Parents' fury after photographer erases mark for nursery school portrait

tiler65 said:
IT IS NOT JUST THE DAILY MAIL.... ALL THE PAPERS COVERED IT...... GIVE THE OTHER PAPERS SOME STICK TOO
Click to expand...

Forbiddenbiker said:
I second this passion.

:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Odd that, because a cursory search of the papers in Google only found the story in the Mail:thinking:
If you can prove ALL that other papers ran this non-story in the same way, I'll recind the following:

Following the downfall of the NoTW, The Daily Mail is the worst newspaper in this country for abusing it's powers in order to promote shocking headlines which aren't even bourne out by the facts as reported (god knows how far from the actual truth). I'd predict that following the ongoing police enquiry into NI there'll be further arrests of journalists at other newspapers, the Daily Mail will be the hardest hit.

The information commissioners report into the use of Private Investigators by newspapers makes chilling reading, the table listing the usage (page 9) looks bad enough at first glance, but when you add up the subsidiary publications, you'll see how much more of this is done at the Mail that at News International.:shake:

The complete lack of coverage of the phone hacking scandal and the continued harassment of Hugh Grant by the Mail is tantamount to a smoking gun IMO.:naughty:
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Well I was backing the passion of all news papers print a whole heap of waffle half the time.

Assuming Tom was actually shouting about something factual in essence?

So I'll back out of this one now, If I may Phil, hopefully gracefully. ;)
Click to expand...

Trying desperately not to sound too harsh - will probably fail....:shake:

The thing is, ALL newspapers aren't ALL the same and it's that assumption that helps the bad ones get away with it.:bang:

Just the same as ALL politicians / policemen aren't bent.:nuts:

The Daily Fail instils a sense of misguided superiority in it's readership, pointing the finger at the filth in society, whilst titillating them with that filth to keep them interested. All the while maintaining that air of being above the gutter press. IMHO it's the very worst of what's wrong with this country, creating a layer of society gazing down at the 'scum' taking from them instead of looking up to where they're really being shafted from.
</rant>

Back to the OP, as the question is 'would you make a genuine mistake' then the answer has to be Yes. Would I apologise and try to put it right, Yes.
Would I read the Daily Mail? No
 
I edited my sisters pics from a trip to aus a few years back. I took out a person from the back ground and my sister asked me where her friend was when I sent them back to her lol
 
Phil V said:
Trying desperately not to sound too harsh - will probably fail....:shake:

The thing is, ALL newspapers aren't ALL the same and it's that assumption that helps the bad ones get away with it.:bang:

Just the same as ALL politicians / policemen aren't bent.:nuts:

The Daily Fail instils a sense of misguided superiority in it's readership, pointing the finger at the filth in society, whilst titillating them with that filth to keep them interested. All the while maintaining that air of being above the gutter press. IMHO it's the very worst of what's wrong with this country, creating a layer of society gazing down at the 'scum' taking from them instead of looking up to where they're really being shafted from.
</rant>
Click to expand...

Lol at the bold. ok you got me. ;)

You make a very good point and I hear you Phil, in future I'll refrain from generally joining in with slagging off the whole lot as one, as you say isn't useful or helpful in aiding any solution.

Specifically speaking though, TDF isn't the only paper guilty of creating a layer of misinformed society, BBC middle England for instance. The games been afoot since news editing became a commodity sport... :shrug:

But I do get your point. :thumbs:

Its all actually the Banks fault ..no really!
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
Odd that, because a cursory search of the papers in Google only found the story in the Mail:thinking:
If you can prove ALL that other papers ran this non-story in the same way, I'll recind the following:

Following the downfall of the NoTW, The Daily Mail is the worst newspaper in this country for abusing it's powers in order to promote shocking headlines which aren't even bourne out by the facts as reported (god knows how far from the actual truth). I'd predict that following the ongoing police enquiry into NI there'll be further arrests of journalists at other newspapers, the Daily Mail will be the hardest hit.

The information commissioners report into the use of Private Investigators by newspapers makes chilling reading, the table listing the usage (page 9) looks bad enough at first glance, but when you add up the subsidiary publications, you'll see how much more of this is done at the Mail that at News International.:shake:

The complete lack of coverage of the phone hacking scandal and the continued harassment of Hugh Grant by the Mail is tantamount to a smoking gun IMO.:naughty:
Click to expand...

