Nursery Nativity Play.......NO PHOTO'S ALOUD!

[Rolyratman]

Guess I'm lucky, my sons school don't mind cameras at all for any event they just ask before hand that you don't upload them to any social networking sites.

Have to say though all this nonsense is getting out of hand now, basically if you own a camera better than a compact you either have the hots for kids or want to blow something up.

 

[big soft moose]

Parents cannot be banned from taking photographs of their children in nativity plays at school, the Information Commissioner has said.

Linky

the information commisioner , or more likely the telegraph journalist who reported it , is talking out of their arse

on private land the landowner or their agent (in this case the school governors acting for the council or LEA , or private owners if the school isnt state) can make whatever rules they wish regarding photography - the only proviso being that the rules must be equally applied and not discriminatory (e.g 'no chavs with cheap crappy cameras' would not be a permisible prohibition), and that the rules must be made clear on entry (or at point of sale if its a pay performance)

Break the rules (the conditions of entry) and you can be asked to leave - think little johny and jemima will be happy about daddy causing a huge furore during their moment of 'stardom' before getting his ass kicked out ? " Oh daaaaadd your sooooo embarrasing, why couldnt you just buy the prints from the propper man like jimmy's mum and dad "

 

[boyfalldown]

the information commisioner , or more likely the telegraph journalist who reported it , is talking out of their arse

if you read what being said, other then the headline he's not

all he says really is

Christopher Graham said the Data Protection Act did not prohibit taking pictures destined for the family album and urged parents to challenge any teachers who tried to stop them

which doesn't really stop any of the other myriad of rules and excuses a school may use.

Personally though (and I know I only speak for me) I'm amazed at the number of people who've confused viewing through a 3" LCD screen with actually being there. The number of iPhones, video cameras, P & S at my daughter play yesterday. It was amazing, the number of people who want what are going to be s**** photos of the back of other peoples heads, rather then just enjoying the day

 

[big soft moose]

if you read what being said, other then the headline he's not

Fair play - I couldnt get the link to open as our work firewall/av didnt like it

and yes i agree on your latter point - given the choice i would rather watch the play, knowing i'll be able to get pro picturs later than spend the whole play snapping pics - the key point being that the day isnt about the father (or mother) and their shiny camera - its about little jonny and his freinds.

(mind you that said selling cds of photos later does shoot large holes in the pervs and paedos argument - if photos are going to be easily available afterwards whats the difference except that the dirty old man with his hands in his trouser pockets isnt trying to find his compact )

 

[MartynK]

Never experienced any of this. My kids grew up in South Africa, which had/has its own problems, but we didn't have to deal with the paedophile paranoia. The schools were completely relaxed about photography and video recording. It just wasn't any sort of issue at all. They just asked people to be considerate in the school hall and so on, and not to obstruct other peoples' view or distract the kids.

 

[tdcist]

Why destroy the memories of everyone else who was there when it wouldn't have taken that much effort to just PS the face out of the dissenter?

At least everyone else could have had their photos (and perhaps even a little giggle at Billy "no face" ).

I would have done it, even just for the principle of not allowing one person to act as the censor for an entire group of people.

Thinking about it now... maybe i should have done that... but wouldnt that look extremely odd? A headless body in the middle of a chorus?? lol

 

[jamin100]

I work in a school and this morning we have our nativity play to parents. They were not allowed to video it or take photos.

We have 2 children who are under child protection orders and there parents cannot find out where they go to school. Parents moaned like hell but the headteacher stood her ground and refused.

You cant take the children under child protection orders out of the play because the whole idea is that every child matters and they are all treated equal and the same.

Unfortunately child protection issues trump parents wanting to take photos.

Do I agree with it? yes and no as i can see both sides.

As a compromise, I have taken photos of the children all in costume at the end of the play and we will be giving (for free) a CD with all the images on it (minus the 2 under CP) to all the parents in the year group..

 

[cambsno]

But ben, they are not being treated the same, they are being given different treatment. Now 25 odd kids/parents are now not able to have a photographic memento. Ok, the comprimise is nice, but surely the majority should rule? I for one would think twice about my child taking part in activities that I am not allowed to document.

Ok, me with my D300 and lens may be noticeable, but there will no doubt be parents getting quick snaps on mobiles (taking pictures is banned in the Cistine chapel, but i took some on my compact there (and saw others doing it).

 

[intel86]

My daughter had her Nativity play yesterday, she is 5, and everyone was either snapping away with cameras or using camcorders. I was one! One of my friends was using her Canon 5D II no problem at all.

