Modern Life Is Rubbish

[carosio 186]

www.actnow.org.uk – the only data protection resource specific to local government

Videos (schools)
Before any children or young people up to the age of 18 can appear in your video, you
must get parental consent. You can do this in the same way as for photographs of
children, using the relevant parental consent form. Similarly, you must get the permission
of anyone in your video who is not part of a crowd and is easily recognisable.
 

The question arises as to whether parents can make video recordings of nativity plays and
similar school events. Yes they can because there is an exemption under the Act for
personal and domestic purposes. The School should inform parents who wish to do so that
they should be for personal and domestic use and no other use. This should be done
before the event and parents who object to their child being in a school play which may be
videoed should express their preference when such a production is proposed.

 

Also    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/jun/23/photos-children-school-ban

[Guest sibon]

20 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

This is BS.

I have quite specifically pointed out that when my lad's class are having their swimming lesson they do not need protecting from a parent in the viewing gallery, particularly as there are 30 other kids there, probably a teacher or two, and three coaches. 

I will repeat, what exactly do you think could happen ?

 

BTW, who is it about ?

Who exactly is it who is in favour of all this disproportionate cobblers ?

And, more to the point, why exactly are they in favour of it ?

Just saying "it's child protection so anything is acceptable" is not an adequate reason, what exactly are these people trying to achieve with their rules and restrictions ?

Let's start with the question I posed in the paragraph above.

Over to you.

You think that child protection is bs.

You think that public health measures are bs.

You think that Audi drivers are the Great Satan.

Or was that train drivers, I get confused. 

 

You need to chill.

[nikki-red 307]

One of the reasons for not allowing school photos etc on social media is of the risk to any child/children that may be, for example, in foster care to keep them safe/away  from abusive parents. Something as seemingly innocent as a school photo could end up disclosing an at-risk child’s whereabouts.

 

[Rockers rule 673]

9 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I cannot imagine there are many, if any, people who would bother doing such a thing. Why would they ?

Just so long as I never have to see it why should I care anyway ?

 

 

You really should get out more. social media is full of the pillocks.

[steve68 66]

18 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.

from experience 20 years at least (ex) press photographer for 12 years , schools always kept an exclusion  list of pupils back then for safeguarding  reasons, not to be published in print or social media.

 

 

8 minutes ago, sibon said:

You think that child protection is bs.

You think that public health measures are bs.

You think that Audi drivers are the Great Satan.

Or was that train drivers, I get confused. 

 

You need to chill.

Justin doesn't seem to have any understanding or comprehension for  those outside of his own  narcissistic personality disorder.

[Guest sibon]

5 minutes ago, nikki-red said:

One of the reasons for not allowing school photos etc on social media is of the risk to any child/children that may be, for example, in foster care to keep them safe/away  from abusive parents. Something as seemingly innocent as a school photo could end up disclosing an at-risk child’s whereabouts.

 

Absolutely so Nikki.

The big risk isn't the photo, or the innocent proud parent, it is others with less pleasant motives. Unfortunately, there are a lot of those sort of people about.

 

The schools should know the kids who need keeping out of photos though. So they could take appropriate pictures and publish them. Then the parents could use those pictures.

[trastrick 866]

16 minutes ago, carosio said:

www.actnow.org.uk – the only data protection resource specific to local government

Videos (schools)
Before any children or young people up to the age of 18 can appear in your video, you
must get parental consent. You can do this in the same way as for photographs of
children, using the relevant parental consent form. Similarly, you must get the permission
of anyone in your video who is not part of a crowd and is easily recognisable.
 

The question arises as to whether parents can make video recordings of nativity plays and
similar school events. Yes they can because there is an exemption under the Act for
personal and domestic purposes. The School should inform parents who wish to do so that
they should be for personal and domestic use and no other use. This should be done
before the event and parents who object to their child being in a school play which may be
videoed should express their preference when such a production is proposed.

