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.

TheChandler we already have the health forum where no doctor ever posts for exactly the same reason as what has happened to Spero here.

Kundry, I am really, really sorry to hear that.

Those who sow the wind will reap the whirlwind. always one of my favourite sayings.

Ergh, what ridiculous mealy mouthed nonsense that email is. Be careful what you wish for MNHQ. Making parents lives easier - in the long run or the short term? Must we agree with every flat-earther and crack-pot nonsense spouter in case they feel crushed by logic and reason and complain about bullying? Sometimes people are wrong in matters of fact and - if you purport to be giving facts, not opinions or vague ideas, then you need to suck it up if you're wrong.

Wow the selfishness of people never ceases to amaze me. I dealt with parents with attitudes like yours at our last school show. We had asked for parents co-operation in not using phones or cameras to record or take photos. What we could not explain (due to privacy) is that 2 of the children in the show were in hiding from an abusive parent. We could not risk their photos being shared on social media etc... We had promised the carer that we would protect their child. We took photos & video (ensuring to miss these children out of course) and GAVE them to the parents who desperately needed them, but still selfish parents insisted on sneaking their own recording for facebook.

For your situation Spero- I get it, it seems silly. Your child will be on stage on their own, but how on earth can the school say yes to you, other parents see it & make it a free for all. It has to be a blanket rule. Just keep in mind that if they say child protection, they might actually mean that they are acting for the protection of a child, and may not be able to tell you the details. You trust them with your child, why not trust them about this?

To be fair the main reason doctors don't post on health is GMC guidance.

If you identify yourself as a doctor in publicly accessible social media, you should also identify yourself by name. Any material written by authors who represent themselves as doctors is likely to be taken on trust and may reasonably be taken to represent the views of the profession more widely.‡

The email from MNHQ is ridiculous and I have reported the post with it in with my own thoughts. If this is the way MN is going the forums will be the poorer for it.

There are numerous doctors all over mumsnet, identifying themselves as such. And they are not in the health forum. The GMC guidance is part of it but it isn't the main reason. The main reason is that if non-medical posters don't like the opinion you give, you are pushed out.

teacherlikeapples, can I suggest you read the thread? The point you make has been made and answered more than once. Spero is not objecting to legitimate action to protect children - as the OP says, she is objecting to people citing a non-existent statute in support of what they are asking for. And if you want to know why, it has been explained at some length.

Just keep in mind that if they say child protection, they might actually mean that they are acting for the protection of a child, and may not be able to tell you the details. You trust them with your child, why not trust them about this?

Because if they are going to rely on poorly understood and poorly articulated reasons as to why my child 'needs' such protection then no, I don't trust them with any aspect of my child's welfare.

RUDE AND INFLAMMATORY POST ALERT: It continues to amaze me that 32 pages in some people are still repeating the same duff point - its fine to misstate the law if its for a good reasons.

No its not. No it really isn't. And if you can't see that then I reserve the right to have serous doubts about your intelligence and your reading comprehension levels.

If you want a (possibly very extreme) reason why crazy 'opinions' should always challenged by insistence on cold hard facts, have a look at the judgment in case of P and Q published yesterday.

this may help people understand a bit more about why this is a drum I keep on banging.

www.transparencyproject.org.uk/my-line-in-the-sand/

Chunderella, I am sorry, but not surprised, to hear of your experiences. The shape of this site will depend to a large extent on how those moderating it respond to the demands of the unreasonable and the irrational. I am not saying they don't deserve courtesy but they can't be allowed to dictate terms.

RUDE AND INFLAMMATORY POST ALERT Well, they can - its not my site - but I think we all know what will happen if those particular lunatics take over the asylum.

(In the spirit of working together and compromise I will henceforth identify what part of my posts are likely to be considered RUDE AND INFLAMMATORY so that anyone of a delicate disposition can just skip that bit)

Well actually that is going to be a pain in the arse to keep typing out (as obviously I will need to on every thing I post)

Can we have a handy acronym? 'RI' is a bit poor - how about NSMN (Not in the Spririt of Mumsent) and PSIYD (Please skip if you are delicate)

I quite like that. NSMN/PSD

No, its quite true I don't have a iife. When I am not working I am on the internet - I am an elderly single parent so going out is not actually something I want to do even if I could afford it!

In fact the only time I do go out is to ferry my child to all her life improving activities, so you can understand why I have time on my hands to obsess about it.

RIPA - Rude and Inflammatory Post Alert would work, I think. Pithy.

And that link you've just posted, Spero -

Do we need a thread in Site Stuff about this? Am considering emailing Justine.

But now I have to go and fry my eyeballs by staing at the eclipse - am in SW and the skies are clear and it's getting darker ...

RIPA Sod off Bore, your acronym is much better than mine and that offends me personally. Also it is grey and misty outside so I can't see any eclipse and that is obviously your fault, just who do you think you are you uppity cow.

Here's another link to show you what happens when we cherish 'opinion' over fact.

www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/one-devastating-fantasy-the-impact-of-an-internet-scandal.2012066675

I think that is a good example of the dangers of photographs Altinkum, but also a good illustration of one of my points, that surely the way forward is to educate people about the dangers of unsecured Facebook sites.

Your post is quite depressing. I thought I had left school far behind me but it seems we take it with us everywhere we go - the cliques, the outraged accusations of 'bullying', the petty rules and restrictions.

suspending your account for one week? How pointless.

It doesn't seem particularly hard to me - have a clear list of rules for e.g. don't personally abuse other people. If you break the rules we will warn you (but not with pathetic netmums style email) and if you break them again we ban you.

Defending your position by reference to facts should never trigger any kind of rebuke or warning unless of course you defend your position by attacking other people personally. Which is a crap way of trying to defend your position in any event.

I'm shocked at the MN letter too. Spero has not been the rudest person on this thread! I think your main mistake, Spero, has been to be too clever. It's basically OK to accuse people of being selfish or PFB, but the moment you start pointing out to people that they're being irrational, they feel patronised. Which is obviously a lot worse than being called selfish.

I just sent the following to MN:

'Just wanted to add my voice to those protesting at Spero being warned for being 'rude and inflammatory' when her posts have simply been robust, fact-based defenses of a sensible position on a subject she knows well. She may have been a little sarcastic, but very funny with it and since when has sarcasm been banned on MN? As for 'bullying' and 'pushing out of the thread' I am at a loss to understand how a single poster, faced with a deluge of idiotic criticism from a number of people, most of whom entirely failed to grasp her position, can be said to be bullying all those people.

Spero is a highly qualified professional who clearly does not suffer fools gladly. I'm willing to bet that those who have reported her supposedly 'rude and inflammatory' posts were in fact fools outraged at not being suffered.

Along with many others I fear for the culture of MN if it becomes normal and accepted to take the part of those who take disagreement with their opinion as a personal attack.

In the five-odd years I've been here MN has generally seemed to me to base its posting and moderation policy on the assumption that posters are rational individuals with enough ego strength to hold and defend their opinions. If instead we are sliding towards a feathery-strokey culture where posters are assumed to be fragile little flowers who need protection from anyone who holds a divergent opinion then I will be joining the exodus."

RIPA yes I accept that a lot of people have felt patronised by me. Popular insults tend to be 'smug', 'conceited' 'inflated sense of self importance' 'stop going on about being a family lawyer' etc, etc.

But that's their problem. I am not intending to patronise. I am making my argument. If their argument is based on an invalid premise, a mistaken fact or a dodgy opinion elevated way, way beyond what it should be, then I point that out.

No doubt to be on the receiving end of that is very tiresome. No doubt on occasion the majority of people would agree I do come across as smug etc.

tough. Suck it up. There's lots of people out there with lots of opinions. If you can't handle that, don't come on the internet. And don't try and ruin it for the rest of us.

That is a superb post Manatee. Would you mind if I appropriated it for my email to MNHQ/Justine?

In other news: it got dark, cold, and I saw the eclipse for a nanosecond (braving fried eyeballs). Was v spooky.

Now getting lighter.