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.

Sorry terse update as have been ill all week and still feel like crap today.

MN emailed to say they had deleted all posts deemed against guidelines from this thread but provided me no examples of which of my posts were dee,ed rude and inflammatory. Had a quick look but can't see anything of mine deleted but the 'leering' comment.

So moral of that story is - those who whine loudest and hardest will get MNHQ to do their bidding.

.Sorry, will have to do this in small chunks as iPad keeps freezing.

Got a letter from festival which was a disappointment but not a surprise, judging from some of hen ore absurd comments on this thread.

The fact that their child protection policy is 'supported' by a list of primary legislation of almost entirely no relevance does not worry them. What they seem to wish to do is carry out a witch hunt against individual announcer who should have told me I could take a picture after the performance.

They want my daughters name so they can find out which session it was - she has different surname to me. I will not give it to them as I find their response so unhelpful and quite disturbing.

The point, as ever, is whizzing so far above their heads it is colliding with satellites.

I am in a foul mood and possibly jaded but this threads has been profoundly depressing on two levels

1. It has underlined the fact that some people are not merely indifferent about their own ignorance but seem actively proud of it

1. If these people are challenged they will resort to quite sly and underhand tactics to get their own way.

maybe I need to show them what 'rude and inflammatory' really looks like....

1. It has underlined the fact that some people are not merely indifferent about their own ignorance but seem actively proud of it

1. If these people are challenged they will resort to quite sly and underhand tactics to get their own way.*

Spero, depressingly, the above is true in my line of work too - wrt the public and the higher echelons of management.

Don't let the fuckers get you down
(one day I am going to put this on a cross stitch sampler btw)

Odd. When I read the thread, it has nothing to do with whether some children shouldn't be photographed.

It's about the dangers of child protection policy being based on myth, gossip, urban legend and made-up shit, instead of actual legislation and official guidance and expert recommendation based on evidence.

Maryz, why weigh in without even bothering to read the opening post let alone Spero's subsequent posts when she explains her position? This didn't involve a school. Spero has never failed to accept that there are some children who should not be photographed. You really have spectacularly missed the point of the thread which is, as slightly said, about very serious issues which we ignore at our peril. It really is quite depressing when valid points like Spero's get shouted down by people who don't try to understand them.

"some people are not merely indifferent about their own ignorance but seem actively proud of it"

And that's the internet summed up in a single sentence.

some people are not merely indifferent about their own ignorance but seem actively proud of it

You could say the same about UKIP supporters.

It's a sentence that applies to anyone who articulates a view based on lack of understanding, but who refuses to accept that they have this lack, then becomes belligerent when this lack is pointed out.

I wouldn't point the finger at UKIP alone after this thread.

Maryz, it's always lovely to have your thoughful and cogent contributions to a thread.

However, judging from your post at 12.24 - if your claim to have read this thread is true (which I doubt), you clearly didn't understand it.

Spero sorry you have been feeling ill and trust you will soon be back to your emotionally robust self. That letter from the festival must have made you see red.........why can't people understand the point you are making, which is nothing to do with photographing children - the vast majority of people on this thread have failed to grasp the point you are making - would it help if we took children out of the issue to prevent the mix up with child protection issus and chage the scenario:

You are at a small nature reserve and there is a notice saying you are not allowed to photograph the donkeys because of the Protection of Donkeys Act 1965 - you aren't too bothered because you live near a field where there are donkeys and you are free to photograph them whenever you like but you are a Lawyer and you seriously doubt that the 1965 Act exists and you find it irksome that legislation is possibly being made up - so you google and surprise surprise there is A Protection of donkeys Act 1965.............but.......... hold your horses (or donkeys) a close examination of this Act relates to the prohibition of photographing dead or injured donkeys and the donkeys in the nature reserve are in fine fettle ............SO the nature Reserve is using legislation to SUPPORT the prohibition of photographing healthy happy donkeys which is irrelevant

Got it now?

Maryz I have always welcomed your posts and of course have met you on other threads many times. BUT you have missed the point here. This thread is NOT about child protection - Spero is only too well aware of child protection issues and has consistently stated that she understands and respects the potential problems of photographing groups of children, especially now that photographs can be put on social media.

So many posters failed to grasp the point and resorted to making personal attacks on Spero (which she didn't report because that's not her style) You mention the spat with MNHQ - it appears that some of Spero's posts were reported to MNHQ (and her post of todays date at 09.03 gives a clue to what happened) posters who couldn't grasp her point sought to challenge her and she almost always replied in a calm and measured manner, (often using humour, wit and irony) though on occasions her frustration meant that some of her posts were sarcastic. (Her last post to you is an example) Her opponents were no match for her and so some complained to MNHQ. What happened next was that MNHQ in their wisdom e mailed Spero and she posted the e mail on the thread. It's probably still there if you scroll back. The e mail asked her to stop making such rude and inflammatory comments and people felt bullied and pushed out of the thread (aka "we can't get the better of her so she's bullying us........") Regrettably MNHQ fell for this, hence their e mail to Spero which was totally unjustified as the "boot was on the other foot" - it was the complainants who had broken the Talk Guidelines. I think Spero went through the thread and reported such posts and I understand that these have now been deleted by MNHQ!!
But MNHQ have not provided any evidence about Spero's posts that were deemed to be rude and inflammatory - many of us contacted MNHQ about their e mail, and commented on the thread.

MNHQ seem to have got it wrong but don't have the decency to admit their fault, even though I was told in a recent e mail that "we are always ready to admit when we're wrong............" I hope you don't let them get away with this Spero as it has potential repercussions for all of us.

In the meantime let me know if you'd like any pictures of donkeys as I have quite a few in my possession (none dead or injured though...)

Quite honestly, this thread has turned into a circle jerk and ceased to serve any use. Thank god its nearly full.

'Witless comment' was entirely accurate. She clearly had not read the op, let alone any of the thread.

I am in bed for fifth day running which is why I am still here.

If others amongst you find this such a distasteful and boring thread, I do wonder why you are wasting any precious moments of your life upon it.

But fortunately, it's nearly full and I will be left to find some other tedious and head banging exercise in futility to occupy my time.

Nana, thanks again for trying, but I think you are wasting your typing prowress. Those who get it, got it some pages back.

Those who don't will no doubt be repeating their complaints to MNHQ about how howwid I am.

You're not being horrid, you're being very, very rude. Being I'll doesn't give you the right to act like lady muck and insult people.

The fact others are applauding and encouraging your behaviour speaks volumes about them.

It is clear to me that a lot of people find being told they are wrong, and given clear reasons why they are wrong, something that is 'very very rude'.

I disagree and I think they need to remove the stick from their butt.

You also rather lose the moral high ground by damning my rudeness but being rather rude yourself. I am no 'Lady Muck' but if typing that kind of sour nastiness has made your day one jot better, do feel free to knock yourself out.