Schools banning photography

[artyman]

I'm still waiting for for my example photo from facebook, to prove that it's easy to get a photo of a specific individual, or is it not so easy as the doomsayers make out.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Who are these loonies getting their own way and who is claiming that anyone disagrees with them is a racist, P**** etc,.

This is about protection and care of children ultimately led by the 'loony' parents.

What or who are they protecting the children from? Does your average paedophile really spend their spare time attending school concerts and nativity plays?

 

[Bluehawk]

The thread seems to have become a bit convoluted. My understanding of the original post was that he attended a school, as a workman. After booking in, he should have been made aware of any rules applicable. No photography would have been a perfectly reasonable rule, not just because it was a school, but because it is private property. But then to have to surrender his phone because he might take photos is rediculous. He might as well been asked to surrender his trouser belt in case he beat a child with it. Lets have reasonable rules, but lets keep some common sense, and a sense of proportion. And, as others have said already, most child abuse is committed by a family member, and rarely by a stranger.

 

[ernesto]

What or who are they protecting the children from? Does your average paedophile really spend their spare time attending school concerts and nativity plays?

I don't know what an average paedophile does but it is not just about average paedophiles is it. Protection of foster kids has nothing to do with paedophilia, any other use of childs photos etc,.

As I said previously, you could have a list of rules and policies to administor or you could just ban photography full stop.
If I ran a school with a tight budget I would not be entertaining detailed policies with clauses for this and that, the regulation of them etc,. for something as menial and unimportant as photos.
If you don't like it, don't come to my school

 

[boyfalldown]

As I said previously, you could have a list of rules and policies to administor or you could just ban photography full stop.
If I ran a school with a tight budget I would not be entertaining detailed policies with clauses for this and that, the regulation of them etc,. for something as menial and unimportant as photos.
If you don't like it, don't come to my school

'Cause you always get so much choice. Ignoring that for a second..........

The school my daughter goes to has home visits, expects me to attend parents evenings, be very involved with them etc etc and forms a valuable partnership with me. All good.

but as a partnership I assume its a two way street. Wouldn't you agree?

Describing photographs as menial and unimportant on a photography forum is a little strange.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

The thread seems to have become a bit convoluted. My understanding of the original post was that he attended a school, as a workman.

Where does he say that?

Interesting article in today's Guardian here

The comments are running about 99% in favour of parents being allowed to photograph their children at school

A.

I might be missing something, but I don't see any mention of the op having visited a school, in the role of a workman or otherwise....

 

[ernesto]

but as a partnership I assume its a two way street. Wouldn't you agree?

Describing photographs as menial and unimportant on a photography forum is a little strange.

The rules of the two way street would be known about in advance. For example you know the school has a uniform before you child goes. You are not then going to moan about having a uniform once there.

And no it is not strange to put photography in perspective. In this scenario I am running a school which is a higher priority to me than photography would be.

 

[boyfalldown]

The rules of the two way street would be known about in advance. For example you know the school has a uniform before you child goes. You are not then going to moan about having a uniform once there.

And no it is not strange to put photography in perspective. In this scenario I am running a school which is a higher priority to me than photography would be.

You're missing the fact that a school uniform is

a) not really relevant to any points raised here

b) broadly supported by most people, which is unlike the current stance on photography.

c) Generally good for school kids and parents, unlike the current stance on photography.

it is strange, You didn't put it in perspective, you made a sweeping statement about it being 'menial'. I'm fairly sure the majority of people would argue its not menial anyway. So are you actually running a school in any real scenario?

 

[Bluehawk]

Dear Flash In The Pan. Please see the post by SYLAR on 23.6.12 at 21:33. Page one of this thread. Maybe the thread was hijacked by Loonies...............not sure.

 

[PaulF]

The thread seems to have become a bit convoluted. My understanding of the original post was that he attended a school, as a workman. After booking in, he should have been made aware of any rules applicable. No photography would have been a perfectly reasonable rule, not just because it was a school, but because it is private property. But then to have to surrender his phone because he might take photos is rediculous. He might as well been asked to surrender his trouser belt in case he beat a child with it. Lets have reasonable rules, but lets keep some common sense, and a sense of proportion. And, as others have said already, most child abuse is committed by a family member, and rarely by a stranger.

