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.

That's been my experience and I have always thought it MAD.

I keep asking - why haven't you looked country wide for potential parents? And they say - first we spend months looking in our local area. Then we open it up to the next two counties. Then we might do a national search... a year has gone by!

The whole thing makes absolutely no sense. Why isn't there just a national data base to maximise the chances of each child getting the best placement as soon as possible.

There are good reasons for placing a child close by - close to their local authority if they need ongoing support, and close to their birth family members, eg siblings, with whom they may be maintaining contact.

There are many successful placements locally as many birth parents do not pursue contact with their children who have been adopted (often an appropriate level of acceptance is reached after a lengthy Court battle and time to come to terms with it). Each case needs to be individually judged on its own issues and risks.

Many matching problems are about money again I'm afraid. Placing within your own Local Authority is cheaper and budgets are limited which is why social workers are encouraged to look at whether or not this is a safe and viable option first and clearly where the birth family are a known risk you would be looking further afield as a starting point.

It still does not remove the responsibilities of all people taking photos of other children from putting these photos on facebook - we could also be talking about victims of domestic violence who are in hiding from a violent perpetrator and in those cases the circles are likely to be even more close together and a Facebook post of a child in school uniform could allow a perpetrator to find their child.

the child protection act has been around since i was in school how can you be a parent and not know about it

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/14/contents
here you go OP educate yourself.

Myusername, glad you are here as you seem to be very knowledgeable about the 1999 Act.

I asked SquirredAway and sadly she never answered, but perhaps you know?

Which section of the 1999 Act relates to prohibition on the talking of photographs of children by their parents.

You see, I've looked and I can't find it. Its quite possible that this is because I am just a very silly person. Could you help me learn?

O! I see you refer in your link to the Protection of Children Act 1999 but in your comment to the Child Protection Act (I assume) of 1978.

Could you just clarify which one I need to educate myself about?

And while you are at it could you confirm the relevance of the Chlld Protection Act 1978, which prohibits the taking of indecent photographs, to me and my daughter?

thanks ever so!

Well the person who told you not to take pictures may have worded it as "child protection act" it has a different name though everyone ive met knows it exists
also your "pfb" is not the only child in the world get over it

POLITE NOTICE

Under the Prevention of Sensible Discussion (Hysterical Pearl Clutching) Act (1998) this thread will shortly be deleted and subsequently deemed never to have existed.

You are all required to post elsewhere and furthermore take all reasonable precautions to include adequate proportions of knee jerk overreaction and garbled nonsense in any subsequent comments you may make on this or any related topics.

myusername: 'Well the person who told you not to take pictures may have worded it as "child protection act" it has a different name though everyone ive met knows it exists'

So you are referring to the 1999 Protection of Children Act? Which is the bit of the Act that is relevant to Spero's case?

myusername, you don't know how excited I am to have finally attracted someone to this thread who is able to answer the burning questions.

so please feel free to answer them, any time now, don't hold back.

Which part of the 1999 Act restricts a parent taking photographs?
Which part of the 1978 Act restricts a parent taking photographs that aren't indecent.

I'm quite literally on the edge of my seat here and not at all in contravention of any provision of the Use of Sarcasm (Excessive and Annoying) Act of whatever year it was when I made it up in my mind.

Manatee, I am sorry to reveal your ignorance, but you should be aware that Act was repealed at the beginning of the thread because we all agreed that it should refer instead to 'pearl wringing'.

HTH.

On this matter I find in favour of everything Spero has submitted.

I've been meaning to comment on this thread for ages, not least because I was also at the festival and would have loved to have taken a photo too.

I completely agree with what you are doing, and not just because I want the photo. Once people start making up laws, and we accede to that, it's the end of a fair legal system.

One thing I do want to add though is not legal but sociological, but I think it's a big part of what is going on here. People are starting to believe that photos of children are in some way dangerous in themselves. So we should not be able to take photos in swimming pools, and photos of fully clothed children on the street in some unspoken way will inevitably lead to paedophilia. Of course these ideas sound insane when you write them down. but they are what underlies some of the less considered reactions.

What really brought this home to me was when I was in the park with my DD and her friend and her friend's mother. It was the school holidays, and there was a clump of teenagers hanging around in the infants playground on the equipment so that the two girls were a bit scared of using it. We asked them to move, and most of them did, but one girl refused and my friend had a bit of an argument with her. So my friend - who is much more confrontational that I would be - went away and rang the police, and then took a photo of the girl and her friends.