Me being ignorant but how do you google for stories in the papers?...I honestly don't know.


The papers I saw on the day were DM, Express, Sun, Star and an Evening rag...all covered the story.....not all of them had headlines and not all of them had pictures.....but these papers covered the story....and without arguing the toss of I said all, the 5 papers I looked at all had it...that narrows me being wrong down a tad.

Just trying to stop everyone berate the DM, some folk on here must buy it...I don't but I will read it if I see a copy lying around, after all it is an opinion like yours and mine on here.
 
Another point to Phil V, considering you don't actually read the Daily Mail......you seem to know a lot about it and it's readership....maybe me thinks you think you are above the DM and us in regards to what we should read and make judgement of. No rant just observations and opinions.
 
I don't consider myself 'above' the dm any more than I consider myself above playboy tv, ceebeebies or hello.
They're not to my taste as much as I'm not the target market. I have an interest in all the national papers, not just the ones that support my views.:)

My guess is that you were unable to substantiate your claim about ALL the papers running the story;). I hope the ICO report gave you an insight into the possible reasons the DM is failing to report the biggest media story in decades. The optimist within me hopes that you'll have questioned your relationship with the DM in a positive way.:D
 
I think tiler is actually the editor of he DM in disguise, either that or he's sleeping with the editor! :lol:
 
You haven't answered my question on a google search for new stories, does google relay every story printed in a newspaper on the day.....does an online version of a newspaper cover every story in the printed one and vice versa?

How come you know about the DM readership but you don't read it.....this is confusing me...in the mean time I am trying to find results to substantiate how many papers ran the story. Please give me some time to collect the figures.
 
overall, well handled by the photographer. I hope they don't get monstered any more by the press. This could have happened to anyone...
 
tiler65 said:
IT IS NOT JUST THE DAILY MAIL.... ALL THE PAPERS COVERED IT...... GIVE THE OTHER PAPERS SOME STICK TOO
Click to expand...

Fair enough. If they all used the photo without permission then I hope he persues all of them.
 
joescrivens said:
Must remember to get my copy of this is Exeter next week, it's such a widespread print :D

:lol: wink wink
Click to expand...

The Hard Copy paper is called the Express and Echo (and is (I believe available on subscription should anyone wish to receive it regularly). It sells so well that it recently went from a daily evening publication to a weekly and seems to be largely devoted to spoirts favoured by the management, with minority persuits being either ignored or paid scant lip service.
 
Marcel said:
Besides, she called her child Omnee, she needs a hoof in the giblets :p
Click to expand...

this

imo the quote should have read

"'There are enough worries about the prejudices she may endure later in life from having such a ridiculous name, without having to worry about us having made a massive deal about her birthmark in the national press"
 
Nod said:
The Hard Copy paper is called the Express and Echo (and is (I believe available on subscription should anyone wish to receive it regularly). It sells so well that it recently went from a daily evening publication to a weekly and seems to be largely devoted to spoirts favoured by the management, with minority persuits being either ignored or paid scant lip service.
Click to expand...

I was hoping the smilie would indicate I was joking :shrug:
 
I'm glad to see that the Daily Fail made certain to point out the fact that it was a MALE photographer as well.
 
Marcel said:
What if it *had* have been jam, or juice or whatever and the photographer hadn't removed it?

I bet you my last quid that the parent would be equally scathing that the photographer had done a shoddy job of not bothering to remove it.

Simple case of miscommunication and human error IMO. A total non story.

Besides, she called her child Omnee, she needs a hoof in the giblets :p
Click to expand...

:lol:

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=omnee&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.omnee.net%2F&ei=uiTlTrfgKdPs8QPkn8SRBA&usg=AFQjCNGqJs-DbwHmKaTUTvHILoDXkV7HmA&sig2=yH-1T8DXhy8QQl5xqjYRWw
 
I feel sorry for this kid I really do.

The birthmark is probably going to cause her problems down the line. But tbh I think that's probably the least of her problems.

She's called Omnee...and she has parents that would call a child Omnee.
 
