relating to obscene photographs to prevent parents from taking photographs.

SquirrelledAway You see how it is quite important whether the organisers said specifically "Child Protection Act 1978" in the original announcement or not?

Because if they didn't, and just said "Child Protection Act" (which I happily accept is incorrect, as no such act exists) then I think you are doing the organisers a great disservice by constantly referring to them wanting to use legislation relating to obscene photographs to prevent parents from taking photographs.

Little I have read on here would lead me to believe that the OP had got mixed up over the words (a) used by the festival organiser to refer to the [alleged] act, or (b)assessing the inference to be taken by the description of their policy. I therefore wonder how you got to your questions, as it seems quite an extrapolation on the given facts? There is an attention to detail lacking there which the OP has demonstrated a better grasp of.

Perhaps we are looking at this all wrong and should focus on enforcement. If the OP, or another person in a similar position to the OP decided to flagrantly disobey the ban and took photographs during the production, just how would the organisers go about enforcing it?

The guideline is that in statute law, there is judicial protection without enforcement. So in other words, the festival organisers do not have an effective child protection policy. Which is not the fault of the OP.

Squirrelled, it seems reasonable to speculate that, rather than intending to refer to an Act that has nothing whatsoever to do with photographing children, the organisers may have intended to refer to an earlier Act with the same name which does, albeit in a totally different context. It does rather look as if they simply thought of a few statutes which might have something to do with this and decided to put them all down without checking in order to give their rules the statutory authority which they lack.

no judicial protection with enforcement (mechanism). This is why I should not be allowed to type my own letters!

Spero who are you asking? If you're asking me I think you should take as many photos as you like of your own child! If other children are in the photo that's when I think you have to be respectful, ie keep them for use within your own family unless you have specific permission.

No, you're missing the point regarding confusion over the 1978 and 1999 acts of the same name.

The festival's written policy states the 1999 act. In relation to CRB checks. Not the 1978 act.

The OP states that she Googled the act that was quoted to her, but could not find it. If you Google Child Protection Act you get pages of stuff related to child protection. If you Google Child Protection Act 1978 then the first hit is Protection of Children Act 1978.

If OP is so sure that the act quoted to her was specifically the 1978 act then wouldn't she have Googled that and immediately found the 1978 act relating to obscene photos and would have stated that in the OP? Rather than posting that no such act exists?

Instead, it is only later that she has found the 1978 act and posted about it.

There is a significant difference in specifically being told Child Protection Act 1978 act (yes I know it is an incorrect title) and being told Child Protection Act and inferring that it is the 1978 act. Especially when only the 1999 act is stated in the written policy.

If the OP or another person decided to take photos of the performance then it would be enforced by the OP being asked to leave the premises & the OP's child would possibly have their entry withdrawn.

TheChandler I have the published facts, as in the safeguarding policy and general rules shown on the festival website. From the published facts I have no reason to believe that the 1978 act would be referred to, hence asking the OP whether the date of the (mis)quoted act was specifically stated or not in the announcement.

Squirreled Away No, you're missing the point regarding confusion over the 1978 and 1999 acts of the same name.

There is no confusion. The OP clearly writes "the Child Protection Act".

Anything else is your addition.

The year of a statute is part of its name, in order to avoid such confusion.

If someone on behalf of the festival organisers make an inaccurate reference to statute, that is their fault. In fact, they are potentially vicariously liable (depending on the circumstances) if they get it wrong. Not the fault of any other party.

The festival organisers do seem to be woefully muddled on the issue and even on their own policy.

balletgirlmum If the OP or another person decided to take photos of the performance then it would be enforced by the OP being asked to leave the premises & the OP's child would possibly have their entry withdrawn.

No, I mean judicially enforced. Anyone can have any policy on their own event, but if they are quoting statute, then presumably they have a method of judicial enforcement in mind if it is breached? Otherwise there would be no point in making the point of quoting a statute if they were simply going to enforce their own terms and conditions.

Icimoi, no I don't believe that the organisers have mixed up their acts at all, the 1999 act is the intended one.

Look at the rules and policies for the following festivals:

Bristol Festival of Music, Speech and Drama
Coventry Festival of Speech and Drama
Darlington Festival for Performing Arts

These festivals are all members of the same federation, and use the same resources provided by the federation as quoted on OP's festival website. All quote the 1999 act. There is no mention of the 1978 act.

