Modern Life Is Rubbish

[Chekhov]

9 hours ago, Zinger549 said:

You've been told before about safety concerns for some parents. There could be a court order in place witch prevents the Mum/Dad or another family member being in contact with a child.  If a photo gets posted on social media it could cause issues. But as we know you do care about others as long as you get what you want.

>>But as we know you do care about others as long as you get what you want.<<

 

Another who doesn't actually read the posts he replies to :

 

Chekhov said :

And I cannot be accused of being "selfish" here because I am empathising with other parents, as explained above (to those who actually bother to read posts they reply to).

 

>>You've been told before about safety concerns for some parents.<<

 

What's the risk ? I mean exactly, bearing in mind stopping parents taking pics of their own kids is a big step. And, BTW, many of those in that performance had masks on, if any child was of the type you say, surely the more logical step is to give them a part where they had a mask on ? Sorted.

But why would people put pictures of their kids on the internet when, err, nobody other than them is actually interested ?

More to the point you are showing an ignorance about the internet.

People seem to think if anything is on the internet loads of people will look at it, when the reality is there is so much on the internet that hardly anyone will look at it. That is just a fact.

[ECCOnoob]

Jesus Christ.  117 pages and well over a year later and here he is starting the same thread over again with the same winge which has been long debated and rebutted.

 

Get over it Chekhov.  You can't film and take photos of other people's kids without permission.  Your obsession over this topic is disturbing.

Edited June 20, 2023 by ECCOnoob

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

But your comment, from an authoritarian Leftie is a bit inconsistent.

I take it you are in favour of taking money by force from those who have more of it and giving it to those with less of it, in an effort, one assumes, to make life more fair ?

 

Who suggested doing that ( other than you ) and when or where?

Also,  what is this discussion supposed to be about,  taxation ?

[Chekhov]

10 hours ago, Zinger549 said:

You've been told before about safety concerns for some parents. There could be a court order in place witch prevents the Mum/Dad or another family member being in contact with a child.  If a photo gets posted on social media it could cause issues.

On reflection I do not think "online identification" is a the significant factor, remember videoing galas is also banned at many venues, and kids in goggles and swim caps are not even identifiable.

No, I think it far more likely there are just a load of ill informed paranoid parents out there who, by definition, are probably not that bothered about filming their own kids and think well, it's no skin off my nose to prevent other parents videoing their kids, so I'll go for it.

As an aside the whole system, is wrong anyway. AFAIK the excuse of data protection is cobblers anyway but at the moment it is assumed if a parent has not filled out a "permission" form they do not consent. Well that should be flipped around, the default position should be parents can take pics, a parent wanting otherwise should have to fill out said form to object, and have a bloody good reason for denying other parents the right to take pics of their kids.

 

54 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

Jesus Christ.  117 pages and well over a year later and here he is starting the same thread over again with the same winge which has been long debated and rebutted.

 

Get over it Chekhov.  You can't film and take photos of other people's kids without permission.  Your obsession over this topic is disturbing.

No your attitude is the one that is disturbing.

There is no way I will get over it, I am mad as hell I was prevented from videoing my lad winning his first ever fly race, I will never forget it.

 

>>rebutted.<<

 

It hasn't been, well only to blinkered people. It's quite the opposite. People come up with some theoretical risk and refuse to consider any objective facts.

 

>>Your obsession over this topic is disturbing<<

 

How do you mean, exactly ?

Have you got any kids at all ?

Edited June 20, 2023 by Chekhov

[Chekhov]

27 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

Who suggested doing that ( other than you ) and when or where?

Also,  what is this discussion supposed to be about,  taxation ?

>>Delayed said:
Life isn't fair, get used to it.<<

 

I was simply pointing out he was being inconsistent.

Life may be unfair but that doesn't mean we should not make an effort to make it less so.

[HeHasRisen]

I mean, there are people in a few months time who will have to make decisions about whether to eat or heat, or how they find the extra 4% in interest once their mortgage fixed rate finishes.

 

Just to add some actual real life "rubbish" things to the thread, like. 

Edited June 20, 2023 by HeHasRisen

[Delayed]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

I am pleased you admit the aforementioned farce is not fair.

But your comment, from an authoritarian Leftie is a bit inconsistent.

I take it you are in favour of taking money by force from those who have more of it and giving it to those with less of it, in an effort, one assumes, to make life more fair ?

 

I'm not a lefti 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Delayed said:

I'm not a lefti 

You perhaps don't know that anyone who argues with Chekhov is automatically labelled  authoritarian Leftie by him.

We have other far righties,   on the forum with the same tendencies and I proudly accepted that badge from them. 

You wouldn't believe how much it galls them when you are not offended. 

 

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

 

I was simply pointing out he was being inconsistent.

Life may be unfair but that doesn't mean we should not make an effort to make it less so.

You made the statement  "I take it you are in favour of taking money by force from those who have more of it and giving it to those with less of it, in an effort, one assumes, to make life more fair ?"

I'm asking you, Who has said that he is in favour of taking money by force etc. etc ?      Or are you another one who makes things up as he goes along in order to give himself an argument ?

 

[Prettytom]

12 hours ago, Chekhov said:

We went to the end of year "performance" by the school's year 5s and year 6s this eve.

Basically the year 5s were just the chorus (they didn't actually sing that many numbers either ! ) and the year 6s did the performance, their last before going up to secondary school. My lad is a year 5 and so I was only a little bit annoyed (though still a bit annoyed none the less) when we were told "not every parent has signed the agreement for photos so the use of cameras is banned".

Now, how upset would you be if told you cannot take any pics or videos of your child performing their last ever show at Junior school ? Any of the performers really, but even more so if yours was taking one of the lead parts ? And one of them was very talented, it would not surprise me if he ended up getting somewhere in show business.

This is totally unacceptable.

Why should some paranoid parents with an over developed risk aversion and an under developed knowledge of risk probability ruin it for everyone else ?

How fair is that ?

The tail is wagging the dog here.

 

And I cannot be accused of being "selfish" here because I am empathising with other parents, as explained above (to those who actually bother to read posts they reply to).

You should start your own school, with your own rules 

 

Advertise it as the school that doesn’t bother with pesky child protection, woke.  hippy nonsense.

 

See how popular it is.