 

[intel86]

I work in a school and this morning we have our nativity play to parents. They were not allowed to video it or take photos.

We have 2 children who are under child protection orders and there parents cannot find out where they go to school. Parents moaned like hell but the headteacher stood her ground and refused.

You cant take the children under child protection orders out of the play because the whole idea is that every child matters and they are all treated equal and the same.

Unfortunately child protection issues trump parents wanting to take photos.

Do I agree with it? yes and no as i can see both sides.

As a compromise, I have taken photos of the children all in costume at the end of the play and we will be giving (for free) a CD with all the images on it (minus the 2 under CP) to all the parents in the year group..

Why should the whole class suffer because of the 2 kids? Surely they could have worn masks of some kind? I bet some parents sneaked some shots on their mobiles!

 

[Mattwood]

Son's first nativity yesterday. Head gave a little introduction and encouraged parents to take photos and record the play if they wanted to. Only stipulation is that the images and video do not get posted to social media and other websites.

As my nieces and nephews school has a total ban (but sells you a DVD of it) I didn't take my camera

 

[jamin100]

Why should the whole class suffer because of the 2 kids? Surely they could have worn masks of some kind? I bet some parents sneaked some shots on their mobiles!

There's only 1 answer to it.

Child Protection does and always will be at the top of the rules list when it comes to this kind of thing.

I have 3 young children myself and believe me dont like it at all but when your in a school you have to play by there rules

 

[intel86]

Masks, simple solution. Fun masks for the 2 kids to wear. Job done

 

[PsiFox]

I do some work with groups that have children under "child protection". I am made aware before the event starts who I am not allowed to shoot.

However for a nativity it it not too difficult to get those children to take roles as animals and therefore wear animal masks so they cannot be identified.

It is not fair that the majority "have" to suffer for the minority. Just a little common sense required.

 

[PsiFox]

As a further note however those that ban it under data protection or risk of paedophiles seeing images are just plain daft.

 

[Dale_tem]

Why should the whole class suffer because of the 2 kids? Surely they could have worn masks of some kind? I bet some parents sneaked some shots on their mobiles!

Why should the 2 kids suffer due to having crap parents? have they not already suffered enough?

Arguments from both sides I'm afraid and Child Protection is more important.

 

[intel86]

Why should the 2 kids suffer due to having crap parents? have they not already suffered enough?

Arguments from both sides I'm afraid and Child Protection is more important.

How would the kids be suffering if they wore fun masks and were still able to participate? Why should the majority suffer?

 

[cambsno]

Why should the 2 kids suffer due to having crap parents? have they not already suffered enough?

Arguments from both sides I'm afraid and Child Protection is more important.

Seeing as there are many cases when child protection rules do NOTHING to protect the child, should they not be getting the house in order 1st (Baby P) instead of this, which while a risk, is a very small one.

What happens if those kids are snapped accidently at a local park while I am taking pics of my kids? What if they are seen by these people in town/tesco/train station?

 

[jamin100]

Seeing as there are many cases when child protection rules do NOTHING to protect the child, should they not be getting the house in order 1st (Baby P) instead of this, which while a risk, is a very small one.

What happens if those kids are snapped accidently at a local park while I am taking pics of my kids? What if they are seen by these people in town/tesco/train station?

Then school then cannot be held responsible.
Headteachers have a duty to ensure the safety and well being of children when in their care. What happens outside of school is not the headteachers responsibility and this is why Child Protection issues will always come before parents taking photos in school plays.

Yes its wrong that its come to this, but unfortunately this is the society we now live in.

 

[boyfalldown]

snip.

Now 25 odd kids/parents are now not able to have a photographic memento. Ok, the comprimise is nice, but surely the majority should rule? I for one would think twice about my child taking part in activities that I am not allowed to document.

snip.

Why should the whole class suffer because of the 2 kids? Surely they could have worn masks of some kind? I bet some parents sneaked some shots on their mobiles!

so what you both mean is you recommend taking absolutely no steps to protect the most vulnerable members of society if it inconveniences even slightly

 

[cambsno]

I still dont get why the 2 kids cannot just be made not to take part or be dressed up in disguise? I took the kids to church on rememberence sunday (about the only time i ever go), and there were loads of old soldiers there in uniform, medals etc... Just after it started my 1yo started to get a bit grouchy so I made the decision to leave, rather than sit there and spoil it for many others who had come to remember fallen comrades. So I put the congretation ahead of my son and myself.

Where does this end? Parents not being allowed access at all, in case I happen to recognise another child who is protected and tell my mate who is his dad? My son not being allowed to take Snickers bar into school in case someone there has a peanut allergy? Not being allowed to celebrate Christmas in case it offends some minority?

