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.

IStopped

I'm not too fussed about the child protection aspect

This has to be the most shocking thing I have ever read on Mumsnet

Sounds to me like they're mixing up two acts - the Children and Families Act and the Data Protection Act.

Both might come into play if the OP were taking photos of other children, but as she's only taking a photo of her own child, alone, with no other children present, then she isn't in danger of breaking either of those laws.

Of course, what the organisers should have said is something like "We don't allow people to take photos because it's disruptive/annoying/distracting" because that's probably what they mean. They make the rules so it's up to them - but it is a poor show to pretend there are legal reasons for the decision.

Some parents sign a form saying they don't want anyone taking pictures of their children. This is usually why schools/groups have to be vigilant about cameras at functions, just incase someone takes a picture of someone's child who has specified they don't want to have their photo taken. Also, lots of pics can end up on FB etc and many parents don't like this. That's why they have a blanket ban on picture taking and hire prof photographers or have a teacher take stock photos instead.

When my DCs were at primary school there were a couple of kids who were subject to full on protection orders.
As a Governor I found out who they were
but even though they were in the school plays and stuff, most parents never clicked - the head handled it brilliantly.

With modern phones, blanket bans are not feasible
its about being pragmatic

soupdragon
perfectly happy for other people to take pictures of my kids.
It happens regularly.
In fact it will happen tomorrow I am 100% sure.
The pics might even end up on FB and twitter

It's impossible to regulate for 'people just take pictures of your own children'. Will they interview every parent, and then keep a close eye on them, to make sure they're only taking pictures of their own child? Will there be CCTV focused on the audience? Will they scan each SD card afterwards to make sure?

Better to have a blanket ban on cameras. I know from experience how daunting they can be when you're young and onstage. Take a picture of her in her costume afterwards?

This kind of crap is unheard of where I live, and people merrily take pics in schools. Nobody cares, and it doesn't see, to have any detrimental effect on anyone.

+1

We have this, our dance school won't allow you to take pictures due to child protection but you can buy a DVD afterwards of the production :-/

I would be annoyed if I couldn't take a photo of my own DD, on her own, on the stage too TBH.

I completely understand how photos being shared online can lead to serious problems for some children/carers/adoptive parents, but can the dance school not bring the specific parent/carer forward ONLY to take a photo at the relevant time? i.e. no group photos, no free for alls.

What used to really infuriate me at DS2's school was the "no photography or recording for child protection reasons" rule - but we could then buy a group photo or DVD of the performance at an inflated cost .

x-posts with nj32 there.

"I also find it utterly mindblowing that anyone would think it appropriate to take photos in the middle of the performance."

Spero didn't want to take photos in the middle of the performance. She wanted to take one photo after the performance but wasn't allowed to take a photo of her own daughter (all by herself with no other children in the picture) anywhere in the building. Because, according to posters here, that would be putting a child's life at risk.

She was, of course, perfectly entitled to take a photo outside the Guildhall (so location just as identifiable if not more so) immediately after the performance with as many children she likes in the background. This is apparently not putting a child's life at risk.

I get the general child protection issue with photographs, honestly I do. And I can even see that the organisers may want a blanket ban just to cover their arses (although not why they invent a bogus piece of legislation rather than be upfront about it). But I can't see why so many posters are arguing with a straight face that it is REALLY VITALLY IMPORTANT to ban photography of individual children alone on a stage, or anywhere in the same bulding as the stage, when twenty metres away the same parent can photograph the same child in a similarly identifiable location with anyone who happens to be walking past in the background.

I love that everyone jumps on the child may need protecting from another etc.

Do we all forget that whilst they ban photos in this building they could be taken in the car park or even a park nearby.

You can't make up Acts to do what you think is a safe thing to do.

If you want no photos - then fine state that - but don't make it into a bigger thing than it is.

Yanbu.

I would be concerned about the school having a very poor grasp of current legislation to the point they are making up legislation. If this is the case they need training to make sure they are up to date and can implement child protection correctly.

POLICY - they mean their Child Protection Policy. As organisers they will be required to have one, and it may well specifically prevent parents taking photos. They simply used the wrong word - untwist your knickers everyone!

and I'm shocked you can't actually look at the issues at hand and work out your own position instead of hysterical over-reaction. 7

So no-one is allowed to take a pic of their child just in case someone elses is in the background and someone might maybe put them on FB, and on its possible someone shares it and that child happens to be so at risk that no-one can know where they are and the person they are at risk from sees it AND is able to work out where they are from a dance show?

Ok, I guess thats risky. About as much as you shouldn't use your camera in case it acts as a lightning rod and you get struck down in a freak indoor storm.

If you think I'm being unreasonable then presumably you are against anyone taking photos at the playground, beach, days out, anywhere except their own home with no-one else present? Because they must all be equally risky if a child happens to be in the background, etc etc?

Suburban. Eek! Hmm, now I think about it that was a daft thing to write. I was just trying to say that the child protection side of things must only be relevent in a very few circumstances but, of course, those ARE very serious and I was wrong to dismiss them.

I wonder what the numbers effected would be?

Whatever the reasoning I still don't like people taking photos in productions as it's really irritating AND in case their are any child protection issues

Tbc, I'm not even against limited sensible policies re photos and child protection, but thats beside the point.

I'm guessing they are conflating the data protection act and some child protection stuff. Go on the information commissioner's website (ico.org or ico.gov I think). This will tell you that the school is talking bollix. Or ring them.

I get the general child protection issue with photographs, honestly I do. And I can even see that the organisers may want a blanket ban just to cover their arses (although not why they invent a bogus piece of legislation rather than be upfront about it). But I can't see why so many posters are arguing with a straight face that it is REALLY VITALLY IMPORTANT to ban photography of individual children alone on a stage, or anywhere in the same bulding as the stage, when twenty metres away the same parent can photograph the same child in a similarly identifiable location with anyone who happens to be walking past in the background

Because once they leave the venue, I'm no longer in loco parentis.

I can control who and where the pictures are taken inside the venue. Because that's my job. I cannot control what happens outside - the parents accept that

"Why is child A in danger if Spero only take a picture of child Spero?"

*Because if Spero can take pictures, so can everyone else. And other people might not be as careful to ensure that they only photograph their child - and a picture of a child whose location needs to be kept secret might end up on social media.

Spero is, I suspect, right that there is no legislation specifically prohibiting this photography, and she is right that it is daft for anyone to use a bit of made-up legislation to back up their decision not to allow photography.

And this rule could be a bit of a blunt tool - it may be that there isn't a vulnerable child in this particular show, but it is easier to impose a blanket ban rather than allowing photography unless there is a vulnerable child in the show - which could draw attention to that child.

But I think we all have plenty of opportunities to photograph our children, and whilst one of your child in their show would be a nice thing, it isn't what the child will remember, in years to come. Speaking as someone who sang a lot of solos during my school and university career, what mattered to me was having my parents there, watching me.

Schools that don't do this obviously don't have any 'Looked after children'. These children (and maybe others within the school whose parents have advised) will be vulnerable and therefore local authorities and parents have requested their image is not published. You might be perfectly sensible in just photographing your own child, but we have had occasions of children being put on Facebook where the school badge is visible and their absent (violent) parent being able to trace where they are. This is just one example but not isolated.

You aren't in a position to know what is in place or what situations exist for every child in school, so with the greatest respect your desire to have a photo of your child is a lower priority than keeping rules in place to protect children. And the school can't monitor this during school productions so have to have a blanket ban.