The original post is about a school banning photography by parents at a nativity play while having a dvd for sale of the same nativity, nothing to do with child protection etc, just profit, if you kind you're could say it's to avoid the kids getting distracted during the performance but that's not that likely. Then again I don't suppose the video/dvd company would be using minute camera's so that would be that argument out of the window too.

My son's school has no such restrictions thankfully and I have never seen a child suffer stage fright from the sight of a camera pointed at them!
Sports day last week, I took the afternoon off work and went along with a 70-300 lens no one batted an eyelid.

Post 4 is about someone going into a school and being asked to surrender his phone while on the premises. As the staff surrender their phones I really don't see an issue, I'm sure they would not be looking at the personal info on the phone, lock it if you suspect they would.
It's not really about trust that either so all those saying 'why not leave his belt' etc are just being silly and trying to flame the issue. At the end of the day you go to a, for all intense and purpose, private property (school in this case) you either follow their terms/rules or leave, your choice. My regular place of work has numerous 'rules' including speed limit etc non enforceable by law but break them and they can refuse entry to their site, end of job!
Some of the places I go have far more regulations attached than 'leave your phone in the car' God help some of you if you had to attend some of those, rant wouldn't be the word

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Dear Flash In The Pan. Please see the post by SYLAR on 23.6.12 at 21:33. Page one of this thread. Maybe the thread was hijacked by Loonies...............not sure.

So are you saying the thread actually starts halfway down page one and not with the original (first) post?

 

[ernesto]

You're missing the fact that a school uniform is

a) not really relevant to any points raised here

b) broadly supported by most people, which is unlike the current stance on photography.

c) Generally good for school kids and parents, unlike the current stance on photography.

it is strange, You didn't put it in perspective, you made a sweeping statement about it being 'menial'. I'm fairly sure the majority of people would argue its not menial anyway. So are you actually running a school in any real scenario?

The uniform was just an obvious example of a condition agreed on when joining the school, just as no photography would be if that was one of the schools rules.
And yes I did put it in perspective, re-read my post. It starts with, "If I ran a school..." In the big scheme of things whether I allow photography or not is of very low importance and has little bearing on the childs education

 

[ernesto]

Dear Flash In The Pan. Please see the post by SYLAR on 23.6.12 at 21:33. Page one of this thread. Maybe the thread was hijacked by Loonies...............not sure.

hoping you see the irony in calling anyone you disagree with a loony

 

[ding76uk]

Or a degree of trust in parents and not seeing them all as predators maybe? Let people have the choice to buy or not

How does a photocall avoid the issues with child protection etc anyway?

Because those children who have reasons not to be photographed are then not put into the photo call and can then still participate in activities, which is good for children's self esteem, some of these children have suffered terrible things

The sex offender thing is not the main issue, it is protection for children in protection. There are reasons for them being extremely careful. Children who have been moved with their parents to another part of the country for their own protection. The photo could be a problem for them. This is not loony, or anything else it is there to protect.

I have seen a parent at an event who asked me not to take photographs. It was due to her being in a situation where she did not want the area where she lived to be found out. Rather than bitch and moan about how bad things are she thanked me for being understanding as otherwise her child would not be able to come to the event due to restrictions.

The problem is those who are moaning about the loonies and pedophiles are actually just as bad as they do not understand the real reason for the bans. Yes there is a chance photos of them will be put out there anyway, but it is best to make sure that the chances of this are to be minimised.

If you had ever spoken in depth to a parent about some of the things children have had to see and deal with at such a young age, you may not be so selfish.

 

[posiview]

What or who are they protecting the children from? Does your average paedophile really spend their spare time attending school concerts and nativity plays?

Totally agree. If my daughter is in a school play, for example, parents are free to take photographs of their children even if my daughter is included.

Moral panic is what it is.

Cheers.

 

[boyfalldown]

Because those children who have reasons not to be photographed are then not put into the photo call and can then still participate in activities, which is good for children's self esteem, some of these children have suffered terrible things

but if your concern is to protect those children's emotional well being wouldn't banning them from the photocall damage that self esteem?

Additionally, assuming that a protection order is not supposed to be common knowledge, wouldn't excluding them from a photocall alert me that there was some form of issue?

The sex offender thing is not the main issue, it is protection for children in protection. There are reasons for them being extremely careful. Children who have been moved with their parents to another part of the country for their own protection. The photo could be a problem for them. This is not loony, or anything else it is there to protect.

