Modern Life Is Rubbish

[HeHasRisen 3,403]

3 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

 

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.

So the fact there is only a small chance of it happens means that every school should allow a free for all?

 

There is only a very small chance of being in a car accident, should we bin seatbelts?

Edited May 26, 2022 by HeHasRisen

[Chekhov 488]

Just now, HeHasRisen said:

So the fact there is only a small chance of it happens means that every school should allow a free for all?

Sorry, if I have understood you correctly, you are saying that even if there was only a 1 in one million chance of something happening then any draconian edict is proportionate ?

Do you know the definition of proportionate ?

 

[RJRB 688]

Just now, Chekhov said:

Sorry, if I have understood you correctly, you are saying that even if there was only a 1 in one million chance of something happening then any draconian edict is proportionate ?

Do you know the definition of proportionate ?

 

Proportionate response?

As evidenced by your many rants?

[Chekhov 488]

49 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.

You are right, times have changed, and for the worse : Modern life is rubbish (and getting worse all the time, sooner or later everything will be banned unless specifically allowed).

 

 To quote the opener:

 

How much safer will this make the super protected darlings ? = As close to zero percent as it is possible to get without actually being zero.

What are we sacrificing ? = Quite a lot actually, banning parents from taking all but close ups of their own kids, particularly at a one off never to be repeated event.

Conclusion = The biggest load of cobblers since the banning of opening windows on trains

[HeHasRisen 3,403]

2 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Sorry, if I have understood you correctly, you are saying that even if there was only a 1 in one million chance of something happening then any draconian edict is proportionate ?

Do you know the definition of proportionate ?

 

Draconian? Are they stopping you taking photos of your own kids?

Answer = no.

[PRESLEY 1,229]

8 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.

I agree about what you say about comprimising someones saftey but  on the same token a child who as been abducted could be found also.

[carosio 186]

The I.C.O's view:     https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/schools/photos/

[Chekhov 488]

58 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

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. 

It wouldn't bother me,  why should it ? 

And I suspect it wouldn't  bother the great majority of parents, particularly if it meant they could take photos of their own kids in the school performances. 

So, what we have here is assuaging  the lowest common denominator, the tail wagging the dog so to speak. In theory one awkward parent ruining it for everyone else

That seems fair, not.

[HeHasRisen 3,403]

Just now, Chekhov said:

It wouldn't bother me,  why should it ? 

And I suspect it wouldn't  bother the great majority of parents, particularly if it meant they could take photos of their own kids in the school performances. 

So, what we have here is assuaging  the lowest common denominator, the tail wagging the dog so to speak. In theory one awkward parent ruining it for everyone else

That seems fair, not.

Again: are you being banned from taking photos of your own kids? 

 

The answer is two letters and starts with an N.

[Guest sibon]

28 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

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 ? 

 

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.

 

This post says an awful lot about you. And not in a good way. 

 

I think that it was you who said that adults are supposed to protect kids, not the other way round. But that was part of your covid argument, where you wanted to endanger the population. This time, you want to endanger vulnerable kids, for your own purposes. 

 

Maybe, you'd be better served to quit all if the moaning that you do. Try to see stuff from a different perspective. It isn't all about you.

 

 

[Rockers rule 673]

10 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

It wouldn't bother me,  why should it ? 

And I suspect it wouldn't  bother the great majority of parents, particularly if it meant they could take photos of their own kids in the school performances. 

So, what we have here is assuaging  the lowest common denominator, the tail wagging the dog so to speak. In theory one awkward parent ruining it for everyone else

That seems fair, not.

So it wouldn't 'Bother' you if an all innocent picture of your son in a group photo of him and his swimming buddies was posted on social medial with disparaging comments to their sexuality, prowess, good looks, ability or any other form of belittlement the trolls out there thrive on.

I think we know the answer, of course it bloody would, 

And, God forbid the Pedo word comes out, innocent people have had to move house, been beaten up, petrol bombed and killed through 'innocent' photo's.

 

So 'Yes'    'modern life is rubbish'    if you don't protect you and your own.

 

Keep safe out there  .

 

[trastrick 866]

A couple things.

 

Across the world children dress up in their finest and parade down main street to be photographed. We're very proud of our young bright future citizens who march every year on education day. A camera is a must, and nobody objects.

 

They all love their class photos, school plays, and sporting events.

 

And why just children? What about women, or indeed all individuals?

 

To those who see it as an open invitation to paedos and abusive husbands, I would just say look into your own dirty minds. Abuse comes mainly from home, relatives or neighbors, and even institutions you trust with your kids, not random paedos and abusive husbands with cameras.

 

It's life.

 

Keep your kids at home if you want.  Have them wear masks all the time  so they can't be idenntified. "To stay on the safe side"!

 

"You can't be too careful, now!" 

 

How about hijabs for your womenfolk?

 

I'm with Checkov on this. It is the supressionists that have made this their latest big deal, not him.

 

 

 

Edited May 26, 2022 by trastrick