 

Also    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/jun/23/photos-children-school-ban

You'd better carry a briefcase full of forms.

 

EForms.com has sexual consent forms to pull out if youre engaging in a little chat up with the gal in the pub.

 

Don't leave home without one you young 'uns. "Better to be on the safe side", "just in case"!

 

And don't forget to bring a pen! Could spoil the evening for both of you.  

 

[RJRB 688]

40 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

This is BS.

I have quite specifically pointed out that when my lad's class are having their swimming lesson they do not need protecting from a parent in the viewing gallery, particularly as there are 30 other kids there, probably a teacher or two, and three coaches. 

I will repeat, what exactly do you think could happen ?

 

BTW, who is it about ?

Who exactly is it who is in favour of all this disproportionate cobblers ?

And, more to the point, why exactly are they in favour of it ?

Just saying "it's child protection so anything is acceptable" is not an adequate reason, what exactly are these people trying to achieve with their rules and restrictions ?

Let's start with the question I posed in the paragraph above.

Over to you.

Why do you need to attend your kids school swimming lesson,school sports time,or any day to day event on the school curriculum.

If it’s a swimming gala or sports day parents are generally invited.

If anyone takes their child to swimming lessons then in my experience they go to the viewing gallery,but don’t get involved in the tuition.

Same with cricket,football athletics,drama or whatever.

There is and should be a dividing line and there always was in my school days and in my children’s school days.

Parents can be both an interference and an embarrassment to their kids .

[Rockers rule 673]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

This is BS.

I have quite specifically pointed out that when my lad's class are having their swimming lesson they do not need protecting from a parent in the viewing gallery, particularly as there are 30 other kids there, probably a teacher or two, and three coaches. 

I will repeat, what exactly do you think could happen ?

& no sports coach has ever been prosecuted for grooming or worse have they    

Like you say "what exactly do you think could happen❓"

[Delayed 461]

9 hours ago, Chekhov said:

>>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

I don't need kids to recognise things being blown out of proportion. 

 

I don't think it's petty and unacceptable. I understand the rationale behind it in terms of safeguarding, data protection and the rise of social media. 

 

The world has moved on. 

[Delayed 461]

4 hours ago, Anna B said:

Anybody noticed how the 'Terrorism' threat seems to have gone into decline/disappeared during the Pandemic?

 

 

Probably because there weren't many flights going in and out of the UK for international terrorism.

 

And in terms of domestic terrorism we were all house bound so there were very few large groups of people gathering for a lorry to plough into, bomb to go off or people to stab.

 

But the countries terrorism threat hasn't lowered. Mainly because terrorism hasn't disappeared. 

 

 

[Chekhov 488]

2 hours ago, carosio said:

www.actnow.org.uk – the only data protection resource specific to local government

Videos (schools)
Before any children or young people up to the age of 18 can appear in your video, you
must get parental consent. You can do this in the same way as for photographs of
children, using the relevant parental consent form. Similarly, you must get the permission
of anyone in your video who is not part of a crowd and is easily recognisable.
 

The question arises as to whether parents can make video recordings of nativity plays and
similar school events. Yes they can because there is an exemption under the Act for
personal and domestic purposes. The School should inform parents who wish to do so that
they should be for personal and domestic use and no other use. This should be done
before the event and parents who object to their child being in a school play which may be
videoed should express their preference when such a production is proposed.

 

Also    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/jun/23/photos-children-school-ban

That is very useful thanks.

2 hours ago, sibon said:

You think that child protection is bs.

You think that public health measures are bs.

You think that Audi drivers are the Great Satan.

Or was that train drivers, I get confused. 

 

You need to chill.

I did not say child protection is BS, or indeed public health measures. You're just making that up.

What I said is all edicts and laws need to be proportionate.

e.g. :

Speed limits = proportionate

Banning opening windows on trains = not proportionate

 

And Audi drivers do tend to be the most aggressive, everyone knows that, though if you want to discuss that I suggest you do it on the relevant thread.