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.

I was mightily surprised to see my comment yesterday was deleted by MNHQ - I have been in touch with them and they have given me the reason. Apparently it was reported because I made reference to the fact that a certain person had left the thread which was a good thing. Hmmm.............I don't consider that a personal attack, rather a matter of opinion. The irony is that many personal insults have been made on this thread to Spero especially by one particular person, who will remain nameless!

Do I have any legal redress Spero Chandler ??!! Is there any relevant legislation on such an issue? !

Nana, may I refer you to a remarkably under appreciated piece of legislation, The Mocking of the Professionaly Offended (Fish in a Barrel) Act of 1903?

It's fallen out of favour in recent years after the Court of Appeal questioned its compatibility with the Human Righs Act, concerned that it may breach the rights of those offended by any remark, no matter the context, to be offended free from any shackles of logic or reason.

But there was no definitive ruling, so I am happy to rely on it.

It's lovely and sunny in Wiltshire. No children in eyeshot thank goodness so no danger of another inappropriate and repulsive joke from here, dear me no.

Alas Nana, I don't know - I'm a European competition lawyer, and if you want to know about your fundamental freedoms within the context of the internal market, I can waffle on for hours, albeit slightly uselessly, as no-one ever really knows what the European Court of Justice will decide - I'm sure I could cause great confusion, using fundamental rights, if let loose though!

I think the reference to the Protection of Children Act 1999 referred to in the festival policies quoted is a complete red herring. If you look at, for instance, the Darlington policy which someone linked to upthread, it includes a reference to the fact that people working with children will have been DBS checked. As the 1999 Act is all about precisely that, it seems likely that it is quoted simply to validate that particular section of the policy, and has nothing to do with taking photographs.

Therefore when the announcer said that no photographs could be taken because of the Child Protection Act, he was indeed totally making it up. What the festival authorities ought to do is to say, quite simply, that that is their rule without trying to justify it by reference to any Act. But they should make it very clear by requiring all entries to be signed by parents, and by ensuring that a copy of the rules is printed on the entry form and there is a large bold font notice informing parents that, by signing the form, they are agreeing to those rules.

I am loving The Mocking of the Professionally Offended (Fish in a Barrel) Act of 1903 and will refer to it at every opportunity (and there are plenty of opportunities, not least on Mumsnet)

I totally agree Icimoi. Not really very difficult to organise, if you want to prevent the taking of photographs at your events that badly, is it?

On the subject of legislation, can we also have the Pathetically Pointless Insults Act 1970, and the Political Discrimination (Fundamental Right to Hold a Differing Opinion Without Being Abused and/or Demonised (Scotland) Act 2015?

How about The Allowed (Nay Encouraged) To Post Supportively Of Other Fab Posters Without Being Accused of Sock Puppetry Regs 1967.

I think I'll just go for the Promotion of Education Before Tantrums Regulations 1980.

That'll rule out about 95% of the internet

Hahaha Spero- and Chandler - you've made me laugh out loud (I refuse to use lol) I knew I could depend on your legal expertise to do battle with MNHQ.

Oh FFS that comment was deleted?!

Well, I've sent naked pictures of my children to my parents. By email.
So there.

I was recommending swimming to a patient for health reasons and he (middle-aged man) said he tried it and would love to keep going but he was not comfortable as the showers before you go in the pool are open plan and there was a group of teenaged girls. He was worried what 'people would think'. So he stopped going.

And at the same time truly vulnerable children are not necessarily picked up appropriately but current measures.

But don't worry Pacific! A repulsive and inappropriate comment was deleted from the internet and thus children all over the world sleep safer in their beds tonight! Well done, brave internet warriors.

NB: This para above probably contravenes the Use of Sarcasm (Unnecessary and Excessive) When Commenting Act 2014

This is quite interesting

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2879260/School-orders-parents-delete-Facebook-video-four-year-old-daughter-performing-inn-keeper-nativity-play.html

If its true that the school has a picture of every child on its website, then banning a nativity video on some one's private Facebook account does seem very much overkill.