I'm sure you'll know how common that is, but in a typical infant class of say 30, how many children are in that scenario?

Additionally, assuming that I published that childs face somewhere, its one very big leap to assume that the person they were moved from would see and be able to place that photo's location. No more then say the risk of a press photo (inside or outside school)

I have seen a parent at an event who asked me not to take photographs. It was due to her being in a situation where she did not want the area where she lived to be found out. Rather than bitch and moan about how bad things are she thanked me for being understanding as otherwise her child would not be able to come to the event due to restrictions.

The problem is those who are moaning about the loonies and pedophiles are actually just as bad as they do not understand the real reason for the bans. Yes there is a chance photos of them will be put out there anyway, but it is best to make sure that the chances of this are to be minimised.

If you had ever spoken in depth to a parent about some of the things children have had to see and deal with at such a young age, you may not be so selfish.

Thanks - Its not selfish though. Please don't resort to those childish insults. While your not doing that please don't make any assumptions about what I have,or haven't done

Its very difficult as a parent to be told a ban is 'for obvious reasons' and not question it. I guess that a sensible conversation would be better the just saying those moaning about loonies cause the problems. A far more sensible approach would be to ask parents to be sympathetic in their photography (and one presumes) posting of school events online. That way parents would still have their photographs and all would be happy.

Of course all this rather falls by the wayside being told I can not take photos, but can buy a video afterwards. Seems entirely commercially driven for all the high minded comments about being selfish

 

[Byker28i]

The sex offender thing is not the main issue, it is protection for children in protection. There are reasons for them being extremely careful. Children who have been moved with their parents to another part of the country for their own protection. The photo could be a problem for them. This is not loony, or anything else it is there to protect.

Serious question - does this honestly happen? This argument is often brought up and often thrown out there as the final argument that you cannot challenge.

I can understand someone in this situation feeling (ok this probably doesn't put it well but you know what I mean) jumpy/paranoid/nervous, but how out of all the millions of photos/websites etc would someone find a photo of little johnny, even if first names are used, in a completely new area. Usually with parents it's look at my child at the school play/sports day.

I do struggle to understand this as from my personal experience, it's usually because the child has been discovered through other means, such as someone telling them the area/school, usually because the adult keeps in contact with friends and family.

 

[boyfalldown]

Serious question - does this honestly happen? This argument is often brought up and often thrown out there as the final argument that you cannot challenge.

I wondered that as well. From the NSPCC website there were 23,900 protection orders issued last year (for reasons other then neglect, I excluded neglect cause it seems unlikely there would be any form of intent to harm with this). It doesn't seem to big a leap of faith to assume that only a % of these represent an ongoing threat, real
or perceived to the children concerned



ETA - against 11.7 m in UK education.

 

[Splog]

I thought most kids these days had phones and most phones have cameras, so are all those kids with phones banned from taking the phones into school?

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Serious question - does this honestly happen? This argument is often brought up and often thrown out there as the final argument that you cannot challenge.

I can understand someone in this situation feeling (ok this probably doesn't put it well but you know what I mean) jumpy/paranoid/nervous, but how out of all the millions of photos/websites etc would someone find a photo of little johnny

Remember John Darwin, the "canoe fraudster"? What were the odds of someone spotting his pic on a Panamanian estate agent's website?

 

[boyfalldown]

Remember John Darwin, the "canoe fraudster"? What were the odds of someone spotting his pic on a Panamanian estate agent's website?

apparently typing 'John and Anne Darwin' turned up the same photo. It wasn't the best thought through plan in the world

 

[Flash In The Pan]

apparently typing 'John and Anne Darwin' turned up the same photo. It wasn't the best thought through plan in the world

I'm not so sure about that, as he was using the name John Jones whilst in Panama.

 

[boyfalldown]

I'm not so sure about that, as he was using the name John Jones whilst in Panama.

Didn't one of the tabloids try that search to find the photo?

 

[ding76uk]

Serious question - does this honestly happen? This argument is often brought up and often thrown out there as the final argument that you cannot challenge.

Unfortunately it happens a lot more than you would think. There are protected children in every school I have worked in, and I have also come across it at a kids event I was photographing.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Didn't one of the tabloids try that search to find the photo?

