dad branded a pervert

[BERNADETTE]

You are allowed to take pictures in schools after you sign a form.

[Lilly]

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE

You are allowed to take pictures in schools after you sign a form.

The situation is that all parents must sign a consent form giving their permission for their child to be recorded / photographed.

All parents need to give permission. If one parent refuses permission then nobody can film or take photos of the children as a group.

If you want photos of your own child you can pull them to one side and take photos at the end of the play but you can't photograph others who are performing if somebody's parents haven't approved.

[Studio25]

Originally Posted by blazey

I actually agree with the no filming of school plays policies now after realising how some young people will be put at risk if people may try to find them to take them away from their homes or harm them...

You're kidding, right?

The videos, whether filmed by the school for sale to parents, or filmed by a parent for their own use, will only be shown to a restricted set of people. In another thread I have open in a tab at the moment, I'm seeing the name of a child, mum's name and surname (I think), the school he goes to and, implicit in the fact he's leaving primary school, his age. If I were the sort of person that parents should worry about, that parent should be more worried about what she types online than what her school might put out on a play DVD.

The solution for schools is simple: Sell or issue tickets through parents only, My son's school have a reasonably sensible attitude to it: If names are rolled along in a title sequence, they don't have character names or any other way of matching name to face. I still think it's too restrictive, but it does appease those who might think school vids are a potential problem...

Originally Posted by Lilly

...All parents need to give permission. If one parent refuses permission then nobody can film or take photos of the children as a group...

Our school has that one covered, too: Any child whose parent doesn't want them to be on video or photographed simply doesn't take part in the play.

[Lilly]

Originally Posted by Studio25

Our school has that one covered, too: Any child whose parent doesn't want them to be on video or photographed simply doesn't take part in the play.

That's the simple solution and saves a lot of messing.

It's a shame for the child who misses out though.

I'm sure that most parents who refuse permission have a valid reason for doing so such as not wanting a violent ex partner to know their whereabouts.

There's no way to keep everyone happy....you either tell 29 sets of parents that they can't take photos or you have one little child who, through no fault of their own, can't be in the play.

[Loz]

Is this a recent ruling in schools?
I'm sure when i was at primary and secondary school that there was never a problem with parents or teachers taking photos of plays or sports days etc... I've got a picture that was taken on the spur of the moment when we were in R.E class at high school,everybody got a copy and it holds good memories i guess this wouldn't be allowed now?
Very sad.

[steeljack]

bit of a wander from original thread , but somewhat similar theme.........

Just what do these Criminal records checks actually achieve ? for anyone with a record for messing with kids its highly unlikely he would apply for one in the first place , similarly a woman who has a record for shoplifting a tin of peas 15 yrs ago , is she barred from being a dinner lady ? , is a woman who has a conviction for 'soliciting' 40 yrs ago prevented from being a lollipop lady .....hardly seems fair
Question is, where is the line drawn and who decides , is it a qualified Judge or some clerk /typist in the council office
The more I read about it, the more it seems its just another sop to mass hysteria and a way of raising money from folks looking for a job .
Thanks

[blazey]

Maybe I just think it makes sense because of my past situation. I guess it does sound stupid who doesn't have to ever experience that situation. Lucky you.

[Studio25]

Originally Posted by steeljack

...Just what do these Criminal records checks actually achieve ? ...

You get a certificate showing convictions. For exempt jobs such as the police, care of vulnerable people (inc children) and the MoD, the certificate shows all convictions- not just those that have "expired" according to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

The ludicrous thing is that it only shows that you've not been caught for any offences, if doesn't mean you've not perpetrated any.

Originally Posted by steeljack

....for anyone with a record for messing with kids its highly unlikely he would apply for one in the first place...

You'd be surprised. You'd also be surprised how many times the report comes back with something worrying on it, and it's missed by the person responsible for checking.

Originally Posted by steeljack

...similarly a woman who has a record for shoplifting a tin of peas 15 yrs ago , is she barred from being a dinner lady ? , is a woman who has a conviction for 'soliciting' 40 yrs ago prevented from being a lollipop lady .....hardly seems fair

The report itself doesn't bar you from doing anything. It's down to the interpretation of the person reading it. While one person might see a conviction for assault 20 years ago as a one-off, drink-fuelled anomaly; someone else might see it as a threat to national security.

Originally Posted by steeljack

Question is, where is the line drawn and who decides , is it a qualified Judge or some clerk /typist in the council office

The report is just a potted history of convictions. It's down to the organisation that commissions the report to decide if it contains anything worrying (I've just had one done for Scouts).

[Studio25]

Sorry for reviving this thread, but here's something I hadn't seen before, which works along the "all men are perverts" theory:

Airline sex discrimination