Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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
OTheHugeManatee · 20/03/2015 14:49

I'd far rather see aggression masked as humour than masked as (say) idealism, concern for others or hurt feelings Hmm

Spero · 20/03/2015 14:51

But you don't know that they are relying on law they don't understand, that's pure conjecture

That's why I have written to them to ask them to explain. Because when they said 'you cannot take photographs in the building because of the Child Protection Act' it did rather sound like they were relying on that Act to inform their prohibition against photographs.

And when they list a whole lot of legislation on their website which 'informs' their policy and that legislation is almost entirely irrelevant to their policy, it does rather seem to me that they don't understand what the fuck they are talking about.

But here I go again, getting all silly about something so obviously trivial.

OP posts:
Spero · 20/03/2015 14:52

Manatee! Why aren't you swinging from a rusty gibbet this very moment? Get on with it woman.

OP posts:
Spero · 20/03/2015 14:53

When I am Prime Minister (which surely can only be a few years away now) I will make it a new capital offence to say something unpleasant/goading/bitchy and finish it off with nice smiley emoticon....

OP posts:
NanaNina · 20/03/2015 14:58

I know Mantee I can't believe it either.

Roses you say "they probably understand child protection laws very well being a school and all..........." Really? I suggest you read the Serious Case Review of Daniel Pelka and you will come to realise how badly he was let down by the school not adhering to policies and procedures relating to child protection issues, that's if they even had them in place. Yes he was let down by other professionals too, but the school saw this child "wasting away in front of them on a daily basis" (the actual words of a TA at the school)

Any why is it ok for you to assert that "there was no wonder Spero was reported to the Bar" and mention her "pfb" and then take issue with her about her knicker twisting comment?

Another example of Kruger Dunning!

NanaNina · 20/03/2015 15:03

Ooh Roses you've lost me there with your comment about the craftsman and his/her tools. I do of course understand this means but fail to see how it relates to my post. Maybe you could explain?

catsrus · 20/03/2015 15:03

How often have we seen annoyance on here at legal cases where because of a technicality someone is either convicted or set free - counter to most people's sense of natural justice. The law is all about technicalities - getting the legal basis correct for actions taken is vital - particularly relating to child protection.

Spero challenging people about 'rules' resting on an incorrect interpretation of the law is really important. banning photography at these events does not solve the child protection issues. If it's used as a tick box exercise the danger is those issues are not properly being addressed by the organisation.

Phephenson · 20/03/2015 15:04

I went to my goddaughter's dance show. We were told no photography DURING the performance. Sounded reasonable to me - very distracting to a 5 year old I would guess - except that the dance show organisers spent the whole show clicking away creating pics that you could buy!!

I waited till the end, took a pic of my goodaughter. Later posted it on FB and tagged in my best friend (her mum). 10 minutes later I had a nasty message asking me to take it down from the dance show owner, saying that I had 'agreed' not to take pictures and it was a question of child protection.

For the sake of my goddaughter I took it down. What a twunt though - I had not agreed to anything!! She was selling the pics afterwards, how could she stop people buying, scanning and uploading the pics??

I wanted to respond and say to stop hiding behind child protection when it was actually a simple case of profits.

if I ever have any kids of my own (have 2DSS) they won't be going to her poxy dance school!

RosesAreMyFavourite · 20/03/2015 15:04

It was an 'up yours' grin, not a nice smiley emoticon.

Spero · 20/03/2015 15:19

*I think now is the time for MNHQ to be more open with us and let us know how this issue is handled at HQ and how (and by whom) decisions are made to delete posts. I'd be interested to know if this decision is made by one employee or whether it is a collective decision. I don't know how many people are employed at MNHQ nor how they operate really, so it feels a bit like Big Brother sometimes.

Do any of you agree ?*

I agree. I would be very interested to know what was the basis on which they justified their decision to send that email and what the consequences will be for me to continuing to post as I do.

But I appreciate I can't demand this information. I would however be interested to have it.

OP posts:
Spero · 20/03/2015 15:20

Roses, so let me be clear.

I am not allowed to tell you to stop twisting your knickers but you are allowed to say 'up yours' to me?

Boggle. Why is one ok and the other not?

OP posts:
MostlyCake · 20/03/2015 15:38

As an aside, I always read "Comment is free .... but facts are sacred" as "Comment is free but facts are scarce"

Springtimemama · 20/03/2015 15:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Spero · 20/03/2015 15:44

Mostlycake - arf.

Springtimemama - I think that is a very good example. there is considerable concern amongst those of us who do care proceedings at what appears to be the every growing chasm between the understanding of a lot of social workers about when they should intervene in family life, and the understanding of the lawyers about how they apply the law.

Problems with school attendance are frequently cited in documents put before the court to justify removing a child. Its not an enormous leap to see that someone who gets the wrong end of the stick about the laws relating to absence from school, could use that misunderstanding to try to build a case against a parent that should not be built.

Or you could just dismiss it as pedantry. As you like. Please don't anyone be scared to join in with some piffle paffle straight off the top of your head. Threads nearly full anyway.

