Modern Life Is Rubbish

[HeHasRisen]

"Sorry little Jimmy, you cant feature in the school play, some bloke in the audience wants to film the play and remember your Daddy is hunting your Mummy down and we cant take the chance"

[melthebell]

5 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

"Sorry little Jimmy, you cant feature in the school play, some bloke in the audience wants to film the play and remember your Daddy is hunting your Mummy down and we cant take the chance"

Yup, sometimes, just sometimes there's bigger things in the world than Mr Chekhovs wants

[Guest sibon]

42 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Again, you are saying "child protection" means anything is acceptable no matter how small the risk. I say you are being disproportionate.

I have estimated roughly what I think the odds are of anything untoward happening because of photos being taken, but what is your estimate of the odds ? I suspect you will not answer because, just like in the pandemic, odds and figures are nor relevant to you. I have news for you, estimates of risk probability are essential for any decision about anything.

You've been asked to take a course of action to help to protect vulnerable kids. It is a quite staggering piece of arrogance on your behalf to claim that you know better.

 

Let's ask that question again. How many abused kids is a reasonable number to protect your freedom to photograph mini Justin?

[RJRB]

And it is not purely the possibilities already given.

Online bullying,trolling is a very real threat from others who get some kick out of it.Why expose kids to this unpleasant aspect of the internet.

I suspect that the headmaster is well aware of this and expects support from his pupils parents when difficult decisions have to be made.

Even to protect a minority.

[Rockers rule]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

Funnily enough some of the other parents came up with this explanation but their answer was those kids could absent themselves from the performance, or wear fancy dress with a mask so are not recognisable, or hang about at the back etc etc.

 

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.

 

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 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.

 

 

How can anyone be so 

 

[Chekhov]

1 hour ago, sibon said:

You've been asked to take a course of action to help to protect vulnerable kids. It is a quite staggering piece of arrogance on your behalf to claim that you know better.

 

Let's ask that question again. How many abused kids is a reasonable number to protect your freedom to photograph mini Justin?

Do you know much about the internet because your arguments are indicating you do not actually know that much.

Assuming the child is not named, so Google can find the text, the chances of anyone finding a random picture of anyone is minuscule. Of course if the feared father knew what school the child was at that would make it quite a bit easier, but if they know what school the child was at all of this would be pointless anyway.

But all of this is shooting at the wrong target, the school should be emphasising that parents cannot put photos on publicly accessible sites on the internet. I am not on Facebook and I object to the fact that freedom to take pics of my own child's performances are curtailed because of something I have nothing to do with.

 

As for your tendentious question, designed to bypass people's logic circuits, I will answer that when you answer the question I posed to you numerous times about Mike Buckley's infamous comment, and another one as it happens  : how many kids a year can get killed on the roads in order for you to be able to drive ?

Edited May 27, 2022 by Chekhov

[Zinger549]

11 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Do you know much about the internet because your arguments are indicating you do not actually know that much.

Assuming the child is not named, so Google can find the text, the chances of anyone finding a random picture of anyone is minuscule. Of course if the feared father knew what school the child was at that would make it quite a bit easier, but if they know what school the child was at all of this would be pointless anyway.

But all of this is shooting at the wrong target, the school should be emphasising that parents cannot put photos on publicly accessible sites on the internet. I am not on Facebook and I object to the fact that freedom to take pics of my own child's performances are curtailed because of something I have nothing to do with.

 

As for your tendentious question, designed to bypass people's logic circuits, I will answer that when you answer the question I posed to you numerous times about Mike Buckley's infamous comment, and another one as it happens  : how many kids a year can get killed on the roads in order for you to be able to drive ?

You don't care about others you just care about yourself. 

[Rockers rule]

13 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Do you know much about the internet because your arguments are indicating you do not actually know that much.

Assuming the child is not named, so Google can find the text, the chances of anyone finding a random picture of anyone is minuscule. Of course if the feared father knew what school the child was at that would make it quite a bit easier, but if they know what school the child was at all of this would be pointless anyway.

But all of this is shooting at the wrong target, the school should be emphasising that parents cannot put photos on publicly accessible sites on the internet. I am not on Facebook and I object to the fact that freedom to take pics of my own child's performances are curtailed because of something I have nothing to do with.

 

As for your tendentious question, designed to bypass people's logic circuits, I will answer that when you answer the question I posed to you numerous times about Mike Buckley's infamous comment, and another one as it happens  : how many kids a year can get killed on the roads in order for you to be able to drive ?

Talking about'Bypass's and roads god knows how Chekhov will ever gets off  the roundabout he's on 🤣🤣

[melthebell]

Lol, reading everything else he whinges about you really can see why he's against everything to do with covid

[Chekhov]

2 hours ago, sibon said:

And, by the way, child protection is a thing that I know plenty about. I'm taking no lectures from you about it.

So you will know that the hysteria being whipped up by people like you is making kids actually less likely to get help from passing adults and increasing the danger they are in :

 

Child safety laws mean adults 'scared to approach children'
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2008/jun/26/childprotection.children
Adults are afraid to interact with other people's children because they fear being labelled a paedophile, according to a report published today by the thinktank Civitas.

The report, Licensed To Hug, calls for regulation and vetting to be relaxed because the "dramatic escalation of child protection measures has succeeded in poisoning the relationship between the generations".

In the past, the report says, adults would have routinely helped children in distress or rebuked those who were misbehaving but now think twice about the consequences. Instead, there was now "an atmosphere of mistrust".

 

Absolutely #2

 

 

2 minutes ago, melthebell said:

Lol, reading everything else he whinges about you really can see why he's against everything to do with covid

It is inescapable that the same people whipping up alarmist fear and crying out for more draconian restrictions during the Covid nightmare are usually the same people doing that about much else in life. 

And just like with Covid, there will be  a price to pay for all those draconian edicts, see above.

Edited May 27, 2022 by Chekhov