Kate Wills Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 I am posting this here, instead of Utterly, as I feel it may have implications for the Forum. Last weekend I helped a national charity organise an event at a local community centre to celebrate the achievements of the charity's associate groups, thanks to funding from a high-profile source. I took a camera, and some shots recording displays and smiling faces, and yesterday took some prints along to distribute to the throng. Can you imagine how gobsmacked I was to be told by the organiser from the charity to destroy two of the images, and remove them from our computer system? The images portrayed an 85 year old grandmother (my long-time neighbour who lives across the road, who was my late-mother's guide leader) with one of her grand-daughters, and the other a mug-shot of her other grand-daughter on her own. Gran had brought both these teenage girls along to the event, to help out and enjoy themselves. I still cannot fathom why other shots I took (of mum and 15 year old daughter, and daughter alone - taken with mum nearby) were not also deemed illegal, as the one of gran an youngster was similarly taken with smiles and approval of both parties. In short, I was photographing friends at a social event. Lawyers, please, can you clarify the position? There are pictures of children on the Forum too, so it would be useful to know how we stand on this issue. Mrs Utterly Thunderstruck of Northampton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick H Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 I am not altogether sure of the legal position but I believe that under the Childrens Act 1989 you are not allowed to publish pictures of children without the consent of their parents in case these should be used by others for unsavoiury purposes on the internet. I can tell you that in The Boy's Brigade we do obtain permission from parents on the Annual Consent Form that any pictures taken of their sons can be used for publicity purposes. (No-one has ever objected or even queried this ! I would imagine the charity concerned were protecting themselves but its another sad situation. Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIGEL Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 When somebody poses for you Kate you would have to get them to sign a model release or have authorisation from the event or property owners to enter and take photographs. As regards the kids, you would have to have the legal gaudians permission as well as they could be used by some pervy's if taken from a a public display area Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desmond7 Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 If the granny/mum was happy for you to take the pictures ... tell the PC brigade to 'do one' ... they have NO right to put constraints on you whatsoever. End of. Des Consent = no problem. You should have dragged the organiser by whatever bit/bits you could get hold of and introduced them to the person who was 'in loco parentis/guardian' and said: "This idiot says I should scrap these pictures. What do you think?" They would have said: "Whatever for?" Important point which could be deemed political:- This is the 'locked door' scenario .. it only keeps out the honest man. Our society is being driven into a state of bloody paranoia, kids can't go out to play because adults are fearful of what might happen if a 'bad man' is around etc. The end result of this will be a further breakdown in our communities .. and God knows that has gone far enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick H Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 Desmond, thats not really the point. Those who are inolved in working with children are made aware of what can an cannot be done to a large extent to protect themselves against allegations of abuse. The organisers of this particular event are carrying out their own guidelines which prevent publication of any pics of children without the consent of the parents. They cant make anyone scrap the pictures or prevent anyoen having them on their computer, they are simply saying we cannot use them for publicity purposes for the reason I have stated. Unfortunately the very fact that there are thousands of paedos out there who can use these pics means that the rest of us have to be bound by tiresome but necessry retsraint. I will give you an example: in our BB Company scrap albums whiuch go way back, we have pics of cup winning swimming teams. No one now would dare of taking pics of boys in their swimming trunks however innocent, for obvious reasons. Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Morgan Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 Well said, Des. There are too many prople making a living out of protecting us from things that we aren't afraid of. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick H Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 Again with respect missing the point Tom. If you are involed in working with children YOU DO HAVE TO PROTECT YOURSELF. One unfounded and baseless allegation will ruin you for life so yes we do need protection Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Hone Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 Our school has started to issue parental consent forms so that the images of pupils can be used for publicity and website purposes etc. I have a feeling that the legal position regarding image posting is actually quite vague but schools and other organisations are acting on the safe (possibly oversafe) side, for fear of litigation. This has prevented me in the past from posting photographs of my battlefield tours including images of pupils on this site, after seeking advice from the powers-that-be. However in the past I had merrilly supplied the CWGC with tour photographs, for example, and they used one on their schools' educational CD-ROM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Clay Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 Isn't it the case, folks, that this is not a PC (whatever that is) curtailment of freedom but, as Patrick and Mark indicate, a self-protective reaction by the bodies concerned (charities, public authorities etc) in this increasingly litigious world? Sad, but this is a reality of the 21st century. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick H Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 Exactly Jim, thats the point. I have been working with youngsters for 30 years and there are dozens of things that one would have done quite innocently in the past that you wouldnt contemplate now. My sister is in nursery school education and if a child cuuts themself she is not allowed to treat the child on her own, there has to be two staff present. Like wise I cannot drive a 16 year old boy home from a band practise in case I assault him. The fact that a 16 year old would probably beat me to a pulp is irrelevant. But getting back to the point the sad fact is that there are people out there who use pictures of children for bad purposes which is why we have to get parental permission to have any photos published. Partick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 I am posting this here, instead of Utterly, as I feel it may have implications for the Forum. Last weekend I helped a national charity organise an event at a local community centre to celebrate the achievements of the charity's associate groups, thanks to funding from a high-profile source. ........... Lawyers, please, can you clarify the position? .............. There are pictures of children on the Forum too, so it would be useful to know how we stand on this issue. Mrs Utterly Thunderstruck of Northampton <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If I were you, I would contact the Social Sevices of your local authority. They ought to be able to tell you the steps you should take in order to comply with the law. I know how frustrating it can be for a well intentioned person to have to take these steps but they are intended to protect children and following them will protect you as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desmond7 Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 My main point of concern here is:- If we let the scare get out of control - and I submit we are in danger of it - the stage will come when a child is hurt, people will walk by because they will be scared of what might be said. That, in my HO is bloody tragic. Safeguard YES. But I submit that lots of people who would have become involved in good, wholesome, straight down the line youth activities are being scared by this VERY kind of attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john w. Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 I am even worse.. I film young people in schools... but we wont do it without any consent forms filled in and that is the domain of the school. No parent letter they dont get filmed... simple as that. We dont film unless the full aim and outcome has been discussed... Seems to work John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Hesketh Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 Kate, As I run a school website I've had to really pin this one down with the LEA (Mark's correct in that the rules are a little vague). Anyway the end result that I work to is: i) Gain parental consent for publication (I'm also advised to gain students consent) ii) If a photograph is published then no names or personal details should be attached that would allow an individual to be identified by someone who does not already know them, i.e. if I put a team photo on the site I can list the names of students but not in the order in which they actually appear in the picture. If the photo contains only one individual no name may be attached. iii) Pictures should not be in anyway regarded as 'provocative', i.e. 16 year old girls in swimsuits at a swimming gala etc. I am advised that 'head and shoulders' shots are preferable to full body shots. It's all a bit of a minefield really...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marina Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 Lovely photo, Des. The whole thing about children's pics is a hysterical reaction. Pervs are quite capable of taking their own photos, and of looking at children in the street come to that. What should we do - get all the kids into burkas just in case? Marina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desmond7 Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 I just took a hysterical reaction at how ug I was compared to my child!!! Gawd I'm gettin' old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Hesketh Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 I personally agree with the 'common sense' views put forward by the majority but I have to follow the same line as Patrick (or Partick is it? You on the beers my lad?). If you're working with children these days you've really got to take every conceivable precaution. In the paedophile conscious atmosphere that predominates you have to be so, so very careful. An accusation, even ludicrous and unproved, can destroy a career. I've seen it happen to a friend. Many teachers now work to the dictum that unlike others we are 'guilty until proved innocent'. Stupid, but reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Hesketh Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 I now note that 'Daughter of Des' has been removed whilst I typed the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desmond7 Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 Darn upside down .. Took mine off because I was too ug ..not because of daughter. Head hurts now trying to see pic right way up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Morgan Posted 13 November , 2005 Share Posted 13 November , 2005 Again with respect missing the point Tom. If you are involed in working with children YOU DO HAVE TO PROTECT YOURSELF. One unfounded and baseless allegation will ruin you for life so yes we do need protection Patrick <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I know all about that, Patrick. I have some experience of working with children myself. I was a teacher from 1966 to 1999, finishing my career as Head Teacher of a Primary School with just over 500 children on roll, aged from 5 to 11 years. I agree with you about the need to protect oneself against accusations of abuse or other kinds of professional misconduct. I have known members of my staff who have wrongly been accused of child abuse, and I have seen the damage it has done to their careers. I have also had the very difficult job of guiding the school through a situation where a teacher had been accused of child abuse and the accusation was true. But I'm not talking about that, and neither was Kate. Kate's point, if I understand it correctly, is that she is rather bewildered to find that a photograph she has taken, of a grandmother and grand-daughter, has been condemned because there's a child in it. The circumstances as Kate has described them are miles away from the degree of self-protection we need to employ when "working with children" - being aware of the implications of giving a student a lift home, or how we arrange things when the children are getting changed from a P. E. Lesson, or when a 6 year wants to hold your hand when you're on playground duty. Kate wasn't engineering a situation where she was alone with a child, or watching children undress, or anything like that. She was just taking a photo of people she knew, and who knew each other, at a happy event. This is why I mentioned being protected from things which we aren't actully afraid of. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick H Posted 13 November , 2005 Share Posted 13 November , 2005 Point taken Tom and I agree with all you say, but Kate was asking the legal position since the charity she was working with were so demanding about the pics she took. I'm afraid the society we live in does demand extraordinary protection guidelines but I always work on the basis that if one child is saved from sexual abuse then we who work with children just have to put up with the restrictions. After all, particularly in the voluntary sector, the parents are trusting us with their child. Des, I'm afraid that is exactly what is happening. A chap I knew came across a youngster who had fallen and hurt herself, and like any caring person he bent down and put an arm around her. Next thing is, the parent, who had been nowhere in sight, was accusing him of being a paedo and a dirty old man. Sad but these are our times Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Buck Posted 13 November , 2005 Share Posted 13 November , 2005 The images portrayed an 85 year old grandmother (my long-time neighbour who lives across the road, who was my late-mother's guide leader) with one of her grand-daughters, and the other a mug-shot of her other grand-daughter on her own. Gran had brought both these teenage girls along to the event, to help out and enjoy themselves. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What a topsy-turvy world we live in. Apparently these same teenagers could have an abortion without their parent's knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
healdav Posted 14 November , 2005 Share Posted 14 November , 2005 My reaction would have been to tell the bloke to go and take his tablets. But then, on the continent people who get worked up about this rubbish tend to get told off by the police. There is currently a case going on in the NORD where some individuals (its very complicated) accused an entire family of abusing most of the village's children. It was all a load of nonsense and they are now desperately trying to say it was all made up (from the depths of a prison cell as the police had already worked that out). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now