Modern Life Is Rubbish

[Zinger549]

21 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

Good reply . Would people trust some people not to put photos of kids onto facebook and the like . Sad thing is some people live their lives on social media 

Yes sadly some people have to share everything, that's why they have these rules in place.

[Chekhov]

10 hours ago, sibon said:

It would be perfectly reasonable if people weren’t idiots.

 

Sadly, we live in a world where people cannot see the potential problems that their actions could cause. Others have a very warped sense  of danger. 
 

For example, some people think that driving at 75 on a clear motorway is more dangerous than sticking your fingers in a plug socket.

 

 

Sorry, you have not been clear.  You appear to be saying it would not be acceptable to allow parents to take pictures of their kids' school performances even if they were told not to put any on the internet ?

 

Two points :

 

1 - I am pretty sure most parents would comply, shall we estimate at 75% plus ? I.e. that would reduce the chances even further of this malign outcome you are so concerned about, by a further factor of 4 to be exact. We really are getting into very large numbers here which translates into a very very small chance of any negative outcome. You say you are a science teacher so one assumes you know about statistics, so you should know this is getting out of all proportion, to put it mildly.

 

2 - Why should everyone suffer just because a small number of parents do something which is not even illegal ?

Edited June 4, 2022 by Chekhov

[melthebell]

27 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Sorry, you have not been clear.  You appear to be saying it would not be acceptable to allow parents to take pictures of their kids' school performances even if they were told not to put any on the internet ?

 

Two points :

 

1 - I am pretty sure most parents would comply, shall we estimate at 75% plus ? I.e. that would reduce the chances even further of this malign outcome you are so concerned about, by a further factor of 4 to be exact. We really are getting into very large numbers here which translates into a very very small chance of any negative outcome. You say you are a science teacher so one assumes you know about statistics, so you should know this is getting out of all proportion, to put it mildly.

 

2 - Why should everyone suffer just because a small number of parents do something which is not even illegal ?

You still don't get it do you? So wrapped up in me me me, they have to make policies that are for everyone, not pick and choose, get over it

[RJRB]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

Sorry, you have not been clear.  You appear to be saying it would not be acceptable to allow parents to take pictures of their kids' school performances even if they were told not to put any on the internet ?

 

Two points :

 

1 - I am pretty sure most parents would comply, shall we estimate at 75% plus ? I.e. that would reduce the chances even further of this malign outcome you are so concerned about, by a further factor of 4 to be exact. We really are getting into very large numbers here which translates into a very very small chance of any negative outcome. You say you are a science teacher so one assumes you know about statistics, so you should know this is getting out of all proportion, to put it mildly.

 

2 - Why should everyone suffer just because a small number of parents do something which is not even illegal ?

But you have already said that you are allowed to take photos of your own child’s performance.

Why are you suffering?

If one in four were to post on the internet or even one in ten then the policy has failed.

 

[trastrick]

On 03/06/2022 at 07:30, Jim117 said:

If you like Merlins you should have been where I was yesterday. East Kirkby airfield over in Lincolnshire. Just Jane was doing a taxi run at the same time as the RAF sent their Lanc for a fly past, eight Merlins running at the same time. Great day out 👍 Btw, I agree about the standard of museums. Weston Park for one was better before the refurbishment.

Lincs is famous for its air shows and history. Lanacaster, only one serviceable left, I believe, and Spifires up close.

 

Living and working on the East coast in the early 2000s while in semi retirement, history was all around, had to drive to Lincoln on business, and used to pass an old big house,  later found out it was Alfred Lord Tennyson's house, and where he apparently wrote Come into the Garden, Maude. No plaque or sign to indicate. On to Lincoln and the William the Conqueror's Norman Castle, built on an older Roman Fort. The 11th century "Jews House" on the hill.

 

The flat beaches that go out forever, and reveal stumps of fossil forest and part of ancient wrecks at low tide. Found and reported a wartime incediary device, and watched the authorites blow it up.

 

Taught in Spillsby, with its statue of polar explorer Shackleton. Was Science Link Governor, and memeber of the Staffing and Finance Committees, for Queen Elizabeths Grammar in Alford, where Captain John Smith of Pocohontas fame went to school. On to Boston, and the "stump" a landmark for returning allied pilots, they say. Some of the Pilgrims who founded the U.S. came from here.

 

Driving along on a beatuful day, passing old lone concrete pillboxes in the fields, which never had to be used to thwart the Nazis.

 

Then interrupted by the thunderous noise. Had to stop the car. Looked up and squadrons of fighter jets escorting a 747 with a huge radar dish on top, on their way to war in Iraq, reminding me of man's inhumanity to man. (A Mrs. Miniver feeling)

 

Some elders in the pubs, were aware of all this, but the young ones hadn't a clue.

