cgksheff Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 I much preferred Mum to leave me at piano lessons to get on with it, same with ballet and gymnastics. So back to my question from pages ago - have they banned mobile phones as well? I know other pools that have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 I can't stand no photo rules. Not a bit They don't save a single child from abuse. They make us parents start fearing things that are way out of proportion to the risk. They stop parents from saving a cherished memory, yet there is probably a CCTV camera that captured it and we have no idea who looks at those. It makes us more likely to be suspicious of each other, which may prevent people striking up conversations and building relationships, which are the basis of civilisation. Much more abuse has been stopped by people who know each other spotting something wrong, so anything that works against social cohesion is a danger to children. So in short I would go so far as to say that the current way of thinking about poolside photography or playground photography, or school nativity photography, is so backwards that it actually endangers children more than protects them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbie Loving Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 They don't save a single child from abuse.[/QUOTe] Bit of a bold statement. yet there is probably a CCTV camera that captured it and we have no idea who looks at those. .[/QUOTe] I'm pretty certain provisions will be in place to limit the number of people who can view this. RE the original post. For me, it it is easy to tell the difference of any with cameras or not when you're close up. But, from a distance they are pretty much impossible to tell. Staff shouldn't need to go out the way to make sure there isn't a camera on the device.... So it 'could' be sorted at reception whether it is has a camera or not, but then the person would need to be given something so the staff aren't having to check on them. But if it is that places policy, you have choice, adhere or take your business elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PATHFINDER Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 I think the rule is bonkers but on the other hand if I saw someone suspicious taking pix of my child I'd be on them like a ton of bricks. Re: the several comments about facebook on this thread - I flatly refuse to go on it. Even with security settings. I find it annoying and phenomenally invasive as if you're destined to live your life through the actions/pokes and "likes" of others. (unfriending - God help us) Reason - it's like some kind of weird surveillance device. The general public are far too stupid about posting pictures here there and everywhere - take a site like Tripadvisor. I've got a relative who for reasons beyond me, when doing a review of an hotel or studio abroad will ceaselessly post pictures of her grandchildren. Delightful as they are, the site is there for pix of the accom and resort NOT pix of family - the same applies to morons who post pix of "Christine on the beach" etc. People have no idea of how they ruin the notion of privacy. In a way I feel sorry for Zest because I don't think they have a choice but to say no to tablets/phones. Having been to Zest though I'm pretty sure all the staff I've seen there could differentiate between a Kindle and a device that can take a pic. I definitely could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 @boyfriday :hihi: Answered on several occasions further back in the thread. Apologies, I should have read the thread before asking daft questions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jane2008 Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Not joking at all. A man who got results the . He'd have known what to do with ipads as well. You owe me a new keyboard :hihi: Funnily enough that is how I learnt to swim in Longley Park baths Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Thats fine nutty34 so as an IT manager you should have no concerns about friends of friends seeing any photos you post on facebook as you already have your security settings adjusted to stop that happening. In that case your scenario has holes in it. if we are not carefull in a few yrs time 66 million people will be banned from taking photo's in case a handful of people "accidentally" find something on facebook. I think nutty34 was speaking about others posting pictures on Facebook that they have no control over. {They've probably answered that point too, but Im too lazy to read the whole thread} ---------- Post added 21-07-2013 at 23:27 ---------- He was using a camera. And the fact that they are banned full stop means that there is no grey area the rules are clear. I think the problem arose from him using a concealed camera and took pictures of naked children with it, children who could have reasonably assumed that they were in a private place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Sorry going to have to disagree with you on a couple of points there. Willman didn't mention anything about sending them on a bus - not sure where that came from. He specifically said "stay at home". His/Her point is valid if a parent don't want to be there go home/shopping/browse the library and come back at the end of the lesson - at least let the parents who want to show support (but obviously not interacting or interfering with the lesson) and enjoy being there sit down. It's not really a ridiculous rule if you know the reasons behind it. They are there for a reason ebook or not. Why waste the instructor's, assistants/lifeguards and the rest of the class time trying to distinguish between a Nook/Kinder/iPad mini - the sessions are quite tight and busy as it is. Like I said, there is no reason for anyone to care. IMO the crux of the issue is the parent there for the child or themselves? You're on private property. Rules are rules and if a parent don't like them just go something else. Plus I don't know the exact funding nature of Zest but if they are public funded there are a few more policies and process they would have to adhered to. Private property, or a publicly funded swimming bath? And even if it is private that doesn't mean rules can't be questioned. ---------- Post added 22-07-2013 at 07:29 ---------- Get a grip. I am talking about small children of 3 or 4 years old who swims a few stokes unaided for the first time or jumps into the water for the first time. What is wrong with a parent taking a interest in their child's development and praising them for their achievements ? What is wrong with that parent reading a book whilst the child is taught to swim by a professional? ---------- Post added 22-07-2013 at 07:31 ---------- I will try again - have you got children ? This isn't the ultimate answer to any criticism you know. If he says no that doesn't somehow invalidate his opinion or strengthen yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kal el Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 not to worrie they lose funding soon so it will close down! And how do you know this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjyp Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 I can't stand no photo rules. Not a bit They don't save a single child from abuse. They make us parents start fearing things that are way out of proportion to the risk. They stop parents from saving a cherished memory, yet there is probably a CCTV camera that captured it and we have no idea who looks at those. It makes us more likely to be suspicious of each other, which may prevent people striking up conversations and building relationships, which are the basis of civilisation. Much more abuse has been stopped by people who know each other spotting something wrong, so anything that works against social cohesion is a danger to children. So in short I would go so far as to say that the current way of thinking about poolside photography or playground photography, or school nativity photography, is so backwards that it actually endangers children more than protects them. Hi richard, Just for some context I may have mentioned it before on this thread but the Zest place in Upperthorpe will allow you to take photos of your own child under certain conditions but only if you ask. I think that's commendable personally as some of them are parents too so understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.