Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To msg a school Mum I don't know

415 replies

Hackedabove · 18/12/2015 06:27

Regarding her posting a video of the school carol service on FB?

She has tagged in one of my friends so it's come up on my news feed. I'm shocked as it shows loads of them. Probably can't see mine but only because they were hidden.

I was thinking a gentle do you know it's totally unacceptable?

Or email the class rep so a blanket email goes out to all classes via the class reps?

Or contact the school and let them deal with it?

OP posts:
IguanaTail · 18/12/2015 22:23

parents are part of the public... You are letting the public in.
What? Yes they also fall into the bracket of "members of the public" but when they come into school they are not in the position of a "member of the public" they are parents or caters, often having to sign in etc. Schools have different frameworks to shopping centres or public transport.

Suuuuuuuurely you get that??

TaliZorah · 18/12/2015 22:24

I have experience of the system. I'm not saying it isn't an issue, I'm saying I don't think it's as big an issue as you think it is

StillStayingClassySanDiego · 18/12/2015 22:24

Don't feed the Goat!

Yes I agree.

TaliZorah · 18/12/2015 22:26

Iguana yes obviously it's a bit different but its still a somewhat public place

3point14159265359 · 18/12/2015 23:07

Try wandering round a random school. Go on, try it.

Schools are not public places.

reni2 · 18/12/2015 23:11

Have you sent all the people disagreeing with you on this thread aggressive PMs too or am I special, TaliZorah Grin?

Original poster
Hackedabove · 18/12/2015 23:17

Carol service is not held at school, but in a public place of worship.

Interestingly the video is no longer on my news feed. I feel a name change coming on...

OP posts:
IloveAntbuthateDec · 18/12/2015 23:19

Am I reading this thread right OP? Your children's school has allowed parents to video/take pics of their children at their school Christmas concert. You want to message a parent who has posted pics on facebook even though your own children cannot be seen in the pics? If this is correct then I blame parents like you that has forced my children's school to have a no video/pics rule during school performances. Instead we have to pay £15 for a crappy video of amateur children performing in an amateur school concert (When realistically every parent only attends school concerts to watch their own child and are not bothered about the rest). Oh and pics of individual children (God forbid children can have a pic taken with a friend these days!) are £6 a time.

Crabbitface · 18/12/2015 23:24

IloveAntbuthateDec No you're not reading this thread right.

Crabbitface · 18/12/2015 23:27

No one is complaining that anyone photographed or videoed their own children - or their friends. People are complaining that these photos were then posted on social networking sites. Your school charging for videos and photos would not stop people posting them on fb. Different issue.

leopardgecko · 18/12/2015 23:41

I am sorry that I have not read the whole thread, so apologise in advance if my points have been made numerous times already.

I am a foster carer and we do tend to look after children who come from extremely complex and dangerous backgrounds. We have had several children who were at huge risk from members of their family, and for whom it was vital their identities and the school they attend be kept secret. Unfortunately some parents at the foster child's new school did post a video on line from a show containing one foster child. You may think that it is almost impossible for my foster child's relatives to see the video, but unfortunately families know this and therefore seek out and scan photos and videos from likely schools. I cannot tell you the exact circumstances of course, but because of the thoughtless action of the person posting online, the foster child had to be under police escort when going to and from school, and have one to one support in school, not because of special needs but because of the danger to their life. It was that serious. I don't for one minute believe the parent posting the video meant any harm (although the head could not have stressed more that photos or videos should not be taken at all) but it lead to such serious consequences, eventually involving the child moving to another area completely. Their lives were completely disrupted by this thoughtless action.

reni2 · 18/12/2015 23:49

Your point has been made several times on the thread, leopardgecko, that makes it no less poignant nor less important. This really is what this is all about, there are some 400.000 children in the UK in need of some protection. That means something like 3 or 4% are in need of some protection.

Those are the known ones. In a normal primary school hat will mean 15 or 20 kids. Fuck off those who think little precious's performance must be seen by the www and protect the ones who need it.

BogusCatAndThePunk · 19/12/2015 00:26

Head
Wall
Bang

BogusCatAndThePunk · 19/12/2015 00:27

Sorry my post was in response to lloveAntbut.

IloveAntbuthateDec · 19/12/2015 00:30

No you're not reading this thread right

Ok enlighten me as to Op's -rant- concern

Crabbitface · 19/12/2015 00:38

AntDec I did summarise....or you could just read the thread yourself.

IloveAntbuthateDec · 19/12/2015 00:51

I am reading the thread. It still reads as OP has a grudge because some parent posted a video of a school concert where OP's children couldn't be seen?? I still have no idea what OP is "concerned" about? But I do agree with the foster carer. Sometimes it would not be in the child's best interest for parents to view school videos over the internet. Still not sure why OP is concerned though

Devora · 19/12/2015 07:52

OP is concerned because of the potential risk to other children, IloveAntbuthateDec. The whole point is that you don't know if another child in your kid's class is at the kind of horrendous risk that leopardgecko describes. You don't know, so you don't share images of those other children.

It gets really wearying when our children's basic security is repeatedly dismissed as an irrelevant concern. We're not asking you to live under witness protection programme conditions; we're not asking you not to take photos of your children; we're not asking you not to share photos of your children. Just don't share images of OUR children on social media - is that really such a big ask?

DecaffCoffeeAndRollupsPlease · 19/12/2015 08:12

If the school doesn't want photos and videos posted online, they should say so. They often do, so as it hasn't been stated for this group of children then it is fair to assume that it isn't a problem.

PunkrockerGirl · 19/12/2015 08:28

Fuck off to those who think little precious's performance must be seen by the www and protect the ones who need it

This

Tali if you ever manage to secure an interview for an NQT post (and I sincerely hope you don't), then I'm sure the interview panel will be thrilled and enlIghtened to hear your evidence-based opinions about safeguarding.

Original poster
Hackedabove · 19/12/2015 08:38

I was pleased my children weren't on the video. I was very surprised this person has no consideration for other people's internet privacy and am hoping the school sort out their policy. I made it clear in my email reply that I would hate for the banning of photos/videos, but do think we need to set an example to our children with regard to other people's privacy.

I think some sort of provacy settings have been changed on the post because it's no longer on my news feed but is still on my friends so not been removed completely.

OP posts:
Doublebubblebubble · 19/12/2015 08:42

I would email the school and include a link to the video (if that's possible). It is unacceptable and there are very hood reasons for it to happen. Not everything that happens to our children needs to be recorded/photographed

Doublebubblebubble · 19/12/2015 08:43

*good

DisappointedOne · 19/12/2015 08:46

We charged £1 for a printed photo in a pretty cover. Parents couldn't have got a photo like that themselves as each child's picture was taken individually on set with all the hall lights on. Given that I gave 3 days to that, and it cost 35p to print each picture, I don't think that represents a rip off. (All but 2 were sold and many wanted extra copies.)

ontheedgeofnewdawn · 19/12/2015 08:47

Problem is decaff some schools do specify not to load it on the internet and some parents do ignore this.