 

[cambsno]

so what you both mean is you recommend taking absolutely no steps to protect the most vulnerable members of society if it inconveniences even slightly

Well, social service seem to fail to protect in many cases themselves! As someone said, all this does it stop the shcool getting the blame, there are many other cases where these individuals will not be protected, some of the pics in the Portrait section here (or street pics) could have kids in that can be identified.

Remember that many parents cannot attend these things, I couldnt with my sons this week, so photos are all I have to see this event. Is it too much to ask that the child or 2 needing protection is not part of the show?

 

[boyfalldown]

I still dont get why the 2 kids cannot just be made not to take part or be dressed up in disguise?

or you asked to take reasonable steps to protect them, maybe like not taken photos? Why should they miss out on their nativity play (the key word there is 'their')

I took the kids to church on rememberence sunday (about the only time i ever go), and there were loads of old soldiers there in uniform, medals etc... Just after it started my 1yo started to get a bit grouchy so I made the decision to leave, rather than sit there and spoil it for many others who had come to remember fallen comrades. So I put the congretation ahead of my son and myself.

so you'd have children miss their play because of your 'right' (except its not a right) to take some photos. I actually think your priorities are the wrong way round

Where does this end? Parents not being allowed access at all, in case I happen to recognise another child who is protected and tell my mate who is his dad? My son not being allowed to take Snickers bar into school in case someone there has a peanut allergy? Not being allowed to celebrate Christmas in case it offends some minority?

the parents not being allowed access is, as you know just silly. As for the nuts 2 kids in my three year olds class have life threatening alleges. We're asked not to give our kids nut containing products to bring with them because of this. I don't see an issue with doing as asked, of course my right to give my daughter a snickers trumps the nurseries (and the other parents rights) to head for hospital, doesn't it?

I actually think your examples are just crass and really show the worst in people. "I'll make no allowances for anybody else, regardless of consequence if it slightly impinges my right to take photos (a right in a school or nursery you don't have), give nuts etc. etc. and hang the results"

 

[boyfalldown]

Well, social service seem to fail to protect in many cases themselves!

and thats the best argument you can manage. They don't so it absolves me of all responsibility.

As someone said, all this does it stop the shcool getting the blame, there are many other cases where these individuals will not be protected, some of the pics in the Portrait section here (or street pics) could have kids in that can be identified.

or its the school protecting their most vulnerable children. No they can't protect everywhere, but protecting while in their care is about all you can reasonably expect them to do

Remember that many parents cannot attend these things, I couldnt with my sons this week, so photos are all I have to see this event. Is it too much to ask that the child or 2 needing protection is not part of the show?

yes, its a school play. the keyword is school. Why should they miss out because for whatever reason you can't be there. Thats hardly their fault

 

[Davec223]

I still dont get why the 2 kids cannot just be made not to take part or be dressed up in disguise? I took the kids to church on rememberence sunday (about the only time i ever go), and there were loads of old soldiers there in uniform, medals etc... Just after it started my 1yo started to get a bit grouchy so I made the decision to leave, rather than sit there and spoil it for many others who had come to remember fallen comrades. So I put the congretation ahead of my son and myself.

Where does this end? Parents not being allowed access at all, in case I happen to recognise another child who is protected and tell my mate who is his dad? My son not being allowed to take Snickers bar into school in case someone there has a peanut allergy? Not being allowed to celebrate Christmas in case it offends some minority?

funny you should mention nuts, my daughters school are not aloud anything with nuts in. but they are more than happy to have photos taken. I have also helped on a couple of residential trips and have been asked to photograph them, of was given the names of children not aloud to be photographed a parents had not agreed to it. Easy as that. I also agree with the line of why 1 or 2 should spoil it for the rest of the year. Child protection is one thing but just not wanting your child in photos is totally different, as ask our local schools send out a form asking if they can be photographed and these may be used on school website. Amazing how many say no to that as they seem to think pedophiles will get their kicks looking at school websites with kids fully clothed on it.
Edit
I should also add I have no issue with the nut one as there are kids with nut allergees.

 

[cambsno]

I actually think your examples are just crass and really show the worst in people. "I'll make no allowances for anybody else, regardless of consequence if it slightly impinges my right to take photos (a right in a school or nursery you don't have), give nuts etc. etc. and hang the results"

If you had read my post about leaving a church, you will see that I DO make allowances. I take responsibility for things rather than annoy others - I missed most of my sister in laws wedding as i was outside attending to my 2 month old who would otherwise have screamed the house down!