Well, Omni is from the book of Mormons, meaning all, apparently. It's pronounced Omnee, so I'm assuming it's one of these 'we'll spell a common name differently to make it unique' type things.
Certainly strange, but possibly not stranger than Chelsea first appeared (now common), at the local primary we have a Devon, Willow, Kyler (yup add an r to make it unique) and at least 5 ways of spelling Rachael
 
AndWhyNot said:
No excuses other than inexperience for not cleaning faces on location.
Click to expand...

The photographers arent allowed to touch the kids, and to be honest most of the time the teachers wont either through fear of being sued.
I think this story is a perfect example of the kind of state we live in now
 
Byker28i said:
Well, Omni is from the book of Mormons, meaning all, apparently. It's pronounced Omnee, so I'm assuming it's one of these 'we'll spell a common name differently to make it unique' type things.
Certainly strange, but possibly not stranger than Chelsea first appeared (now common), at the local primary we have a Devon, Willow, Kyler (yup add an r to make it unique) and at least 5 ways of spelling Rachael
Click to expand...

It's from a Latin root, I think the Mormons just adopted it.
 
our local school photographer did this, a good friend of mine had her sons school photo done, so she ordered a print, when it turned up they had removed all his freckles. She was fuming
 
DannyDMR said:
our local school photographer did this, a good friend of mine had her sons school photo done, so she ordered a print, when it turned up they had removed all his freckles. She was fuming
Click to expand...

Did she go to the daily mail?
 
Lets get this right.......

Old man works for Tesco and she's on TrailerParkMumsnet.com...

Omnee = Omni Does any one care?

Lets face it She was named after Dodge Omni, The car made uptill 1990.

Although my favorite is the Root Vegitable.....(which sums the parents up) Her brother is called Dodge and her cousin is Samsaung.

Is it a birth mark? Thought it was from where the littl'un was smoking tabs all day.


"'There are enough worries about the prejudices she may endure later in life from having such a ridiculous name, without having to worry about, scuse me! Samsaung take your sister out of the spin dryer nah!! I said NAH!!!!....... Where woz I?"

" Have you seen our dogs? Belch and Smudge! Bull Mastif.. Pretty in't they?"
 
I wonder if the mother wears make up or uses hair spray. Certainly appears like the kid had her hair done. Did she decide a 2 year olds hair wasn't perfect. Nothing but sympathy for the photographer, to be fair the retouch was quite good!
 
I think I would have been mad about the whole thing if it was my kid but to potentially ruin someone's business over it is going a little far don't we think.

But my take on the mum is that she wanted to see her name in lights for a day.

Also the child will be picked on for having a stupid name let alone the birth mark.
 
This time of year you're going to see this little girl everywhere....she gets Omnee Presents! :tumbleweed:
 
Omnee, Dodge and Samsaung[sic]! What knob-headed parents, sheesh.
 
I ma going to go against the grain and suggest it is a very 'twee' middle-class name, because their child is such a snowflake.

Could the 'high key' look have bleached the colour out of her face anyhow?
 
Whenever we do family portraiture I politely ask about "marks" and the removal of such. I am always cautious about causing offence if it's not a scab/scratch/bruise but in fact a birth mark.

Of course, a school tog doesn't often have the parent there to ask. So unless it obvious that little "Jack/Joey/Maisy/Mary" has left some unidentified remnant from their school dinner on their cheek I would would be extremely cautious and leave well alone.

I have to say that I aren't a school photographer but if we got into that business we surely wouldn't have the time to "correct" images to that level on an individual basis?

David
 
What bugs me are the number of people who haven't bothered to look at the facts and are commenting on the removal of the birthmark as if it was a conscious decision by the photographer. (maybe I'm grouchy today):naughty:

It was a mistake, there was a clerical error made within the company and the photographer apologised unreservedly. So let's lay off whether or not the photographer 'should' have done it, he knows he shouldn't and has said he shouldn't.:bang:
 
Phil V said:
What bugs me are the number of people who haven't bothered to look at the facts and are commenting on the removal of the birthmark as if it was a conscious decision by the photographer. (maybe I'm grouchy today):naughty:

It was a mistake, there was a clerical error made within the company and the photographer apologised unreservedly. So let's lay off whether or not the photographer 'should' have done it, he knows he shouldn't and has said he shouldn't.:bang:
Click to expand...

That's irritating me also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top