No idea, but if he was using the name Jones a search for Darwin wouldn't bring anything up. Of course if they were using their original christian names then a search for "John and Anne" and "Panama" might have done the trick....

 

[boyfalldown]

No idea, but if he was using the name Jones a search for Darwin wouldn't bring anything up. Of course if they were using their original christian names then a search for "John and Anne" and "Panama" might have done the trick....

I may well of remembered wrong & of course the tabloids are always accurate in their reporting

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Unfortunately it happens a lot more than you would think. There are protected children in every school I have worked in, and I have also come across it at a kids event I was photographing.

Even so, a blanket ban on photography to protect one child seems excessive, but I suppose ,in these days where the rights of one individual are seen to trump those of hundreds of others, it is only to be expected.

I wonder if this right to anonymity extends to the likes of Daniella Cable, Maxine Carr and others in the UK's witness protection scheme? Do organisers of public events they attend have to enforce similar bans on others taking photographs for fear that the protected person may be recognised?

 

[boyfalldown]

Unfortunately it happens a lot more than you would think. There are protected children in every school I have worked in, and I have also come across it at a kids event I was photographing.

if you look at the published figures, and the exclude 25% of care orders as they will be made to children under 4, you have 11.7m children at school and 18,000 care orders. Thats 1:650 children.

Even so, a blanket ban on photography to protect one child seems excessive, but I suppose ,in these days where the rights of one individual are seen to trump those of hundreds of others, it is only to be expected.

I wonder if this right to anonymity extends to the likes of Daniella Cable, Maxine Carr and others in the UK's witness protection scheme? Do organisers of public events they attend have to enforce similar bans on others taking photographs for fear that the protected person may be recognised?

I don't have a problem protecting one individual at risk of all others. After all a society can be measured by how it treats its weakest members. I just don't think a blanket photography ban is the way to do it. (That sentiment only applies to children though,those named above are big and ugly enough to avoid those type of situations)

 

[munch]

As for the rant in post 4, they obviously have not kept up with recent events.

There are many places I visit where I have to hand in my phone before I am allowed to proceed. I see no problem with this. (this ranges from MOD property, prisons to schools & sports centres) If I need to take photographs then I will follow whatever guidelines they lay down, (which is often a blanket no) daft that some may be. Went to a site the other week and their security guy had to carry my camera.

 

[cornishboy]

I can't really see where the thread is going as there are two deeply entrenched positions here, those who work WI children and those who believe in the absolute right of the individual parent.
Could I just establish for my own benefit...am I correct I thinking
1)schools are private buildings
2) as such the head /governing body can devise rules which they feel need to be followed
3)people entering the building have to follow the rules that have been set even if they don't like them.
4) people entering the building will not have all the facts and case histories relating to individual children and therefore will be in no position to judge decisions made by those in control of the building.

 

[Big Andy]

I can't really see where the thread is going as there are two deeply entrenched positions here, those who work WI children and those who believe in the absolute right of the individual parent.
Could I just establish for my own benefit...am I correct I thinking
1)schools are private buildings
2) as such the head /governing body can devise rules which they feel need to be followed
3)people entering the building have to follow the rules that have been set even if they don't like them.
4) people entering the building will not have all the facts and case histories relating to individual children and therefore will be in no position to judge decisions made by those in control of the building.

123 & 4 all correct BUT the public who pay for those places to excist also have the right to question those rules.

 

[cornishboy]

But if 4 applies then you don't get very far with questions as all answers would be confidential.

 

[ding76uk]

but if your concern is to protect those children's emotional well being wouldn't banning them from the photocall damage that self esteem?

Additionally, assuming that a protection order is not supposed to be common knowledge, wouldn't excluding them from a photocall alert me that there was some form of issue?

Or would you go, where's Johnny, oh never mind, I'll take my photos, my kid is there. As for the self esteem, it is not ideal but does make it possible for them to participate in the event. Surely you can see it is more harmful to remove them all together.

I'm sure you'll know how common that is, but in a typical infant class of say 30, how many children are in that scenario?

All I can say is in schools I have taught with year groups under a hundred there was always some children in every year group.

Additionally, assuming that I published that childs face somewhere, its one very big leap to assume that the person they were moved from would see and be able to place that photo's location. No more then say the risk of a press photo (inside or outside school)

It does happen. Not very often, but it does and the upheaval to a family because of this is not good for them.

