Modern Life Is Rubbish

[Guest sibon]

35 minutes ago, Anna B said:

This is true. Sad but true.

When I was teaching the internet was in it's early days, but it was causing a lot of issues even then, photographs being one of them.

 

We had to write to all the parents (over 400) asking for permission to include photos of their children in the school magazine, (always complimentary, receiving a prize or on a school trip etc.) but it became a nightmare. Checking not just the featured child, but who was in the background, that sort of thing, and then cross referencing it with proof we had the all the relevant parent's consent.

 

Some parents will always object for whatever reason. The photo of the whole class with the teacher, became a thing of the past, which is such a shame as I greatly value mine from my own and my children's childhood which become more valuable historically with passing time.  

 

Then there was the school website, (schools have to more or less advertise their school these days on the web.) Again how do you do that without including pictures of pupils doing projects and other interesting things? And then there are the photos/ videos of school plays, sports days etc.

 

Teachers have enough to do without all this, so many schools have simply stop taking photographs.

 It's an absolute minefield.

It's tragic. 

A lot of schools include photographic permission in the home school agreements that they send at the beginning of the year. It still needs treating with caution though, because the personal circumstances of the pupils can change. So the schools need to be on the ball and they need the trust and support of all of the parents.

 

As for websites, getting permission is paramount. One school that I have worked at, photographed students from behind, so you could see what was going on, but not identify individuals.

 

 

[Chekhov]

3 hours ago, El Cid said:

It's just a word, vulnerable, it's their definition that counts and not ours.

The word vulnerable is not objective, it is almost meaningless, and certainly not without reference to some thing that is, for instance a person in their 80s is 100X (or whatever it is)  more vulnerable to Covid than someone in their 20s.

[harvey19]

It is a difficult area and one that can cause the loss of many families photographic memories because of the possible actions of an individual.

In a concert situation the "vulnerable" child can be put in a position where they can not be identified but this is impossible in other scenarios.

I wonder if there any proven cases where harm has been done to an individual because they or their family were identified from such a photograph ?

[Chekhov]

58 minutes ago, Anna B said:

This is true. Sad but true.

When I was teaching the internet was in it's early days, but it was causing a lot of issues even then, photographs being one of them.

We had to write to all the parents (over 400) asking for permission to include photos of their children in the school magazine, (always complimentary, receiving a prize or on a school trip etc.) but it became a nightmare. Checking not just the featured child, but who was in the background, that sort of thing, and then cross referencing it with proof we had the all the relevant parent's consent.

Some parents will always object for whatever reason. The photo of the whole class with the teacher, became a thing of the past, which is such a shame as I greatly value mine from my own and my children's childhood which become more valuable historically with passing time.  

Then there was the school website, (schools have to more or less advertise their school these days on the web.) Again how do you do that without including pictures of pupils doing projects and other interesting things? And then there are the photos/ videos of school plays, sports days etc.

Teachers have enough to do without all this, so many schools have simply stop taking photographs.

 It's an absolute minefield.

It's tragic. 

Where does it say schools have to ?

[Chekhov]

12 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

It is a difficult area and one that can cause the loss of many families photographic memories because of the possible actions of an individual.

In a concert situation the "vulnerable" child can be put in a position where they can not be identified but this is impossible in other scenarios.

I wonder if there any proven cases where harm has been done to an individual because they or their family were identified from such a photograph ?

I am very dubious that there has, and even more so that it is common enough to warrant the large social cost of trying to prevent it. 

Finding anything on the internet without the aid of Mr Google is extremely difficult because there is so much on there. It would be much easier if the problem parent knew which school the child was at, but if they know that the whole thing is a farce anyway. And, let's just be honest here, if a problem parent is prepared to put that much effort into poring over every photo of every school group on every website, they're going to find what they're looking for some other way anyway. It's all cobblers which is achieving very little if anything at all.

 

32 minutes ago, sibon said:

A lot of schools include photographic permission in the home school agreements that they send at the beginning of the year. It still needs treating with caution though, because the personal circumstances of the pupils can change. So the schools need to be on the ball and they need the trust and support of all of the parents.

