Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

That someone is using a made up law to stop me taking a photo of my child

999 replies

Spero · 13/03/2015 15:25

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
TheChandler · 19/03/2015 12:41

limitedperiodonly It's like the stories that say I can be sued if the postman slips up on my icy garden path and people piling in with: 'you're safe if you don't clear it' or 'you have to put salt down.'

I don't know where the truth lies and I'm sure they don't either. Meanwhile, I'll continue to shovel up snow because I don't want to go arse over tit.

Interesting point in this context, because in terms of reasonable foreseeability, if a person or body has made a fuss about not doing something in case they get sued and ban things as a result, they run the risk of being found liable for things they have not banned which then resulted in a foreseeable accident surely?

So if you make a point of telling someone you are not clearing your path of snow in case they still slip on it and sue you, if they then slip on a banana skin, you may be more likely to be sued because you have shown an awareness of the likelihood of someone slipping on your path (not a very practical example, but more relevant to bodies who announce they are cancelling or not allowing certain things because of specified risks, who then fail to cancel or ban other things with a similar risk).

TheChandler · 19/03/2015 12:43

Hancat But Roses, is it not the point that (in most instances) it is not the law that has become more invasive, but that those who consider themselves 'agents' of the law are using more invasive measures to implement their interpretation of the law, which is precisely the problem.

And the other problem is that they often get it wrong, often because they don't understand the full remit of law in other fields which might also apply to the situation.

TheChandler · 19/03/2015 12:53

Or if you prefer Roses, if you tell lies and half truths, someone is going to catch you out, somewhere along the line.

Spero · 19/03/2015 13:37

There is no sidelining of legality here, just better things to do than to explain minutiae to parents. Good that they are following the law, but they shouldn't need to explain or justify to anyone which law they are using, that's a waste of their time. It's surely better to refer parents to the school handbook or the school policies and if the secretary or whoever issued the explanation made an error, so be it. Get over it. The law is being upheld, what more do people want?

Phew. That's a relief. the law is being upheld you say? OK then, tell me which part of the laws cited related in ANY WAY to the stated prohibition.

I have asked Squirrel, she strangely vanished. I asked myusername, she went 'poof!' and disppeared too.

So I do hope you can help. Please show me where the statutes they rely upon forbid me from taking a photograph. If you can't do that, will you accept I have a point?

OP posts:
Spero · 19/03/2015 13:38

And I don't think issues of child protection are or should be 'minutiae'.

They should form part of a clearly set out, clearly defined policy which has a sound legal basis so we all know where we stand.

OP posts:
Spero · 19/03/2015 13:39

TheChandler, I hope I have told you just how much I admire my, er I mean your writing style.

OP posts:
limitedperiodonly · 19/03/2015 13:46

spero what are you doing here? I thought you were keeping the streets safe for indecent people?

Catsrus · 19/03/2015 14:51

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

loiner45 · 19/03/2015 14:52

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

RosesAreMyFavourite · 19/03/2015 15:09

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Spero · 19/03/2015 15:23

Its not fair to expect lay persons to quote laws eh?

But if is fair for them to stop me doing something when they have no legal entitlement to do this?

Do you see how crazy that sounds?

If lay persons don't understand the law, they shouldn't try applying -or god forbid enforcing - the law.

OP posts:
Spero · 19/03/2015 15:25

Limited, I am working my way thought my To Do List.

tonight I will don my latex judge costume to keep the streets of Wiltshire free from the depraved monsters who keep quoting irrelevant law at me. they will feel my wrath. O yes.

OP posts:
Spero · 19/03/2015 15:27

Catsrus, your policy sounds very sensible and would have caused me not one iota of irritation or RAGE.

I would have been very happy to pay for an official photograph. That would have been lovely in fact. I think they were missing a trick not offering that.

OP posts:
Spero · 19/03/2015 15:34

Actually Catsrus I would have taken issue with the phrase 'complex legal issues'.

I don't think the legal issues are complicated at all. There aren't any legal issues to consider, save for section 97(2) of the Children Act 1989.

There is simply no primary legislation whatsoever that prohibits me from taking a photograph of my fully clothed child in a non depraved and non corrupting way.

So ha! This thread would still have started. Nice try, but no cigar.

OP posts:
limitedperiodonly · 19/03/2015 16:00

All that you're doing is creating a mexican wave of rolled eyebrows in the staffroom, another whole school email/letter and a ticking off of someone who probably has enough on their plate as it is, probably one of the secretaries. They probably get this all the time, pedantic parents throwing their weight around.

That's okay with me.

I'm a lay person and I can't quote laws.

But I get annoyed at people who don't say what they mean, whine about being really busy and hide behind legal-sounding stuff to avoid having to research or explain their position and lie in order to exert power or answer difficult questions.

The lying in order to exert power and dodge questions I get very angry about because I came across it frequently as a news reporter. I don't do that branch of journalism any more but the hackles still rise. And they would even it it hadn't been my job to be a professional irritant.

I've lost count of the times I have been told by the police, council and court officials and other officials such as head teachers or health authority administrators to move on and stop asking questions otherwise they will have me arrested for a criminal offence or get an injunction, which is actually a civil procedure, but never let the facts get in the way of a good lie.