Thanks - Its not selfish though. Please don't resort to those childish insults. While your not doing that please don't make any assumptions about what I have,or haven't done

Wasn't aimed at your particularly just a general comment. Can you not see that if a rule is there to protect someone and a bloodymindedness meant people were saying "Pull the kid who's in protection so I can take photos of mine is not completely selfish. Again not aimed at you a general comment.

Its very difficult as a parent to be told a ban is 'for obvious reasons' and not question it. I guess that a sensible conversation would be better the just saying those moaning about loonies cause the problems. A far more sensible approach would be to ask parents to be sympathetic in their photography (and one presumes) posting of school events online. That way parents would still have their photographs and all would be happy.

This I totally agree with a discussion. But you cannot guarantee that all parents would not be responsible with the scenario you mentioned. It is a fact of life that some people do not care about anything but what they want. It is not only a problem for the children involved, but also for the school allowing a problem to happen. It may be a very small chance, but the last thing any school want is to be put through the ringer by a government agency because of a problem, so it is easier not to take the risk.

Of course all this rather falls by the wayside being told I can not take photos, but can buy a video afterwards. Seems entirely commercially driven for all the high minded comments about being selfish

I agree it may well be this way, in some cases I am sure it is for profit. But, on the flip side the school may be checking all photos or footage to see if does not contain the specific pupils. On the flip side the school could be using it to make money. Every case is different. But really I can't see the huge profit margins to be had from 30 kids in a class buying a DVD at a tenner each. Not exactly going to buy a new computer room is it.

 

[Bluehawk]

Hi Ernesto, no the irony wasn't missed. Completely off thread now, but I probably had in mind Milliband apologising for the Labout Govt Immigration fiasco. At the time anyone questioning his wisdom was simply denegrated as being a racist. ( Which qualifies him as Loony ) I have debates with a family member about loads of issues, she being one side of middle of the road and me being the opposite, and although we often disagree we are either both loonies, or neither of us is ! Hope no one in the above thread suffered from apoplexy !

 

[ding76uk]

123 & 4 all correct BUT the public who pay for those places to excist also have the right to question those rules.

This is such rubbish. I hate this my taxes pay for it, therefore I can question how it is run and they should listen.

My taxes pay for the army. Can I question my local army base why I can't take photos because I pay their wages. The chances are if I put my photos on Facebook they won't be used for terrorism, so I can't see the issue. I wonder what the response would be if I discussed this with the head of the local barracks

 

[Big Andy]

This is such rubbish. I hate this my taxes pay for it, therefore I can question how it is run and they should listen.

My taxes pay for the army. Can I question my local army base why I can't take photos because I pay their wages. The chances are if I put my photos on Facebook they won't be used for terrorism, so I can't see the issue. I wonder what the response would be if I discussed this with the head of the local barracks

Yes, you can question them and I'm sure they will give you some very good reasons why you can't. The same as anyone has the right to question things in a true democracy.
Rules can be questioned as to the reason for them, weather it's national security or the safety/security of a child. If people didn't question rules or rulers where would we be as a nation now, stuck in a very old and deep rut.

 

[cornishboy]

There is a diffence between rules being questioned, for which Ding and I have given a number of reasons as to why those rules may be in place, and rules being ignored because of the bloodymindedness of a few individuals who don't feel they need to follow them, even though they will never be in full possession of all the facts.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

This is such rubbish. I hate this my taxes pay for it, therefore I can question how it is run and they should listen.

My taxes pay for the army. Can I question my local army base why I can't take photos because I pay their wages. The chances are if I put my photos on Facebook they won't be used for terrorism, so I can't see the issue. I wonder what the response would be if I discussed this with the head of the local barracks

The difference is, unless I'm much mistaken, that army bases are part of our national defences and the policies regarding who can/cannot access them and take photographs are set at governmental level.

As has been demonstrated by the article linked to in the op this is not the case with schools, with individual heads able to dictate what goes on on their premises, ergo it's not a valid comparison.

 

[munch]

Actually, Commanding Officers on MOD property have quite a lot of autonomy on what can and can't be photographed on their bases.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Actually, Commanding Officers on MOD property have quite a lot of autonomy on what can and can't be photographed on their bases.

Perhaps they do, but I'll bet there's an official govt policy regarding it, whereas there doesn't appear to be so when it comes to schools.