To think that this woman overreacted to a man taking a pic of his DGD.

[JenniferYellowHat1980]

DD (6) does gymnastics at a big gym attached to an equally big sort play centre, which forms a big part of the viewing area through windows between the two. It's a class of 25 or so, but split into smaller groups of about 5. I was watching DD on the beam through the window, along with a few other people with DCs in the same group. I was at the Hedrin thread a bit distracted at the time, and didn't notice until one of the mums made an issue of it that the man next to me had taken a photo of his DGD on the beam. She was arsey about him taking photos of her DD and (understandably I think) he got on the defensive. She said there was a poster stating that no photos were allowed and went around me to point them out, only to find those posters were about something else. She then said she was going to report him and literally flounced off to do so.

The poor kid at reception then got dragged in to ask the man not to take photos - obviously he'd already done so and had only taken a pic of his DGD anyway - and point out that the gym's policy does not allow photos. There was no poster by where we were viewing from though, and unless he's been into the reception / changing area he probably hadn't seen any.

I think he was a bit ill advised taking pics in that situation but largely because of the potential for over reactions like this. He and the woman with him clearly had the care of their DGD and frankly if he'd inadvertently captured my DD in her leotard (arms covered, legs exposed) my first thought would not be 'I must challenge that potential paedophile'.

I remarked to the grandparents afterwards that I thought it was a massive overreaction and they were clearly upset. They said they don't see their DGD often and it had obviously spoilt their morning.

FFS, the gym has a semi-public viewing gallery. AIBU to think that if she couldn't just have quietly made a judgement herself about what they were doing, she could have had a private word with the gym proprietor, who was around, to ask her to police the gym's policy so that it could've been done with a bit of discretion and tact? The whole incident just screamed Daily Mail paedo alert at a granddad who just hadn't seen the signs about photography and probably went away feeling a bit grubby.

[buttermymuffins]

My dsd took photos of my 2 dss at the local outdoor water park(he was looking after them for the day), where all the kids were in t-shirt/shorts or shorty wetsuits. No other dcs were in the photos. No one approached him about taking photos or not but someone called the police on him & a car load of them turned up at the park to have a cosy chat with him in front of my dss & all the other kids & parents. My kids (3 & 7 at the time) had to verify that my dsd was who he said he was! No signs anywhere about not taking photos. It shook him to the core. If foster/adopted dcs can't appear on social media then surely you can never take any photos where any kids are, just in case? Appreciate their safety is paramount but how would you know they were fostered/adopted?

[ScreenshottingIsNotJournalism]

You will NOT make me look to my family to find a paedophile just because you say so

I can't believe people find it so hard to grasp this.
Your photo taking family member does not need to be a paedo to put a child in danger
Their own father might be the danger. They might have escaped from him. He might not know where to find them. If he finds out, because someone uploads a pic you send them of your child with his child in the background, where they child regularly goes for extra curricular activities.. your relative has put the child in danger - that doesn't = your relative is a paedophile

but FYI, it's dangerous to ever say without any margin of open mindedness, that they is no way that anyone in your family is a paedophile

buttermymuffins
You don't know which children are in care, and you have no right to.
I think twice before taking digital pictures of other people's kids (particularly anywhere that identifies childrens regular movements), it's not hard, it really doesn't deprive me of anything, we have loads of pictures of our kids. It's no skin off my nose so I think it's completely horrifically selfish when people think their right to photograph EVERY moment their children are involved in trumps the safety of other children.

[Lweji]

Yes, I never mentioned paedophiles, just explained that more photos are shared and just because one person does, it doesn't mean others don't.

It's mostly because some children (and also sometimes the mothers) need protection and not identified on the internet.

[JenniferYellowHat1980]

I get the safeguarding concerns. I still think the woman was awful in the way she dealt with it though. I don't know if her DD was in the shot or not buying doubt it because they go across the beam one at a time and then go round a circuit to the next one. The beam is close to the window and easy to get a close enough shot of one child. I genuinely think the man didn't give it a second thought until he was accosted.

[Alisvolatpropiis]

Yes she overreacted.

[Lweji]

It could be that she was a paedophile danger nutter.

But it could also be that she was protecting someone, or her family.

Yes, she could have been less dramatic, and if there is a specific danger she could talk to the venue and ask for more specific and clear protection measures to be put in place.

[ScreenshottingIsNotJournalism]

I genuinely think the man didn't give it a second though
This is not a redeeming feature, in fact it paints him in an unpleasant/self centred light

I can see why someone who has a child that needs protection, or knows a child that needs protection, will get emotional when someone can't even give a seconds thought before clicking away.

He should give it a seconds thought.

[CocktailQueen]

Agree with the others, but also, taking photos in a gym can be dangerous and distracts the other gymnasts.

[Asprilla11]

If it was a safeguarding issue then it would have been better for the woman to have had a quiet word with the man, rather than kick off, which obviously brought more attention.

[ScreenshottingIsNotJournalism]

She was arsey about him taking photos of her DD and (understandably I think) he got on the defensive

She didn't march off to involve the receptionist as the first option

If he thinks he has a god given right to document his child regardless of the colateral damage to other children then I'm not surprised it escalated! What an arse (HE sounds)

[originalmavis]

It's definitely a sign of the times! If I want to take pics of DS doing activities I check with the teacher then make sure he is by himself in the gym or wherever and get him to do a move or pose.

[originalmavis]

Of course its sometimes jobsworth-ism. I got told off for walking poolside (DS had forgotten his goggles) - no signs saying I couldn't - whilst people in the gallery were using their phones to take photos/film the pool.

I offered to bring along my DRB certificate the next week if she had a word with the people in the gallery.

[ScreenshottingIsNotJournalism]

I thought the poolside thing was about hygiene not safeguarding, because everyone who goes poolside should have showered first?

[originalmavis]

No I'm good - I always wear the blue booties or go barefoot unlike every other effing clatty bastard. It's massive slight obsession of mine. She said it was child protection. I told her I worked in a nursery and had been vetted.

[leopardgecko]

As a result of an "innocent" group photograph that was taken of a foster child I knew, that child was abducted by a group the family had engaged to search for her.

Another had to have police protection in and out of school and a security one to one in school after a photograph was published online. Others had to be moved to a different county.

It might be very rare, but sadly it does happen.

[ScreenshottingIsNotJournalism]

Wow Rosie, you're really not reading the posts at all

"Now you want every family member to be suspicious about any male member of the family who takes photos of members of their family?"

How on earth did you get that from my posts?
The gender of the photograph taker doesn't matter in the examples I've given!

[ScreenshottingIsNotJournalism]

Opportunities for family photos should be preserved without all this fear about uploading to child-abuse/porn sites

Spectacularly missing the point!

The biggest risk isn't that innocent photographs of children get uploaded for the pleasure of strangers

The very real risk is that one of those children in the background of the photos you think you have a god given right to take, might be a victime who is escaping a predator who can use other people's digital photographs to find the child

[ScreenshottingIsNotJournalism]

Opportunities for family photos should be preserved without all this fear

No. I'm sorry but no. You have OODLES of opportunities to take photographs of your own kids without other people's kids in the background.

What needs to be preserved is childrens safety from something a hell of a lot scarier than having 4576 digital photographs on your computer instead of 4577

And I don't know the exact stats for adopted/in care/escaped with one parent from abusive other parents are, but I think it's safe to say that in say a gym or swim school with maybe 3 groups of 20, there'll probably be at least one or two!

[ScreenshottingIsNotJournalism]

You've drawn some odd conclusions there Rosie.

[ThatStewie]

In Scotland, you aren't legally allowed to take pictures of children without the permission of the parent/ guardian even if they are in a public place like a beach or a park. It's a safe guarding issue.

I've come across too many cases of children's locations being outed to violent fathers by thoughtless people posting 200 images of their child at park/dance/gym etc which make the vulnerable child identifiable.

[TwatbadgingCuntfuckery]

I'm in the 'wont let Pics of DC on social media camp'

DCs dad isn't around. He's a cockwomble. I want to reduce any and all ability for him to know what his DC looks like because he has threatened to kidnap them in the past. An empty threat perhaps but not something I am willing to risk.

sister's ex is violent and abusive and she has requested we keep our accounts locked down and not share photos of herself or her kids. SHE IS IN A REFUGE and quite rightly wants us to not take pictures of her family to protect them whilst the police deal with her ex. A photo can give away a location, where they are staying. Anything.

My step father is a violent alcoholic too. I don't want him to know where I am or what I am doing. I even changed my name when I left home.

These are a tiny percentage of reasons people don't want photos of their DC put on social media.