Why am I in the wrong for 'making no allowances' yet the school could make 'no allowances' and be in the right. Re: the nuts, the Snickers bar is an obvious one, but many products like bread or cakes could contain nuts, so could still cause a problem?

It is easy to say, but if the ball was on the other foot, I would request that my childs needs impacts as little as possible on the majority. That is taking responsibility, something many people do not do.

I am still struggling to see how this does much for the protection of the child though. The instance of someone looking at my FB page and seeing a pic they shouldnt is probably rare. The fact they could look at my page and see street photography, pics at the park, or a wedding I took the other week and see that same child is a reality.

 

[Spuff]

I think the real problem here is one of inconsistency between schools and areas. If there was a general national policy of no photography for reasons that are clearly defined and sensible then I think the majority of people would accept that.

What tends to happen is that different schools interpret guidelines in different ways, or worse make up their own set of rules, which is when you get the illogical reasons trotted out such as contravention of the Data Protection Act.

Whilst very few people would disagree that the safety of a vulnerable child is paramount and more important than capturing a photograph, I would go as far as to wager that there is no specific legislation that prevents the photography of children that are on the Child Protection register. But as schools have a duty of care to all their pupils, each school's risk assessment and interpretation of the guidelines varies, from a blanket ban on photography to (as mentioned somewhere in this thread) a sensible Head saying photograph what you like but don't put it on social media please

 

[big soft moose]

Amazing how many say no to that as they seem to think pedophiles will get their kicks looking at school websites with kids fully clothed on it.
.

there is unfortunately a subspecies of human life which make a living from harvesting childrens faces from inocent shots to use to keep child porn 'fresh' - personally I think its nothing that a bullet to the testicles wouldnt solve, but we digress

theres also the issue about not puting kids pictures on school websites with their names because of the issue of facilitating grooming

but i agree that thats not a reason to stop parent taking pics but then sell cds of pro shots - as the latter rather defeats the point of the former

 

[Dave *]

there is unfortunately a subspecies of human life which make a living from harvesting childrens faces from inocent shots to use to keep child porn 'fresh'

Im sorry, but that is just nonsense, and the type of hype induced paranoia of rags like the Daily Mail.

Have a look at this Google image search:
Google images

About 4,590,000,000 results


Now think why anyone would take a risk to photograph little Johnny at his Nativity to "harvest fresh faces"?



.

 

[Lynton]

Sorry i'll explain further........

As my old english teacher told me you have to look at both sides of the argument, the pro's and con's of both and then make your own mind up.

So, i understand that if i didn't want my childs photo taken by somebody else then i would agree with it, putting the shoe on the other foot if you will.

I have no problems however in my child being in another parents photograph.

The schools reasons were that its to protect the children and not that it would disract them etc..... I asked for them to elaborate 'protect', the reply was very blunt...'perverts and peodophiles etc'......my jaw was stuck open at this point as you can imagine. My reply was then whats the difference taking shots at the end, other kids would still be in and out of the shots, i cannot understand what difference it will make.

I was then told other parents also had similar views reflecting what i had said and a decision will be made tomorrow, the day of the nativity.

If we are allowed, whats best shooting conditions? I don't have a tripod.

It was great reading all your replys guys, all valid points put across.

Thanks

Matt

Guess I'm lucky, my sons school don't mind cameras at all for any event they just ask before hand that you don't upload them to any social networking sites.

Have to say though all this nonsense is getting out of hand now, basically if you own a camera better than a compact you either have the hots for kids or want to blow something up.

a very good friend of mine whose job entails working with "difficult kids" says, "show me where the child has been hurt by having his.her pic taken" it's PC gone mad and people needing to be offended.

Meanwhile I am off to find a no win no fee solicitor to sue my own parents for making me dress up as a shepherd for the 1979 Colman Primary School Nativity with a tea towel on my head and a black leather belt to secure it in place..........

 

[DemiLion]

a very good friend of mine whose job entails working with "difficult kids" says, "show me where the child has been hurt by having his.her pic taken" it's PC gone mad and people needing to be offended.

You are never going to hear about them because of the provisions for anonymity under the Sexual Offences Act et al.

Yes it's rare, but paedophile rings do exist, and do target children for 'fresh meat pics'; although using a school nativity play would be rather unusual. It's more often school uniforms and swimming/beachwear that they get off on.

Side point, but a reasonably important one.

 

[Splog]

Yes it's rare, but paedophile rings do exist, and do target children for 'fresh meat pics'; although using a school nativity play would be rather unusual. It's more often school uniforms and swimming/beachwear that they get off on.