TheChandler if the year of the statute is part of the name then how do you differentiate between two acts with exactly the same wording in the title but made in different years?

I'm interested because I was taught that when citing an act you use the short title and the date.

out of curiosity I looked up the Darlington festival

darlingtonfestival.wordpress.com/39-2/

"THE LEGISLATION AN]) GUIDANCE THAT SUPPORTS THIS POLICY
The Children Act 1989, The Police Act 1997, The Data Protection Act 1998, The Human Rights Act 1998, The Protection of Children Act 1999 and the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000."

I think they are invoking the data protection act re. photography - which is incorrect. Here is how to implement a sensible policy in line with legislation

czone.eastsussex.gov.uk/schoolmanagement/schoolpolicies/imagespupils/Pages/parents.aspx

SquirreledAway TheChandler if the year of the statute is part of the name then how do you differentiate between two acts with exactly the same wording in the title but made in different years?

I think you know the answer to that.

I'm interested because I was taught that when citing an act you use the short title and the date.

Yes, of course you were!

Err, anything else?

Maybe you are tying a bit too hard to look for something that isn't there, and should concentrate on the facts?

You do realise that the OP was referring to a person who put himself about as presumably some kind of spokesman for the festival and who described their statutory policy to her?

Honestly, SquirreledAway, I'm not sure whether you are tying to appear very clever or whether you are trying to prove that you have discovered something that no-one else on this thread has spotted, but you sound just about as muddled and confused as the festival organisers. What is it that you are actually trying to say? (and could you be a little more concise - but leave out the bit about lawyers not understanding how to correctly refer to an Act of Parliament).

No, TheChandler, it was a genuine question.

If I were one of the festival organisers (which I am not), then I would be concerned that someone is publically stating that they have a safeguarding policy that tells parents that they can't take photos of their children because of the risk if those parents taking indecent photos.

I love the idea of "a person who put himself about as presumably some kind of spokesman for the festival". I would think it is more likely to be someone from the committee or one if the volunteers who has to stand up and do the usual health and safety announcement at the start of the session.

I am well aware of the published facts, thank you very much for asking. Hence asking for clarification on dates in a verbal announcement.

Sorry, iPad keeps substituting "if" for "of".

Catsrus wouldn't the Data Protection Act be relevant to gaining permission for photos to be taken by the official photographer? It wouldn't apply to parents taking photographs for personal use.

I don't think people should take photos during a performance. But that's principally because it spoils other people's enjoyment and may put off the performers.

The organisers should have the guts to say that and make it clear that they will eject anyone who does it, rather than pretending to have legal backing on the grounds of child abuse - something that most people, but thankfully not the OP, are very uncomfortable about arguing with.

It's one of the reasons people have such contempt for sensible legislation and mock it as 'Elf and Safety. The HSE regularly put out statements saying 'not in our name' because the people who lazily cite Health and Safety diminish their work.

I was at a performance of Cats - that's nearly three hours of my life I'm never going to get back - and the auditorium staff had no compunction about confiscating cameras and ejecting people who broke the rules.

It was clearly stated at the beginning of the performance that it was for copyright reasons - I believe Andrew Lloyd Webber is very hot on that - and that they would also be spoiling the performance.

Not for me, actually. I preferred the excitement of having Lloyd Webber's Snatch Squad descend on miscreants and remove them effortlessly to enduring his show.

And at least they didn't lie about it.

See, I slipped up there, it should be Data Protection Act 1988.

Bother, Data Protection Act 1998.

It is fairly common for people to use wrong titles for Acts and obviously not good practice. However the bottom line is many of us parents are sick to death of other parents taking photos all the way through performances. It is not the English way and we want it stopped. It should be stopped by organisers saying no photos rather than quoting the wrong act but they can certainly quote the right Act. My son for example does not want to be photographed. Other people will have their own reasons not to be photographed and it is quite hard just to take your own child if a lot of children are on stage so fair enough for organisers of festivals to impose restrictions if they want to.

My son for example does not want to be photographed.

While I agree with you about the annoyance of photographs and filming during performances, if your son does not want to be photographed then he shouldn't take part in group activities or go out.