At which point the girl went ballistic, and rang her dad. She also got her friends to come over, and say, you took a photo of my friend, you must delete it. She did (although why she should have I am not entirely sure). Her dad then turned up, furious that we had taken a photo of his daughter. (My friend explained what had happened, said she had deleted the photo and daughter then got an earful for being a lout.)

And I was left standing there, going wtf? Do we really now believe that taking a photo of someone is stealing their soul? Or what? I am still boggled when I think about it.

Great point tenderbuttons

Spero, you are clearly not up to speed on Reasonable Discussion law; the repeal of Pearl Clutching 1998 was blocked by the Lords in March 2014 and subsequently amended to include provision for 'energetic pearl manipulation, both static and agitated'. See Provision for Frenetic Pearl Manipulation (Reasonable Discussion Amendments) 2014, clauses 8-11.

MyUsernameIs Well the person who told you not to take pictures may have worded it as "child protection act" it has a different name though everyone ive met knows it exists

To be honest, making up laws and trying to force people to comply with them belongs in the era of Soviet Russia and the KGB. Or East Germany under the Stasi. Or similar. Its not our culture in the UK.

If you can't see the importance of that, then yes, maybe you would benefit from educating yourself on the topic.

Likewise, with regards to a fictional ban on photographing your own children generally. Different from a ban in a particular place or at a particular event.

Again, its not a difficult distinction to understand, but if you are struggling, education is the key.

Obviously, the importance of this extends far beyond one poster and their child/children.

Well the person who told you not to take pictures may have worded it as "child protection act" it has a different name though everyone ive met knows it exists

On a more serious note, have we found some more evidence of the child protection act myth in action? If everyone this poster knows is certain the Act exists even if it's called something else and they're not sure what nor have they ever actually seen or read it but their sister's BIL's dog's cousin's uncle was arrested under its provisions then is Spero dealing here with the legislative equivalent of an urban myth?

Tender buttons your anecdote absolutely encapsulates the whole point of this thread. Hope you enjoyed the Festival!

Manatee - I take enomous offence at your inability to agree with me even when I am so clearly right and bolstered in my rightness by the recent Strasbourg ruling on the Brussells II regs pertaining to One's Point Becoming Righter the More Often One Repeats It (Personal Insults Assisting) 2005.

Your reliance on domestic legislation pertaining to Frenetic Pearl Clutching is therefore an error that would shame a first year law student and you really are making yourself look very silly now.

Manatee - no, sadly its not an urban myth.

I have seen a sign about the Child protection Act in Cardiff Ice Rink in summer of 2013. Its referred to in this Telegraph article as well.

The article dates from 2008 which suggests it is now long embedded in people's consciousness.

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3559975/There-is-no-law-against-photographing-children.html

Sorry, may have got the wrong end of your stick Manatee.

Yes, the Child Protection Act exists, but it doesn't do what I think people think it does i.e. it emphatically DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO with parents taking innocent pictures of their fully clothed children .

So in that sense it is probably a legal urban myth.

tenderbuttons

Good post. Some police officers also attempt to stop filming on made up laws.

There are now places where photography is banned for reasons of prevention of terrorism. I can't name the exact Act, and I'm not sure banning trainspotters from mainline stations is going to stop IS trying to blow you to bits. But it makes us feel safer

The places have to be named though. Officers can't just make it up to move people on. That doesn't stop them obstructing people taking photographs, particularly on demonstrations where some officers might not want a record of their behaviour.

They get very nasty. My belief is that they can't confiscate your camera or force you to delete pictures. However they can arrest you, I think on grounds of obstruction which is a bit of a catch-all, which puts a bit of a crimp in your day.

The National Union of Journalists are just one of many groups advising photographers to resist.

BTW the copper in the link makes a reference to only Press photographers being allowed to take photos. Bollocks. I'm a journalist, but I don't have a special pass from God allowing me to take pictures. Anyone can do it on public property, unless in one of those designated restricted areas.

Just like anyone can be a journalist. Or a police officer, it seems.

But if the person filming the clip had been a Press photographer, with ID (which no one is required to carry in public areas), Plod would have made up something else.

I really hope that clip was sent to his Chief Constable with a complaint. That copper is a fucking disgrace but there are loads of them.

Sorry for going off at a bit of a tangent, OP. But it's another area where people make laws up to restrict people's rights, especially with regard to photography.

It's more worrying when a police officer does it because you are more than likely to comply.