I learned to say calmly: 'Under what Act are you acting? I am entitled to ask questions in this interview/on public land/in a public court. I am causing no danger. I suggest you let me get on with my job and I'll let you get on with yours.'

I'll let you into a secret. I was bluffing most of the time. I just gambled correctly that they knew the law even less than I did - and that includes police officers and court officials.

I've been threatened with arrest. It's never happened to me and I think that is because a robust but polite attitude makes chancers back down.

As I said, it's become a bit more difficult to do that since 9/11 because you only have to mention terrorism to have people nodding in agreement and taking off their shoes.

But even before then a clause was passed in an Act which made it an offence to 'cause alarm, harassment and distress'. That was some time in the late 80s or early 90s and it was a bolt-on clause to some kind of law and order Act.

I think it was originally devised in the wake of the miners' strike to prevent pickets telling the police to fuck off and in the meantime stop bashing them over the head with a truncheon.

It's been cited a lot but the CPS generally throw it out. It was hilariously used to prosecute a drunken student who taunted a mounted police officer that his horse was gay.

But there was also the man who posted a clear joke on Twitter about blowing up Robin Hood Airport in Nottingham because of a delay who had his life torn apart and put on hold for nearly two years.

I'm nobody's hero but I can't believe the number of people who think it's okay to lie to get what you want and want people to stop questioning things.

Thalidomide? That's okay. They were trying to save pregnant women from hyperemesis. It's a horrible condition. It wasn't really Distiller's fault that they knew it caused terrible birth defects and yet denied that for years.

limitedperiodonly · 19/03/2015 16:05

Sorry. That was really long. It means a lot to me.

I'm no longer a crusader after the mighty truth.

These days I do battle with LA publicists which is a harder job than dealing with British petty officialdom. I'm glad of the grounding though Wink

Spero · 19/03/2015 16:16

Brilliant post limited. Quite right.

You do however realise that you now risk being deemed my Sock Puppet.

Right! off to talc up and don the latex suit. Will report back from my stalking the streets of Wiltshire.

Your location sounds a bit more glamorous.

OP posts:
catsrus · 19/03/2015 16:36

the complex legal issues relate to copyright re. filming Spero - who 'owns' the performance Grin nothing to do with child protection! Youtube is always pulling videos that infringe someone's performing rights.

balletgirlmum · 19/03/2015 16:45

With regards to performing rights legal issues it's complicated.

Your dd may have been performing Shakespeare but other performers in other classes will have been performing a variety of works by various authors.

Some authors will be fine with videography, some will charge for the right to video a performance of their work. It's very very difficult to tell the difference between someone taking a still photo or video.

limitedperiodonly · 19/03/2015 16:51

Your statement sounds brilliant Catsrus

Anyway, moving on to the more important issues.

I have a cat. I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

I'll go first

I do hope that's okay and not in any way provocative.

That someone is using a made up  law to stop me taking a photo of my child
catsrus · 19/03/2015 17:18

lovely cat - I had a couple with that lovely fine head, very oriental looking Smile my current bunch are more bruiser-like Grin

That someone is using a made up  law to stop me taking a photo of my child
Icimoi · 19/03/2015 17:22

Spero it's not fair to expect laypersons to quote laws, no wonder everyone's going 'poof'. When I say upholding the law I mean in the wider context of justice and government policy.

Spero will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that she definitely does not expect laypeople to quote laws - quite the reverse. What she is saying is that if they do quote laws, they should make sure that what they are quoting is correct, and they shouldn't quote non-existent laws.

limitedperiodonly · 19/03/2015 17:29

Bruisers are vital in a scrap catrus. Nobby would be hanging back going 'Wah!!'

But we need supporters as well as people willing to get stuck in. Smile

catsrus · 19/03/2015 17:30

Without outing myself too much - I used to work in an educational institution where I was responsible for drafting and implementing a policy relating to photography and filming. The students were over 18 but still some interesting ethical issues around who could take photos and how they might be used. I drew up an opt-out policy. We took photos but every single one was put on an internal web page which was made accessible to the students for a two week period (via email with a link to the page). They could ask us to delete any photo of themselves for any reason. We did not require them to give us a reason, just a request to delete. If they were happy with what we had taken then they gave permission for us to use the image for publicity, research, etc.

In four years I was asked to delete 3 photos, one because "it looks like I'm picking my nose" (it did Grin) one because "I should have worn a belt with those trousers" (or not bent over my love!) and the other didn't give a reason. We took thousands of images. We didn't video apart from on request by drama students so that they could review their own performance. Everyone was happy with the policy because they were given control. It was time consuming but we all got what we wanted, we got the archive of images, they got to say yes or no to them. Collaboration is key.

motheroftwoboys · 19/03/2015 17:32

This is utter nonsense. There are only two reasons why you should not be taking photos and, as a lawyer, you will be more than aware of this. The first is that a child on the stage is under child protection and must not be "outed" in any way. The second is that the performance license of the piece in question does not allow any images at all to be taken of the performers in costume/in the set. Otherwise there is no legal reason why you cannot take a photograph of your own child. I work in the performing arts department of a big school by the way so this is an issue I am very familiar with.