Modern Life Is Rubbish

[Rockers rule 673]

The Titanic sank,

Hardly a new story.

Schools have been operating this for the last 10 years at least, quoting the data protection act 1998.

[Guest sibon]

23 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

I was agreeing with you, chill out!

😀

Maybe I should give my own brain a wiggle.

[HeHasRisen 3,374]

1 minute ago, sibon said:

😀

Maybe I should give my own brain a wiggle.

I assumed he was talking about "health and safety" in the traditional sense tbh. Hard to tell with some of his rants.

[Guest sibon]

5 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

I assumed he was talking about "health and safety" in the traditional sense tbh. Hard to tell with some of his rants.

Don't worry. I'm sure that he will repeat his position once or twice, in order to clarify.

[Chekhov 488]

10 hours ago, Delayed said:

Another day, another pointless whinge about nothing.

 

Chekov's life must be great. Nothing serious to worry about so he'll worry about the pointless stuff instead. 

 

But you have options other than moaning on a forum about how you don't like things

 

1. Don't go

2. Video record it. You aren't photographing.

3. Use the camera on your phone and pretend you are texting

4. Photograph anyway. Chances are the school won't be checking cameras and deleting photos. 

>>Another day, another pointless whinge about nothing.<<

 

Have you got any kids ?

You think being banned from photographing your own kids is "nothing" ?

 

>>But you have options other than moaning on a forum about how you don't like things

1. Don't go

2. Video record it. You aren't photographing.

3. Use the camera on your phone and pretend you are texting

4. Photograph anyway. Chances are the school won't be checking cameras and deleting photos. <<

 

2 - Videoing is also banned.

But in any case the fact you think I should ignore their ban shows you also think it is petty and unacceptable.
I will be taking pics and videos, but it will be a stressful experience when this should be an enjoyable and relaxed event

Edited May 26, 2022 by Chekhov

[ECCOnoob 1,020]

15 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

 

 

Have you got any kids ?

You think being banned from photographing your own kids is "nothing" ?

 

I think you need to read your own opening Post again. You are not banned from taking photographs of your own kids.

 

You just can't take photographs of anyone else's kids nor the wider group because there is no permission to do so from their parents.  Hardly an outrageous and unreasonable position.

 

Times have changed.  Technology has evolved.  Its absolutely right that parents should have a choice about whether images of their children are being taken and distributed and uploaded onto the public web without their consent or control.

 

It's not stressful occasion at all. Very simple rules to be followed. You only seem to making it stressful by becoming angry and outraged about something which is in fact more than reasonable.

[Chekhov 488]

11 hours ago, sibon said:

Trouble is that some kids could be endangered by careless sharing of photos.  Child protection trumps making memories, I'm afraid, so the school is probably right.

How exactly ? And what is the chances of that ?

 

"Child protection" has assumed Stasi proportions now. It's like Health & Safety, say "Health & Safety" and nobody can question anything no matter how ludicrous.

It's cobblers and I am not only questioning it I'm saying it's disproportionate nonsense.

My lad isn't the best footballer or basketball player and I have spent many hours down the park with other kids being better than him. He is, however, the best swimmer, and I was desperately looking forward to watching him having his school swimming lessons (at a public pool remember) and, for once, seeing him being the best amongst his peers. Imagine how 'efffing angry I was when I was told I could not be there because of "child safeguarding". Quite apart from the inference they are saying I could be a paedo, which is bad enough, it's double cobblers anyway. Ignoring the fact I am a parent of one of the kids, what exactly do they think could happen in front of 30 other kids, a teacher or two and three swimming coaches ?

Answer (in the realms of reality) : nothing whatsoever.

It's big time exaggerated BS, just like being banned from taking photos of ones own kids at a school event.

It worries me that so many people unquestioningly accept absolute nonsense without actually thinking about it.

Where will it all end ? 

 

11 hours ago, Rockers rule said:

The Titanic sank,

Hardly a new story.

Schools have been operating this for the last 10 years at least, quoting the data protection act 1998.

They have been getting worse and worse on it in the last few years. But, even if it isn't a "new story", so what ? It's still cobblers.

 

Edited May 26, 2022 by Chekhov

[HeHasRisen 3,374]

6 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

How exactly ? And what is the chances of that ?

 

 

Are you seriously asking this?

 

Lets say some of the children have had to be uprooted a few hundred miles by their mother to escape an abusive husband. Someone takes a picture of their kids at a school play and these children appear on the photo. This photo goes on Facebook. Somehow the abusive husband sees it, and traces the ex wife.

 

Do you see?

 

In reality its got very little to do with paedos and "nonces", more other child protection issues.

Edited May 26, 2022 by HeHasRisen

[Chekhov 488]

5 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

Are you seriously asking this?

Lets say some of the children have had to be uprooted a few hundred miles by their mother to escape an abusive husband. Someone takes a picture of their kids at a school play and these children appear on the photo. This photo goes on Facebook. Somehow the abusive husband sees it, and traces the ex wife.

Do you see?

 

You bet I'm seriously asking this.

What are the chances of that ? And I mean exactly, statistically.

 

1 in 10,000 ?

1 in 100,000 ?

1 in a million ?

1 in 10 million ?

 

If anyone ever says there is a risk of something that requires draconian measures to be taken they should have stats to back that risk up.

Saying "it could conceivably happen" is not good enough.

 

It's disproportionate nonsense.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Chekhov

[Bargepole23 337]

5 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

Are you seriously asking this?

 

Lets say some of the children have had to be uprooted a few hundred miles by their mother to escape an abusive husband. Someone takes a picture of their kids at a school play and these children appear on the photo. This photo goes on Facebook. Somehow the abusive husband sees it, and traces the ex wife.

 

Do you see?

 

In reality its got very little to do with paedos and "nonces", more other child protection issues.

Doesn't affect Chekhov directly, therefore can be dismissed as of no consequence 

[RJRB 688]

6 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

 

It worries me that so many people unquestioningly accept absolute nonsense without actually thinking about it.

Where will it all end ? 

It worries me that some people are only capable of viewing any situation as to how it impacts them  personally with no concern or consideration for the wider picture .

 

 

[Chekhov 488]

45 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

I think you need to read your own opening Post again. You are not banned from taking photographs of your own kids.

You just can't take photographs of anyone else's kids nor the wider group because there is no permission to do so from their parents.  Hardly an outrageous and unreasonable position.

Times have changed.  Technology has evolved.  Its absolutely right that parents should have a choice about whether images of their children are being taken and distributed and uploaded onto the public web without their consent or control.

It's not stressful occasion at all. Very simple rules to be followed. You only seem to making it stressful by becoming angry and outraged about something which is in fact more than reasonable.

I think it is unreasonable.

To quote :