As for websites, getting permission is paramount. One school that I have worked at, photographed students from behind, so you could see what was going on, but not identify individuals.

Paranoia writ large.

What we need here is lessons in gaining confidence and fighting fear and paranoia. And not just for the kids....

Edited October 30, 2022 by Chekhov

[Chekhov]

2 hours ago, HeHasRisen said:

And therein lies the problem.  In many cases staff may not know who the vulnerable person is (just that there is one), and the other kids/parents certainly wont, so far easier to ban it altogether.

Also try explaining to a child why they cant be in a photo.

We're off again, can you define vulnerable ?

 

>>Also try explaining to a child why they cant be in a photo.<<

 

You are implying the child does not know that the problem with so and so is not known to him/her. This is getting ridiculous.

Edited October 30, 2022 by Chekhov

[trastrick]

2 hours ago, altus said:

This is compounded by reverse image searches enabling someone who has one image of someone they wish to target to search for other images containing that person and hence their new identity/location/etc.

What is "compounded"?

 

What are the stats on the methods pedos use to satisfy their evil desires? They are looking for kids, any kid will do. Taking up photography?

 

Babysitting, grabbing an unattended kid in a shopping centre, on the way home from school, or running an after school or church choir practice is so much easier, and toffees/ice cream seemed to be a big threat back in the day!

 

Then you got the perv Dads, step Dads, Moms, and brothers and uncles.

 

It's a jungle out there!

 

There's a way, to cut it down, by making the penalties match the crime.

 

And they only get to do it once. No more "released convicted pedophiles" on your streets, who have solemly promised the parole board they will avoid contact with kids 

 

 

Edited October 30, 2022 by trastrick

[harvey19]

9 minutes ago, trastrick said:

What is "compounded"?

 

What are the stats on the methods pedos use to satisfy their evil desires? They are looking for kids, any kid will do

 

Babysitting, grabbing an unattended kid in a shopping centre, on the way home from school, or running an after school or church choir practice is so much easier, and toffees/ice cream seemed to be a big threat back in the day!

 

Then you got the perv Dads, step Dads, Moms, and brothers and uncles.

 

It's a jungle out there!

 

There's a way, to cut it down, by making the penalties match the crime.

 

And they only get to do it once. No more "released convicted pedophiles" on your streets, who have solemly promised the parole board they will avoid contact with kids 

 

 

I do not think this is anything to do with paedophiles.

18 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

We're off again, can you define vulnerable ?

 

>>Also try explaining to a child why they cant be in a photo.<<

 

You are implying the child does not know that the problem with so and so is not known to him/her. This is getting ridiculous.

Just to clarify it is probably the parent at risk.and the child is a way of locating them.

[Chekhov]

18 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

Just to clarify it is probably the parent at risk.and the child is a way of locating them.

I agree with you completely, but two points are raised :

 

1 - Those in favour of draconian  edicts "to be on the safe side" and "keep us safe", don't want to emphasise that because adults don't pull the heart strings like kids do.

 

2 - Even if it is actually the adults who need protecting, the prev poster seemed to be saying the child knows nothing of the problem ! 

 

Also try explaining to a child why they cant be in a photo.

[Chekhov]

34 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

I do not think this is anything to do with paedophiles.

Oh some people think it is, they are quite firm in their view that kids galas should not be videoed in case massed groups of Paedos want copies. Just why a Paedo should want a video of a child in a swimming race is never adequately explained, nor, even if these people do exist, is how that would directly put the children in danger.

As has been stated before, what is most significant is there are very few parents of competitive swimmers who agree with video / photography bans. Some might say the problem parent issue might also rear it's ugly and disproportionate head, but, TBH, if I wanted me and my child to keep a low profile I would not be encouraging them to enter swimming galas anyway. What happens if they turn out to be really good ? "Sorry sweetie but you can't go to the nationals or the Olympics because it might get into the papers or on TV".

 

Edited October 30, 2022 by Chekhov