My only hope is that in the fullness of time there will be An Almighty Backlash and Common Sense will prevail

The situation described in that article even if it is the DailyFail is a nice example of why The Backlash is overdue.

WereJamming - someone, sorry I can't remember who, published the excellent and clear guidance from east sussex

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

This is what we need more of. At the moment I think we have the worst of all possible worlds - no one is really clear what they are being asked to do and why they are being asked to do it. This does not promote either respect for or understanding of forbidding photos.

The waters have been muddied by completely bonkers references to Acts that prohibit indecent photos, which is going to raise the hackles of most parents and probably promote an attitude of 'sod it, I'll take a bloody photo if I like'.

We need sensible clear guidance that doesn't waffle on with a whole list of utterly irrelevant legislation. and people need to be educated about the internet and how quickly and easily photos can spread - the telegraph article I put in my blog post is a really chilling example of this; one open Facebook profile and pictures from the UK were all over a Russian paedophile site.

Have they breached any laws by allowing photographs to be taken regardless of not having consent?

I think they might be in trouble under section 97(2) of the Children Act, but you do have a defence if you can prove that you did not know and had no reason to suspect that the published material was intended, or likely to identify the child.

however, if a court order about a child had something quite specific in it about forbidding photography this could be a contempt of court - but I confess I am not at all sure off the top of my head if the court would be able to bind third parties. I guess it could as the inherent jurisdiction of the court is in theory without limits, but courts are usually reluctant for obvious reasons to make orders which bind people who weren't in court.

I think you have hit on a huge and crucial point.

We all agree that indentification of vulnerable children is a real and serious issue. Yet the degree of protection for these children seems shakey to say the least.

Section 97 doesn't apply once proceedings have ended. Section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act doesn't appear to apply to identifying the child, only prohibits publishing information about court proceedings that were held in private.

So what is your protection? What is your redress? You might have an action for damages under the Human Rights Act but I am not aware of any such case being reported.

There have been cases where the police were successfully sued for letting slip details of vulnerable people who went on to be killed ... but that's a bit different as the police were under a duty to protect those people.

A parent who just wants to get a picture of their PFB at the nativity isn't thinking about any other child.

I really think that the key here is proper education about the dangers of social media and how vulnerable some children are.

Section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 gives the court the power to prevent any newspaper revealing details that might identify a child or publishing a picture of the child in court proceedings.

The clue to just how crappy our current systems are is in the date of that Act.

A lot has moved on since then in terms of how easily images can be published world wide.

NanaNina I'm sorry your post was deleted as it was absolutely spot on

Not wanting to be too critical of mumsnet HQ here (as they are probably caught between a rock and a hard place) but spurious complaints are often used by people as a bit of an underhand tactic to get their own way (a bit like rude insults). Most people just go about their business, too busy to complain about or report very minor things that they disagree with, but a few do like to do that, probably because weak management has shown them that it often results in them getting their own way.

Well, to a certain extent. It usually gives the non-complaining majority a very poor impression of them, and eventually even weak management tends to get fed up with dealing with minor complaints, so they need fresh meat for that same kick they must get out of their minimal exercise of control.

This is also interesting....
www.reddit.com/r/AskPhotography/comments/2z7pn3/my_childs_photograph_for_sale_without_model/

I think people will just put photos up on Facebook, but hopefully the risk is very minimal if children are not tagged or the subject of the photo.

Perhaps more thought needs to be given to location of adopters. I am astonished by how many people say the birth family lives quite close by. if there are concerns about the birth family coming into contact with the child, this is surely bonkers. I think in most cases, living 100 miles away solves many problems.

TheChandler - agree completely. Its quite irritating sometimes because I have never reported a comment about me because a)that's pathetic and b)I would rather it stayed so that everyone can get the measure of who posted it.