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 am not implying or saying it is 'arse covering or box ticking' countess - the risk assessment is how they decide what risks there are, so they can ensure they take the correct precautions. What's the alternative - guessing? Tarot cards? Crystal ball?

And sadly, in today's blame culture/litigious society, event organisers do need not only to take all reasonable safety precautions, they also need to be able to demonstrate that they carried out a robust risk assessment, and took the correct precautions.

Talkinpeace

Surely the answer to that is to have adopted the children where there were not close family

Two things: woeful shortage of adoptive parents in the whole of the UK; and the fact that a violent family member who is determined to track someone down can easily move around in order to try to find them.

Unless you're suggesting the adoptive children should constantly move in order to avoid being found?

Those who have said that the organisers could have allowed photos at the end, are spot on. That would have been a reasonable compromise.

YANBU

I've come into this pretty late, but just wanted to add my support to the side supporting the "these utterly bonkers and worthless rules protect no one and are just insanely irritating" side!

I can take thousands of photos of my kids in the park, with thousands of other children potentially in the background, post them all over the Internet, but I can't take one simple photo of my own child in a ballet performance because of some child protection thing that someone has manufactured out of thin air. Ridiculous.

And our primary school has NEVER prevented us from taking photos, and regularly posts their own photos of our children at school on FB and Twitter. I think it's brilliant.

There are thousands of vulnerable children out there that DO need protecting, but they don't need protecting from other mums and dads taking a few bloody photos of their own children.

ARGH!

Oh my god, the pearl wringing on this thread is unbelievable. I'm with you OP.

My issue is not really whether they allowed photos before, after or during or would have been happy with me swinging in a la Miley Cyrus on a wrecking ball with my video camera.

They chose to base their prohibition on a fictitious Act of Parliament. They did not slip over 'child protection policy'. They relied upon an Act. I had a similar meltdown at Cardiff Ice Rink last year when I saw a laminated sign saying 'photography prohibited according to the Child Protection Act'.

I didn't complain then but I wish I had because it suggests this stupidity runs very deep. One idiot has gone on a seminar, got the wrong end of a stick and now we have made up laws being cited to stop me doing something entirely reasonable and perfectly safe - one photo of my daughter, no other child in shot. I am not interested in any other child, which is why I was mums netting and googling throughout 90% of a frankly very tedious afternoon.

Spero just be grateful its not "health and safety" that was cited as a reason for not allowing the photograph...

I'd be tempted to have taken the photograph then waited for them to "prosecute" you under said Act.

I personally think making up rules based on misinterpretation of laws is quite dangerous in itself.

Struggle away suburban Rhonda. My compassion for the vulnerable runs deep.

So too does my contempt for the stupid.

I meant pearl clutching at first but I like the mental visual of pearl wringing so I'm going with it

Yes I think we've moved up a notch from clutching into full on wringing now.

I don't care how I sound to you.

I do care that people are making up laws about something so important.

That's not just stupid that is dangerous and I will feel as much contempt for that as I think appropriate - which is a lot.

I strongly suspect that children whose carers/guardians know they are at risk of being identified and put in danger by featuring in photographs will not be putting them on stage in a publicly accessible venue.

On the other hand, I am rather fed up of watching my children in shows but not being able to actually see them because of the see of phone cameras/recording devices being waved in the air by the parents in front of me.

Which I understand is not the point. But I agree with the OP that it is irritating to back up your diktats with invented legislation, rather than stating it like it really is...

I can't believe no-ones said it yet so I will.

Will somebody think of the children???

[post ironic emoticon]

Watching other people's children perform is very dull. I don't despise the other parents - why should I? What an odd conclusion to draw. They are being good parents - coming along to something dull that matters very much to their child and their children really want them there.

I am astonished at the amount of poster who are completely missing the point of the OP's question. She isn't asking whether or not it is right or wrong of the organisers to ban photography so much as the blatant making up of Acts of Parliament. Not the same thing at all.
Any organizer is entitled to make up their own rules about photography, but they most definitely should not be making up legislation to justify themselves. As others have posted a nice compromise in situations where there may be a need to protect particular individuals identities then providing an opportunity for individual photos is a good compromise and likely to dissuade people from ignoring the request.
Implying that taking pictures could result in prosecution is wrong on every level.

For what it is worth I believe that we would all be better placed in educating people to take online security seriously and not share images publicly unless the subject/s have authorised it. Blanket bans have their place in managing risks, but the reasons for them should at least be factually correct

i blame the internet

let's try again: they obviously meant the Children Act.

They may well be mistaken about it covering this but it's not made up. And most family lawyers would have heard of it?

It's just funny how the op is frothing about the ignorance of others yet is perfectly showcasing her own in doing so.

They most certainly did NOT mean the Children Act. There is nothing about photography in the children Act 1989.

If I am wrong about that will someone please, please tell me and tell me what section of what part of that Act it is.

I won't hold my breath.

So, if the organisers had said something along the lines of, "For child protection reasons, please don't take any photos in the venue, before, during or after the concert", you would have had no issue with this, Spero? It was only the made-up law thing (which I accept was a stupid way for them to deal with it) that pissed you off?

No but it is common for schools to mistakenly cite either the children act or DPA relating to photography so I'm surprised you didn't think of it.