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.

Hurry, hurry, hurry! Only 20 more posts approx to tell me how 'rude' I am being with the insult of your choice!

But do remember that this may detract somewhat from your subsequent complaint to MNHQ about my utter ghastliness.

Why not try a more in sorrow than in anger tone? That kind of passive aggressiveness is way, way more irritating than mere petty insults.

God, I will miss this thread. Without it it I will have nothing to distract me from fact that sheets are now 89% dog hair as they are always delighted when someone stays in bed all day.

I can't believe you're still at it Spero - you still can't see that people have a right to be heard, say what they think without being completely dismissed and browbeaten.

Your patronising sense of 'I'm right, you're wrong and if you can't accept my judgment or complain about my rudeness you're even more wrong' is very concerning here and not the characteristic required of someone in your field of work.

People DO understand what you're saying, they DO understand the general point of the thread, they just have a bit more to add to it.

Try to open your mind just a little bit.

I do not have to have 'an open mind' when people offer opinions based on their ignorance.

I do not have to have 'an open mind' when people rely on facts that are wrong.

I do not have to have 'an open mind' about people who think it doesn't matter that a child protection policy is built on irrelevant primary legislation.

My mind is very, very closed to these people.

I am sorry if they find it offensive - no fuck it, of course I am not sorry. I couldn't care less.

If that is all you got out of the thread, then you really haven't read it.

If this thread is really so childish, I am sure you must have many more interesting things to be doing and many more lovelier posters to engage with.

Maryz, you've clearly missed the point of the thread!

All I get from this thread is an image of you sitting in an auditorium with your phone taking pictures or whatever you were doing, the usher flashing her torch at you and you continuing despite that.

That's just rude and selfish behaviour and the vast majority of people in that audience would probably say the same.

It has nothing to do with principles or points of law it's to do with a self-important attitude.

I'm just glad I'm now not the only person who is thinking like this as for a while you had chased everyone else off the thread. Mumsnet is crap when people like you get away with the kind of behaviour that stifles conversation through verbal battering, they were absolutely right to pick up on it, regardless of whether you're right or wrong about your 'case'.

OK, in the dying embers of this marathon thread, let me try to be open minded as Roses urged.

Maryz, can you tell me, without insults, how I demonstrate a 'serious lack of understanding' and by pursuing this I will 'do more harm than good' ?

I am honestly baffled why you can possibly think it is a good idea in any circumstances to have a child protection law based on legislation that doesn't apply.

But if you can explain your position, I would be happy to learn.

However, so far I haven't had much 'explanation' from those who disagree with me - but a whole heap of delightful insults.

I agree.

..with Maryz

sorry, I meant 'child protection policy' - I appreciate the Festival weren't creating their own statutes.

OK Yarp, maybe you can explain to me?

Where do I demonstrate a 'lack of understanding' of the issues?
How I am 'making things worse' by complaining about this?

Do, do please share - its nearly too late.

Ok Roses, you accused me of being closed minded, can you explain

Where I demonstrate my lack of understanding of the issues
Why complaining about this is making things worse?

Or would you just like to chuck a few more insults about? Ironic that you complain I chase people off the thread due to 'verbal battering' due to the increasingly unpleasant nature of your posts.

So this is the last dying charge of some I suspect.

However, so far I haven't had much 'explanation' from those who disagree with me - but a whole heap of delightful insults.

You've had loads of explanations, you just choose not to hear them. If you think insults are delightful then there is definitely something wrong.

We're not in court now Spero.

No I have not. I have people like Maryz popping up saying I am 'nitpicking' about language.

That is so NOT the point, as I believe I am not alone in understanding.

Ok, you won't give me an explanation. That's fine. I wasn't holding my breath.

*Because this thread was originally about the policy of not letting parents take photographs of children. If you genuinely cared about children in danger, you would back this type of policy and accept the reasons for it.

Instead of that you have decided to argue with the wording*

I repeat. This is not the point. Relying on legislation that does not apply is the point. Please do tell me why you think this is a minor, insignificant or childish point.

Maryz don't rise to it, she'll just batter you with more questions. It's what they do.

O dear, I can see I won't get my answers.

But I am sure you can have a very productive next half hour composing your latest outraged email to HQ.

YANBU.

It's become totally ridiculous these days.