 

On a drive up to Lindisfarme over a bridge on the Eske. Instantly reminded of Sir Waler Scott's beautiful poem about Lonchivar who has come out of the West "he swam the Esk river, where ford there was none"!

 

This is not about me, its about your country, and how you got to be where you are in this moment of time.

 

(I felt the same awe when I was in E. Fife, Canada, and Central Europe, and again now I'm here in the DR.)

 

So Life is NOT rubbish!

 

It's about what you choose to see when you look around.

 

Pardon my "twaddle"! 

 

Edited June 4, 2022 by trastrick

[Chekhov]

3 hours ago, RJRB said:

But you have already said that you are allowed to take photos of your own child’s performance.

Why are you suffering?

If one in four were to post on the internet or even one in ten then the policy has failed.

No, you were requested not to take any pictures of your child's performance.

 

>>If one in four were to post on the internet or even one in ten then the policy has failed.<<

 

I can only repeat (with modification for 1 : in 10 )

 

Two points :

 

1 - I am pretty sure most parents would comply, shall we estimate at 90% ? I.e. that would reduce the chances even further of this malign outcome you are so concerned about, by a further factor of 10 to be exact. We really are getting into even larger numbers here which translates into an even more miniscule chance of any negative outcome. Sibon said he was a science teacher so one assumes he knows about statistics, so he should know this is getting out of all proportion, to put it mildly.

 

2 - Why should everyone suffer just because a small number of parents do something which is not even illegal ?

[steve68]

15 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Sibon said he was a science teacher so one assumes he knows about statistics,

Sibon should also be able to workout  then, who on an internet forum is just  excreting statistics from their rear end to fit a baseless argument. I think it's that commonly called as a formula (one to the power of A-hole)

[cgksheff]

5 hours ago, Chekhov said:

......

Sibon said he was a science teacher ...

 

No they didn't.

Not for me to confirm or deny it though.

[Chekhov]

8 hours ago, Chekhov said:

>>If one in four were to post on the internet or even one in ten then the policy has failed.<<

 

I can only repeat (with modification for 1 : in 10 )

 

Two points :

 

1 - I am pretty sure most parents would comply, shall we estimate at 90% ? I.e. that would reduce the chances even further of this malign outcome you are so concerned about, by a further factor of 10 to be exact. We really are getting into even larger numbers here which translates into an even more miniscule chance of any negative outcome. Sibon said he was a science teacher so one assumes he knows about statistics, so he should know this is getting out of all proportion, to put it mildly.

 

2 - Why should everyone suffer just because a small number of parents do something which is not even illegal ?

The above post should be taken in conjunction with that below to get to the aforementioned very big number.....

On 27/05/2022 at 10:05, Chekhov said:

TBH I think the whole risk  (that a child could be identified by some one looking for the mother etc) is exaggerated anyway, 

I'd be surprised if allowing photos of any school event resulting in anything significant occurring would be 1 in a million :

 

First there would have to be someone that was so desperate to find someone they trawled through online pictures, I doubt there are many of them around.

 

Second, if someone was that desperate to find someone I'm pretty sure they'd find them anyway and what we are bothered about here is someone finding a particular child who would not have done so had that photo not been taken.

 

Third, someone would have to take a close up enough view of that particular child for them to be identifiable.

 

Fourth, that particular photo would have to be uploaded to the internet (now, we reckon between about 1 in 4 and in 1 in 10 parents might ignore the schools request not to put pictures on the internet))

 

Fifth, the feared father would have to actually find that photo. People bang on about stuff being on the internet like it'll be found by everyone, I have a website and I know a fair bit about SEO, basically there is so much on the internet that making oneself visible on there isn't actually that easy to do (unless a name is on there, then Google will make it much easier......). So, unless he knows that child was at a particular school what is the chances he would find it ? And if he did know the child was at a particular school what is the point of all this anyway ?

 

Multiply all those up and you soon get to a very big number.

PS I am assuming that Sibon, the arch opponent of parents, who is apparently a physics teacher (and therefore, in a way, a scientists) know about statistics and therefore, in his heart of hearts, knows this is all true.

Edited June 4, 2022 by Chekhov

[RJRB]

@Chekhov

As you quoted my post I will respond.

Why not revise again to 99% parental agreement to further convince yourself that you are being treated unfairly or suffering.

Now try to put yourself in the position of a headmaster who has a job to do and that includes safeguarding his pupils as well as educating them during school activities.

So he issues clear guidance to pupils and parents regarding the rules.

So far we know that he excludes parents from school swimming lessons and if he wished could also ban  all photos of school activities.However he has allowed parents to photograph their own children.

He has his reasons for which he has a right to expect parent support just as he should expect support for any discipline required under school rules.

If you have a real issue take it up with the school but if they disagree you either accept or remove your child to somewhere more to your liking .