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've found that the more well-informed I am about a subject, the more likely I am to be called "stupid" on the internet

Or an evil vulture hackmum. I know that feeling well

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.

TBF she never said that. That's my interpretation and extrapolation of her blinkered views about the worst kind of rape.

She did talk about the worst kind of rape, or degrees of rape, which I take as the same difference.

I notice that Rose's lack of concern with detail even extends to little technicalities like reading the OP. If she had, she would realise that we aren't dealing with a school here. You should also be aware, Rose, that your assumption that Spero merited being reported to the Bar Council couldn't have been wider from the mark: it was a petty action by a man who didn't like her pointing out, 100% correctly, that he was repeatedly and seriously misrepresenting publicly available facts about child abuse and potentially putting children in danger. As, of course, the Bar Council must have recognised when it dismissed the complaint.

Rose, if someone from, say, your child's school came to you and told you that you were not allowed to take any photographs of your child whatsoever when she is out of the house under the terms of the Child Protection Act 2014, would you decide that the mere fact that there is no such Act is a mere technicality, clearly child protection is an important thing and meekly agree? Or would you think it really quite serious that that person was claiming authority over what you do with your child based on a non-existent statute?

The trouble is that a supine acceptance of officials who dress themselves up in the authority of non-existent legislation is the start of an extremely slippery slope. I know this is invoking Godwin's law or something, but unfortunately there is only too much history of would-be dictators using similar tactics to suppress minorities who, if they accept it, are liable to sleep-walk into disaster. It really is incredibly important that we resist this type of conduct.

I have just read the Jon Ronson book about being shamed on the internet which is very interesting. I think sadly there is just something about us as a species that likes to pile in and 'hold people to account' if we think they are getting 'above themselves' or they have annoyed/threatened us in any way.

What I found most interesting was the one person who refused to be shamed and argued with his attackers who backed down. The others all spent about a year cowering in their bedrooms.

I appreciate some of them lost their jobs which is pretty awful, but other than that kind of consequence, I struggle to see why we put so much energy into caring what other people think of us or our opinions.

I keep banging my drum about this point because I think it is important. I will go on thinking it is important regardless of who agrees with me on a mumsnet thread.

But the thread has given me lots of different angles and perspectives on the problem which is great.

Don't worry! its just an opinion!

Another example of bloody stupid prohibition, no proper reasons given. I don't think any child's scientific curiosity should be stifled in this way

www.standard.co.uk/news/education/pupils-at-london-primary-school-banned-from-looking-at-eclipse-for-religious-reasons-10122282.html

WTF? They just couldn't be arsed to ensure full use of pinhole viewers I expect.

"He refused to say which religions and cultures have concerns about observing eclipses directly."

WTAF? I can't help feeling this is one of those things that's just been made up - we can't be arsed to take the kids outside to view the eclipse, so let's pretend there's a religious reason. I really really doubt the existence of any holy text that says "And thou shalt not watch an eclipse of the sun, for fear ye be smiten".

Have also just read the Jon Ronson book, coincidentally. One of the things that stuck out for me was that lots of people really have no sense of humour and cannot recognise a joke that is obviously a joke, and makes no sense if taken literally. But I guess we knew that anyway.

Parliament passes laws, which we have to follow even if we disagree, or we accept the consequences.
However, we don't have to accept invented laws and sanctions from those "in positions of authority" just because they want us to behave as they wish us to, or as would make their lives easier.

We are adults, not children, but this is just telling us the monster will eat us tartare if we are naughty.

I've noticed over the 40 years of my adulthood [old bag emoticon required] how the deference to authority figures - and fear of them - has increased.
I consider this a very unhealthy sign for our society.

The public is kept under control, partly by a bewildering array of new laws created over the last 25 years, mostly forbidding things; partly due to the increased aggression and intimidatory behaviour of some of those in minor positions of authority.
The State seems to feel threatened by its citizens.

Now some folk get offended if we analyse non-laws, or if irony is involved.

Miscellaneous geek thoughts:
. I don't do blind obedience.
. I won't accept that our hard-won civil liberties should be reduced, at least not without laws debated and passed by Parliament.
. Emotional certainty does not equal knowledge - and may often be inversely proportional to it.
. We are entitled to correct errors of fact in Mumsnet posts
. Irony, used well, is a thing of beauty < bows to spero >

Couldn't agree with you more BigChocFrenzy.

I've also noticed a tendency in recent years to use secondary legislation (which isn't debated by the whole of parliament) to pass laws which should really be the subject of primary legislation and parliamentary scrutiny.

hacksmum 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 that's possibly the best quote I've ever read describing the internet. It deserves to be famous and become one of those meme things. In fact, it should probably be taught in schools.

Roses Chandler we don't need this kind of browbeating poster at all. It's really helpful to have posters with knowledge but not posters who patronise others and use aggression masked as humour to win their arguments and fight people off.

Who are "we"? Is it not rather egotistical to assume that you speak for the whole of mumsnet?

