Nativity and child protection issue

[DrMum83]

AIBU?

An acquaintance on Facebook (girl I went to primary school with) has posted a video of her child in the school nativity play. Her mother (the GM) has then shared it on her Facebook. The acquaintance commented that 'I know some people are against videos of children but it's largely focused on DS and its a sad world we live in if I can't do that'.

One of her friends commented that there are child protection issues surrounding this and that at her daughter's school, they are specifically requested to not video the play or post on social media photos of other kids. My acquaintance retorted with 'the headmaster announced at the beginning of the play that video taking is allowed as long as no parents present object'

This rang alarm bells for me.

A) as part of my role at work, I am involved with safeguarding children. Children can be found on fb and hunted down by parents when in care and this can be disastrous.
B) 'no parents present object' what about the parents not present? And what about those sharing the video forward (as in this case)?

I have managed to find the name of school and have typed a letter to headmaster. He may think I'm an interfering busybody but would I be unreasonable to send it?!

Thoughts?

Ifgrandma

Firstly as I said in pp not all victims of dv in particular report (for fear of reprisals)

Secondly court cases may be ongoing. Which means the perpetrator IS being dealt with but it takes a long time to get to conviction stage.

Thirdly sadly not all dangerous people are locked up - though I agree they should be! Many are given non custodial sentences. As far as the courts are concerned the issue then has been dealt with as the potential victims are no longer in their care.

Fourthly abusive twats are sometimes also clever. They manage to only abuse those who daren't complain/won't be believed, they are also clever at not leaving evidence!

Suggest you become better informed/educated on these issues.

If they haven't committed any crime, then how do you know they are a threat? Where is the evidence? Should large portions of the public be restricting their behaviour because someone imagines that someone, somewhere could potentially do something bad if they don't?

Oh how I wish I lived in your rose tinted world.

My ex was awful, a really awful person. He wore me down so much I didn't even think he was committing crimes against me. Each punch, slap and kick was deserved, each time he raped me was my fault, each time i took a beating was because of my own actions.

Then one day my child made a decision he didn't like and he made a threat to my child.

We waited for an opportunity and ran, literally, with nothing at all, nowhere really to go. We left everyone we loved and can't contact them. We left all of our things and went somewhere we could never be found.

There was no evidence for what he did to me, the abuse was so bad and sustained I didn't know what it was until afterwards when the bruises had faded.

If you think that I am going to put my child at risk until there is evidence of a crime against them you are bloody stupid.

It isn't imagined, my ex will kill me and possibly my dc if he finds us. If your behaviour needs to be slightly restricted to save my life and the lives of my dc then you are a twat if you moan about it.

We said no to photos when our two youngest were at primary. We adopted from the borough we lived in, and where the birth parents still lived.

We sent photos through the mailbox system (we were directed to do this by SS), so although the parents hadn't seen the children since they were babies, they would've been able to identify them from a photo in the paper, or on social media (although it wasn't quite as popular then).

There was, and is, no way I would want them to know where the children are schooled.

SS later told us to move out of the area for safety's sake, as they had leaked a document to the BP, so this was a real risk.

Nobody knows anybody else's circumstances for sure, so they shouldn't be posting pictures of other people's children without permission.

So ifgrandma you'd use innocent children being further abused/even murdered to get the legislature to finally realise how dangerous these arses are? Great idea!!

I am informed on these issues. In my opinion, the focus for dealing with these issues is in the wrong place.

Your posts suggest otherwise!

Not from what you've said in your posts.

Cross posted with you bacon.

If someone has committed a criminal act and is dangerous then they need to be locked up.

Yeah. But it doesn't always happen. And it isn't necessarily even reported, or taken seriously if it has been. I've logged numerous incidents in the past and nothing happens about it. They might 'have a word'.

There are children in far more danger than mine are. Frieds of mine have an adopted child whose birth family aren't allowed to know his location. They aren't criminals, not in that regard anyway - but there is a danger that theycould harrass, or possibly try to abduct, the child.

If you were the adoptive parents in that situation, firstly you would be breaking the terms by allowing your child to be photographed, and secondly, you would be stupid to do so as it would open up your child to the potential for completely unnecessary fucking around by their birth parents.

It doesn't have to mean the child is in danger of being killed. It could be that serious, but it could be harrassment or stalking or anything on t hat sort of level.

I think you would need to be particularly ignorant to consider it an overreaction.

IfGrandma

what you are suggesting is akin to forcing a child into the road in front of a speeding car.

It's not the child that needs to be moved out of the way, in your view - it's the speeding driver that needs to be locked up.

Moving the child would not be an over reaction nor would it be victim blaming. It would be the only realistic option, and that's why these measures are required in schools.

'the headmaster announced at the beginning of the play that video taking is allowed as long as no parents present object'

This rang alarm bells for me

I think YABU op. Presumably, there are no known child protection issues at the school which would prevent photos or a video. And no written withdrawals of consent from parents for their dc to be in photos.

In which case, allowing parents to photograph or video proceedings is entirely reasonable. I don't see what writing to the Head will achieve.

So ifgrandma you'd use innocent children being further abused/even murdered to get the legislature to finally realise how dangerous these arses are? Great idea!!

Err, no. I can only be morally responsible for my own thoughts and actions, not those of others. If children were abused and murdered as a result of their photograph being shared, that would be down to the perpetrator and failings in the legal system (which is where the focus for crime prevention should lie, not the victims behaviour).

We could save ALL children from being abused and murdered if we put camera's everywhere in everyone's house and a policeman on every street and no-one was ever allowed to be alone with a child. But that would be disproportionate. That would impinge a disproportionate amount on our freedoms. Same here on a different scale. (obviously, we all have our own personal line where the balance between freedom and protection tips).

*IfGrandma

what you are suggesting is akin to forcing a child into the road in front of a speeding car.

It's not the child that needs to be moved out of the way, in your view - it's the speeding driver that needs to be locked up.

Moving the child would not be an over reaction nor would it be victim blaming. It would be the only realistic option, and that's why these measures are required in schools.*

No. In the situation you are describing there is a clear and present threat and no-one else would be disadvantaged by the removal of the child.

Why is a video not being shared online a disadvantage to anyone exactly?

You don't think restricting people's choice of what to photograph or share online is a problem?

Go and live in South Korea.

Terrible child protection cases aside it as simple as maybe other parents dont want their kids faces on your facebook we have no right to do that imo

Ooops, North Korea

Ah so its a freedom issue you are on about what a load of bollocks. we have freedom in this country what some folk dont have in this country is consideration. so because little Emily is 3rd angel on the right little Amys face has to be in the picture/video because we have a right to put anything we want online regardless of little Amy or her parents wishes?

Can I also point out that many children themselves DO NOT want their pictures on social media and commented on.

What about the freedom of the child concerned NOT to be filmed or have their image circulated on social media?

There are conflicting freedoms here. I think I know which I consider more relevant.

Freedom is a load of bollocks. Ok, got it. You should teach Civil Liberties.

We have freedom in this country - yes we do. Because people constantly protect it by not letting their rights be taken away bit by bit, small issue by small issue.

ie you are trying to argue against privacy in your quest for freedom to circulate images.

Which trumps it for you? Would you be Ok with your neighbour filming you sunbathing in your garden and putting it on facebook? Or would that be a privacy issue for you?

What about his freedom to put whatever he likes online?

We still had freedom in this country before social media did we not? I can't see how not circulating on commenting on children who have no control and rights over their own images is taking away anyone's freedom

I don't think anyone in a public place is entitled to demand that their picture can't be taken and published. It would be totally unworkable.

Schools aren't really public places.