How do you know this?

 

[mattd85]

Well guys a decision was made........(DRUM ROLL)......................... WE WERE OK TO SNAP AWAY.

I had a great day, few tears shed from me and my daughter, think she got stage fright.

Heres a shot of my little angel Jasmine.

 

[big soft moose]

Im sorry, but that is just nonsense, and the type of hype induced paranoia of rags like the Daily Mail.

Have a look at this Google image search:
Google images

About 4,590,000,000 results


Now think why anyone would take a risk to photograph little Johnny at his Nativity to "harvest fresh faces"?



.

read my post again - i'm not talking about these scum going to school plays to photograph kids, i'm talking about them harvesting images off the net , which is why schools are reluctant to put photos (particularly with names attached) on their websites , or to allow parents to put shots of other peoples kids on social media.

and as to it being daily mail related nonsense - if only, it would be great if the world was the bright safe fresh place that some people seem to like to believe it is, but it isnt- while paedophilia isnt common its more common than many would like to admit (look at that case last year with that woman photographing children at the nursery where she worked and sending them on to a paedophile ring).

as to the source of my information, its not the daily fail, it comes from a lecture I attended with by senior officer from TVP

 

[clicktor]

This was my experience of my kids school play I went to the other day.

They spread it over 3 different performances. One for the school pupils to watch. One for parents to come and view WITHOUT young children and another day was for parents with young children, i.e. babies crying etc. I think this was a good idea. However, when I went on the day with no young children the experience still left me feeling a bit bitter.

First of all, people got there literally before school started and waited an hour to be at the front row. Sad? Dedicated? Not sure but I find it all a bit OTT. There were only ten seats in the front row and because it is a school hall and not tiered like a cinema, people struggle to see unless they are in the front row. The school head mistress asked politely for people not to stand up as others would not be able to see, and not to cause too much of a fuss so as not to put the children off.

People stood up during the performance all the time going way OTT waving to their children, even shouting to get their attention. Some of them literally were in panic that their kid could not make actual eye contact with them. People were moving about to the sides standing to see their child, getting in the way of the aisles where children were having to walk into the hall, lots of noise and shuffling. The fact that the entire hall consisted of adults that should know better dissappoints me. Pictures were allowed, but the head asked politely that they NOT be put on social networking sites without others permission unless it was just their own child. I find this common sense and a nice thing for the head to do. She is a nice lady and has the childrens best interests at heart.

Can someone please tell me - since I don't know/do facebook - can people "tag" pictures of my kids other people have uploaded so as to identify them? Or do my kids have to exist on facebook with their own profiles for this to be done? Can children be tagged as children of my partner who is on facebook?

Anyway back to the play, the pictures people were getting would have been utter rubbish to be honest. OK, I know it's more about the memories but it is annoying with iPhones going off in your ear shot with louder fake shutters than a dedicated SLR. Utterly ridiculous in fact. Flashes going off left right and center. Mobile phones going off.

I took not one picture, because frankly, I'd rather sit back and enjoy it. I find the pics of these kind of things are never worth keeping unless I really want it and get a good spot with an OTT looking white lens from the back say. Consequently I gave up shooting this kind of thing years ago. I would rather the school actually DID organize proper photographers, say two of them, and if you want to buy a pic of your child great. If not, don't. I'm talking cheap prices too not to take the mick out of parents, but to make the whole thing less stressful and a better experience.

Just the way I feel anyway.

 

[cambsno]

You are never going to hear about them because of the provisions for anonymity under the Sexual Offences Act et al.

Yes it's rare, but paedophile rings do exist, and do target children for 'fresh meat pics'; although using a school nativity play would be rather unusual. It's more often school uniforms and swimming/beachwear that they get off on.

Side point, but a reasonably important one.

So they can just pick up the Next or Very catalogues if they want that. Hardly difficult to get hold of those pics!

 

[wack61]

I took the kids to Florida , in the universal hotels pool I asked a lifeguard if it was ok to take pictures of them, he looked at me like I was mad and said sure, why wouldn't you be

Mind you the 300mm f/2.8 raised a few eyebrows

 

[tiler65]

a very good friend of mine whose job entails working with "difficult kids" says, "show me where the child has been hurt by having his.her pic taken" it's PC gone mad and people needing to be offended.

Meanwhile I am off to find a no win no fee solicitor to sue my own parents for making me dress up as a shepherd for the 1979 Colman Primary School Nativity with a tea towel on my head and a black leather belt to secure it in place..........

You were still in Primary school in 1979........jeeesh.....you look terrible for your age.