Personally, I want to debate points that interest me with a variety of posters, including those who are capable of intelligent discussion. I really would rather not debate with those posters who throw around insults and abuse others, but I wouldn't go complaining to mumsnet about it. I don't really think dumbing down mumsnet is anything I want to be part of.

I saw that eclipse story and I thought of this thread immediately

Whoever compared Bad Law to Ben Goldacre's Bad Science is spot on. I have to listen to people banging on about how marrying a Bolivian cat gives robbers the right to remain, and it's all utter bollocks invented to scare the population into accepting increasingly draconian law. The new Immigration Act for example gives the state the right to terminate an appeal if they don't think that "serious irreversible harm" would occur - and this was waved through parliament in about ten minutes. In no other area would it be acceptable for one party to have the right to curtail litigation in their own favour.

Thinking about it, one of the things I like about this thread is the way OP has turned the tables on the type of poster who comes onto AIBU primarily to have a lovely time piling in on others and attacking them in the most self-righteous judgmental way possible. Not only has she refused to be cowed or silenced, she has committed the cardinal sin in their eyes of refusing to get upset and totally defusing their attacks through her inconsiderate use of facts and humour. Blatantly they have no idea how to handle it, hence the whinging to MNHQ.

Just one more example of why Bad Law is so bad.

www.pinktape.co.uk/cases/we-are-not-on-the-same-page-not-even-reading-the-same-book/

If you reject my arguments because I am an obtuse pedant, maybe other considerations might sway you. I wonder how many hundreds of thousands of pounds are wasted in care proceedings that go down the toilet because those on the ground either didn't know or didn't understand the law they had to apply?

And how many children are either removed from their parents when they should not have been - or left in dangerous situations where they should have been removed.

These are the consequences of failing to respect the reach and the power of the laws. For all those rolling your eyes, just be glad there are people out there who don't. You would soon notice if they all vanished.

I certainly don't expect volunteers at festivals or harried teachers at school to know all the laws. By the same token I don't accept that they are allowed to tell me what those laws say.

I am glad that this thread has revealed so many people who are happy to debate and to explore different perspectives without experiencing this as an attack on their own personal integrity.

I have very much enjoyed spreading this out over 36 pages.

thank you all very much and good night.

Couldn't read and run - I had to de-lurk to say that Spero is correct throughout this thread, that I really cannot understand all the pearl-clutching, nit-picking, repetitive (RTFT) posts here -- and that MNHQ's email left me agog - AGOG I tell you - at the lack of understanding shown.
Spero please keep on fighting the good fight - your sense and care are sorely needed

Thanks Bikkett.

Springtime mama - yes, children removed. Of course case was not decided on issue of foam darts but it's not hard to see how a tide of relentless negativity against a parent can build up to create a portrayal that hardens over time and repetition and may lead to unfair result.

I thought I was going to have the perfect post script to this thread by it all kicking off again when I was caught using my phone at a matinee of The Sound of music this afternoon, by an usher who had to wave her torch at me angrily for 15 mins before I noticed. I was discretely checking my Up band stats with screen shielded by hand so I dont think I was annoying anyone nearly as much as her strobe disco light torch effect.

I was hoping to be arrested/have phone confiscated so could whine more about my rights etc but sadly there was no such confrontation.

Thanks to my lovely friend L for organising the tickets and I bet you are glad that didn't happen.

I did take a picture however, in defiance of their No Photography Rule, because that's how I roll.

I think Spero might have signed off this thread, but BBB I couldn't agree more and I too agree wholeheartedly with the quote from Hacksmum "I've found that the more well informed on a subject that I am, the more I'm called stupid on the internet...." Spot on! I've had much the same experience in my early MN days and was naïve enough to keep trying to explain my point and give examples etc., only to be called patronising, a "know all" and all sorts of other unpleasant things. Of course my opponents loved the chance to keep coming back at me with more insults. I honestly was bewildered, but I understand now - it's that Dunning-Kruger thing again (or is it Kruger-Dunning) What a strange phenomena.

I'm still awaiting a response from MNHQ - can't think what's causing the delay - possibly unable to prove that Spero was being rude and inflammatory? That's ok, all it takes is an apology, and an admission that they were wrong and I'm sure that would be graciously accepted by Spero - oh I'm assuming you'll let us know if and when you get a response Spero and the content.

Whoops cross posted there!

If this post is still on topic....Not sure if child protection policy exists but in my line of work child protection is bandied about a lot, it might surprise you to know that young adults/adults are encompassed in this "legislation"

www.gov.uk/government/publications/safeguarding-children-and-young-people/safeguarding-children-and-young-people

Fwiw at my child's school at the beginning of term we have to sign a permission slip, agreeing or not, to child being photographed for various reasons....last yr some parents did not agree to this so we all suffered at the Xmas play when there was a ban on photography or videoing!!

Thanks Jelly, that's a good link with some useful resources - I will add it to my blog.