OP posts:
fresh · 20/03/2015 16:08

OK well before the thread fills up can I just say that (a) I think Spero is absolutely right to take this on (b) learning about Dunning-Kruger has made my day and (c) PacificDogwood's earlier post about allowing stakeholders to decide issues also brings joy. We (also in Wiltshire) have just seen a massive potential infrastructure investment be lost because "stakeholders" (ie the public) were asked to make the decision on quite a technical subject. Guess what happened.

So that all puts me in Spero's fanclub. As a fellow "rude and dismissive" person, I salute you. Please let us see the school's reply.

flippinada · 20/03/2015 16:20

Old timer here. I haven't read the thread in any detail (just skimmed) but just want to add a message of support for Spero.

We've talked on a few occasions and I think you're pretty fab. I always enjoy reading your posts and think MN would be a far less interesting, thoughtful and supportive place without your presence.

RosesAreMyFavourite · 20/03/2015 16:37

I found it disappointing that it explained the (serious) consequences of school absence in terms of fines etc but iirc didn't say that this actually only applied to dc over 5.

See I would call that pedantry, as probably 50% of those children already are over 5, possibly more if the letter was written in the spring or summer term.

And I'm fairly sure that schools know that it only applies to over 5s because they are sending the letter out in year R. Or perhaps they should write an individual letter out on each child's 5th birthday?

It might have been sensible to mention that it applies only over 5s but there really is no great harm in not doing so. Why people think this is 'dangerous' is beyond me. This is just pearl clutching and knicker twisting detail mania. Schools don't have legal departments to run these things by.

OTheHugeManatee · 20/03/2015 16:43

As an aside, this might put me in a minority on MN but in my view considerable leeway should be given to rude and inflammatory postings provided they are 1) funny, and 2) right.

Far more leeway than should be given to aggrieved, whiny, head-tilty or passive-aggressive ones, especially when as is usually the case they are also wrong. With that in mind this has been my favourite thread for a long time Grin

hancat · 20/03/2015 16:48

Roses, it is pedantry, which in a legal context is important. It is those little details and omissions which can mean the difference between a successful case and a failed one.

Altinkum · 20/03/2015 16:50

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

catsrus · 20/03/2015 16:51

Ok roses so you are saying that it's just pedantry to tell a group of people that they are legally obliged to do something when you know that only 50% are actually obliged to do it ? My mind is boggled.

It reminds me of the nonsense spouted on the recent thread about home education. People who knew nothing about the 1944 education act telling that OP what she must go if she home educated her child.Biscuit

Springtimemama · 20/03/2015 16:53

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

hackmum · 20/03/2015 16:59

This is the thread that keeps on giving. I think that whoever made a comment about taking on Spero in her area of expertise was bang on - in fact, that has been the most hilarious thing about this thread. (Also, Spero, I don't think you took my last post in quite the spirit it was intended, which was sympathetic.)

Mind you, I've found that the more well-informed I am about a subject, the more likely I am to be called "stupid" on the internet. I think people get angry when they discover that something they feel instinctively ought to be the truth isn't actually the truth.

limitedperiodonly · 20/03/2015 17:12

Using a service does not necessarily give you an understanding of the bigger picture and much as people MUST be listened to and often do have valuable input, a depressing number of people cannot look beyond their own personal circumstances.

Can I add the last Government's but also this administration's fondness for appointing tsars and elevating them to the House of Lords to get Brownie points and a mention in the Daily Mirror's nauseating Pride of Britain Awards?

If something bad has happened to you, you have my sympathies and I will listen to your story. That does not mean you are an expert in anything other than your personal circumstance.

There are obviously exceptions to this rule but generally it holds fast.

I saw Jill Saward interviewed today on the subject of releasing the identities of alleged sex offenders prior to charge. She was in favour on the grounds that more victims might come forward and allow the CPS to build a case based on modus operandi. I broadly agree with that view but I also understand the opposing view that it allows the police and CPS to trawl in order to bolster a weak case.

For younger viewers this is a potted biog of Saward.

My problem with her is that in the intervening years since her rape she has wildly changed her tune.

She began by discriminating between innocent and not so innocent victims of rape. I found it blood-boiling.

She commented a great deal about provocation, dress and behaviour. She also called for degrees of rape. If someone bursts into your house - as happened with her - then that's the worst. If you go out with a 'date' rapist, or are perhaps married to him and have children and he rapes you every night with his hand over your mouth while threatening to hurt your children if you scream, that's not so bad.

I felt sorry for her but was very angry she felt she had the right to spout off about other women's experiences.

Her experience was horrifying. But it was extraordinary. It, and her very sheltered view as a Christian virgin who had only met nice people should not have been used as a basis to inform public opinion and possibly form policy on prosecuting rape. But I think it was and all these later she is still the go-to person about rape.

As I said, somewhere along the line she has changed her tune to something that is more in line with mine.

Good. But I still don't give a toss for her opinion and I don't think either of us should be used as serious witnesses when formulating policy to prosecute rape or try to change attitudes.

Spero · 20/03/2015 17:15

You would be wise not to place blind faith in the legal expertise of many professionals.

Have a quick read of this case www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed143260

I completely agree that it is just not 'pedantry' to worry over details of terminology when dealing with the law.

OP posts: