To be angry at photos at Nativity?

[MrsAnamCara]

Just seen DC infant nativity. We were sent out letters, went to the office yo get tickets, had texts to remind people-all fine and well. No mention of needing permission to take photos/videos. Nothing mentioned before the start of the actual nativity performance either. The performance starts and several people whip their phones out and begin taking photos and videos but not of individual children, of all of the children on stage. It goes on throughout the performance and I can see in their view finder they are filming/recording video of 5+ children... A parent the right if the school Hall is stood filming the entire performance.

No one said they weren't allowed to but...neither was the guardian or parent of every single child asked either.

In my D's nursery, they asked for written permission, and if only one parent didn't give permission then no one was allowed to take photos or videos. Even if we were allowed, then it was photos and videos of your child only (zoom in) and if there were other children then you couldn't post it on social media and send to anyone else.

It really ruined the performance for me, as I don't know these people who are taking videos/photos of my child, I don't know where they will post them or send them to, I don't know who will see that photo or video. I did not give anyone permission to take his photo or record him?

I'm I being unreasonable to think the school should have asked for legal written permission for all children's parents or guardian's? And if some parents don't agree or give permission then that's too bad.

Pretty well every school will have one, often several, children who have been removed from their families because of extreme violence or sexual abuse or extreme neglect. Even if the offending parent is in prison (which will not necessarily be the case), there may be relatives or friends out there who feel he has been hard done and that his ex deserves her comeuppance. He will be meeting people in prison who are due to be released sooner than he and can be sent on a little mission.

And the same of course goes for the policeman who caught him, the barrister who prosecuted him, the defence barrister who failed to get him off, the judge who sentenced him, and the social worker who investigated his family. Someone could be sent on a little visit...

And then there are the mothers. Most women who are murdered by a partner are murdered after they leave or try to leave an abusive partner. Seeing your mother murdered by your father doesn't do your mental health any good. (dd knew a child this had happened to ) So it might just be a good idea if mothers at risk from a violent ex should not be traced.

If somebody was out to get me I would certainly feel different about them seeing me randomly walk down the High Street one day and "this is cory's office, she works here Monday-Friday between 9 and 5, she leaves at exactly 5.15 and this is the route she has to walk home".

StreyyTV Fri 15-Dec-17 22:19:55
"I'm not saying anybody made anything up. I'm saying you should look at the big picture. It's paranoia to look at a minority of incidents and live in fear of them.

1800 people died on UK roads last year. How can you let your kids out of the house? It's a "real threat"!. Wait...better not keep them in the house, I just saw on BBC News some kids died in a house fire. It's a "real threat". Let's be scared of it!' "

I don't think you quite get statistics. The road accident risk is shared equally by every road user, so though there are many accidents the risk to each individual road user is quite low.

In the case of attempted violence against children, the risk to the overall group of the children of the UK is small, but the risk to Amy in Yr 1, whose father has been uttering death threats, may be very high indeed. So do we ignore Amy because there is no threat to the 29 other children in her class and that makes the overall risk smaller?

It's like saying no child must use an inhaler at school because statistically very few children die of asthma? Yes, they do, but that didn't help the boy with severe asthma who died the other year because he wasn't allowed his inhaler.

Schools have to assess risks, not just to the cohort as a whole, but to each individual child. It is their duty to do so and they should be held to that.

At my DC’s school the teachers mentioned to be considerate and not post on social forums but we were more than welcome to take videos and photos ... I really would have been disappointed if we couldn’t take videos as a memory of his 1st play and yes I did take a video of the entire stage ..
Didn’t see a problem with it actually

9 shows this week. At every one parents we’re told they could take photos/film but nothing showing other children was to go in social media.

Within 15 minutes of each show finishing photos/clips of the whole stage we’re up on Facebook. Fucking entitled bastards.

I posted upthread about the time I devote to recording the shows, burning DVDs, taking and editing photos of the children and printing them for the benefot of parents and the school. I might just object to parental pics and vids next year and see what impact it has.

Oh, and I was actually worried about my child's image being used by paedophiles. I was on a course about protecting children and they showed us what they can do with social media images. shudder

I don’t give a toss what any pervert wants to do with an image of my daughter, because it isn’t actually her.

BBC News some kids died in a house fire. It's a "real threat". Let's be scared of it!'

Seriously? That poor woman in hospital in salford who if she wakes up will be told 4 of her children are dead.

I think the threats she recieved were very “real”, don’t you?

Like cory very clearly pointed out, just because the other 116 in those childrens classes were not at risk, it doesn’t mean those 4 kids weren’t.

Schools and parents do have good reasons for what they do - but in general as society we are far too cautious imho about what might happen and prevent people doing reasonable things because of risk.

Nothing prevents someone standing outside the school taking video of all the children and posting the pictures wherever they like. They can also post all details of the children. Not saying it’s a good idea, but are well within their rights to do so. Many CCTV cameras are streamed on-line.

The school production is clearly on private property, so the school can choose - but given the above cannot be controlled, what significant additional risk is posed by allowing pictures inside the school to pictures taken outside the school?

There is a balance - less exposure would be provided by home schooling - but clearly other factors were more important that pure safe-guarding, so that argument cannot be used unless risk and benefit is considered across all parents.

I think our school has a good balance. There are always multiple performances, and if there are children who cannot have their photos taken, they only take part in one of the performances - and photos/videos can be taken at the other one. Parents are free to share the videos of the other performance if they were not at it.

Rather than trying to ban other parents doing what they feel is normal because of your special circumstances - try to find a compromise that can work for all.

I don’t give a toss what any pervert wants to do with an image of my daughter, because it isn’t actually her

No. What it does is give that “pervert” an “in”.

He sees the picture and is attracted to your dd. No harm you say? Until he reverse image searches and finds your dd’s insta and snapchat accounts. He knows what school she goes to, he knows your name. He probably knows your dogs name. He says he’s 14. He says he’s a friend of yours. Your dd trusts him and starts messaging back.

Then the grooming process begins. It may take years. By the time you find out, she’s 15, “in love” and going to meet him at a local train station.

Not a story. Common occurrence in social services everywhere.

Rather than trying to ban other parents doing what they feel is normal because of your special circumstances - try to find a compromise that can work for all.

There is already a compromise.

Take as many photos/videos as you like. Do NOT put them on social media if there are any other children in it.

TittyGoLightly 's post demonstrates that it isn't people who don't want images on social media ruining it for everyone else.

It's people who cannot resist uploading photos/videos for the likes.

I think our school has a good balance. There are always multiple performances, and if there are children who cannot have their photos taken, they only take part in one of the performances - and photos/videos can be taken at the other one.

In what way is this good for the kids in question?

1. It identifies them to all their peers and their parents as weird or special. No-one in my kids school (except teaching staff) know my kids are adopted. If the kids choose to tell people that’s up to them, but I will not have them forced into that position.
2. It makes them feel excluded for reasons that are not their fault. Adopted kids already feel different enough.
3. No, Susan, you can’t be Mary on account of how you’ll only be in one of the shows.

Chimera246

I agree its a valid compromise. What I don't think is valid is to say, don't take pictures at all as is being suggested by the OP.

It's another sign of the risk averse, "scared of their own shadow" generation faffing around.

99.9% of people are pulling reasons out of the air, it's extremely rare (probably never happened) for anyone to be tracked down from a nativity photo (or any other school photo).

God only knows how you people will deal with it when your kids start playing team games & anyone on the sidelines or walking through the playing fields can take a picture!

What about parents taking pictures at outside playgrounds?

Most of you just like winding yourselves into a tizzy - that's fair enough, but please let the rest of us enjoy our children in calmness.....

Blink66

If your toddler repeatedly touches an expensive ornament, despite you telling them not to, what would you do?

RTFT Piffle

Compromise?! If your child was sat next to a child who was dying of malnutrition, would you suggest they should share the sandwich equally? Of course not, you would recognise that one child has far greater needs at that point and that those needs take priority.

You cannot equalise an adult's desire to record images with a child's need to be safe. I am beyond horrified at the huge number of posters here who think that that equivalence is completely morally ok. As a parent who has reason to fear for my child's safety, it is NOT my job to find a solution that meets your needs. I'm afraid the onus is very much on you - the lucky parent of the safe child - to do some shifting up.

@Piffle

And you appear to be of generation "can't read the fucking thread".

This isn't my child. This is a child I have had to deal with whilst we're on lockdown from a credible threat.

PiffleandWiffle, do you have any actual knowledge to inform your assertion that we are 'pulling reasons out of the air' and that no child has ever been tracked from nativity images? Of course you haven't, because how on earth could you know?

Does it even occur to you that those of us who are unlucky enough to have to be security-aware may know just a little bit more about it than you - not to mention the schools and social services that agree these measures?

Just when you think all the dense selfish posters have contributed more of them pop up.

fatberg

At least we now see that these are no longer safeguarding issues - but only now a balance of choices and desires.

• Why should George not have his nativity recorded for Grandma who couldn't attend but his sister can just because another child prefers to keep their adoption (not weird or special) to themselves?

• Why did you choose to send you child to school and expose them to these risks, rather than educate them at home with a private tutor?

Can you not see you may also need to accommodate reasonable normal activities and not just have everything to suit you? Its no longer the smokescreen of safeguarding, its just your desire against other childrens desires. My child loves being able to see herself, why should she be denied that on the risk a picture will be published - not a certainty.

Chimera246

I would take the child out of the room. Why?

but please let the rest of us enjoy our children in calmness....

Are you only able to enjoy your children if you’re watching them through an electronic screen? Be present with your kids!

Can I just build on that to make a hugely obvious point to all posters: you won't know if there are children at your school who are living under threat; you won't know what measures the school has to take to keep them safe; you won't know - most times - if something goes wrong and the child is exposed to danger. You know even less about these things than you do about, say, how many terrorist threats are defused before shit happens. You are, rightly, operating from a position of ignorance - we all are - so please don't be so arrogant as to tell us how low the risks are. You just don't know.

There you have it then

If parents can't resist posting images on social media their child should be taken 'out of the room' (i.e. the nativity play).

Not mine.

Hahahaha why did I not home school my kid? So that you could post photos to fb unimpeded?

How many people do you think would adopt kids knowing that they had to home school them because they wouldn’t be welcome in the community?

I’m happy for you that your kid likes having her picture taken. So does mine. But she also likes not having a playground full of kids taunting her because I’m not her real Mum or her Mum gave her away or any of the other shit kids say.

And that’s on top of the very real security risk to them being posted online. Not instead of.