Modern Life Is Rubbish

[Chekhov]

22 hours ago, altus said:

You think those fleeing violent relatives, who've been deemed at risk enough to have been given new identities by the authorities, are going to take part in high profile public events and risk their new identities being linked to their old ones!

Absolutely. I said something similar earlier in the thread, if I wanted to keep a low profile I wouldn't be encouraging my child to compete at anything. What happens if they become very good at it, what are the parents going to say ? You can't go to the Nationals or the Olympics because you'll be in the papers.....

 

4 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

Why do you keep bringing this up? By your very own admission, these "swimming galas" are private events where, again by your own admission, there are no restrictions on filming by parents. So whats the issue ?

I fear you did not read carefully enough what I wrote :

 

Swim England's policy on photography in galas :

 

Swim England do not wish to stop parents photographing their children if they wish at their “moments of glory” but all clubs have to ensure they do all we can to safeguard childrenʼs well being in the current climate of concern.

 

I am in two minds  about this actually.

The first half is fine, but the second half could be taken to ban almost anything. In fact it is inconsistent with the first if taken to the sort of extremes which all this sort of stuff undoubtedly is. Particularly worrying is the phrase "do all we can", which is the thin end of a very long wedge. It could be said "Swim England" are not doing anyway, they would have to ban all adults from attending any swimming pool at any time that kids are in it. that would technically be "doing all we can".

The last few words sum up the paranoia existing in modern society : "in the current climate of concern".

 

Furthermore, very sadly, some pools [still] apparently stop photography at galas regardless of Swim England's policy, and a gala being technically a private event.

Edited November 1, 2022 by Chekhov

[Chekhov]

22 hours ago, harvey19 said:

What is the....Current Climate of Concern ?

"Current" is probably not the right word.

Basically the world, esp the richer western world, is becoming more and more risk averse, and, very sadly, most people appear to be happy to accept more restrictions on their lives in order to "keep them safe". That is regardless of if those restrictions are proportionate because, unfortunately, most people have a very poor grasp of risk probability. All these people banging on that we should ban photography here, there, and everywhere "to keep their kids safe" then drive their children about in their cars quite happily, many of them speeding in the process !

[trastrick]

22 hours ago, harvey19 said:

What is the....Current Climate of Concern ?

Well, we've had quite a few in the last 2 years.

 

Trump - Enemy of Democracy, Still here

Afghanistan - Fixed, sort of.

Energy shortage - Looks like those cheaper and greener solutions can't easily replace fossil fuels, after all.

COVID - Fixed, sort of.

Inflation - "Temporary" said the experts, but still here.

War in Europe Again - Not fixed, no end in sight. It may go on for years they say, (but not in OUR backyard)

Climate Change - Old Reliable. Still keeps changing. It's been cooling for the last 7 years, or so. Likewise Polar Ice.

Elon Musk - Enemy of Democracy. New kid on the block!

Recession - Fixed! Changed definition of term in use for all previous Administrations

 

Pick one!

 

Edited November 1, 2022 by trastrick

[altus]

2 hours ago, trastrick said:

They and their kids should stay away from public and publicised events.

 

They likely do!

 

So what's the problem? 

 

I never said there was one. You're the one who brought the subject of sporting events up.

[trastrick]

Just now, altus said:

I never said there was one. You're the one who brought the subject of sporting events up.

I believe that was our swimming expert, Chekov.

 

But no matter.

 

I though you were the guy that mentioned 

 

"You think those fleeing violent relatives, who've been deemed at risk enough to have been given new identities by the authorities, are going to take part in high profile public events and risk their new identities being linked to their old ones! "

 

I thought you were concerned about that particular problem. Easily fixed with a little common sense!

 

I take it we agree that those unfortunate individuals should not expose themselves or their kids in public events?

 

But we have normal parents who like to take pictures of their kids too, who are prevented from doing so.

 

Should they be lumped in with abusers and pedos, just in case?

 

 

 

[altus]

2 minutes ago, trastrick said:

I believe that was our swimming expert, Chekov.

 

But no matter.

 

I though you were the guy that mentioned 

 

"You think those fleeing violent relatives, who've been deemed at risk enough to have been given new identities by the authorities, are going to take part in high profile public events and risk their new identities being linked to their old ones! "

 

I thought you were concerned about that particular problem. Easily fixed with a little common sense!

 

I take it we agree that those unfortunate individuals should not expose themselves or their kids in public events?

 

But we have normal parents who like to take pictures of their kids too, who are prevented from doing so.

 

Should they be lumped in with abusers and pedos, just in case?

I'm the guy who thinks "If you're trying to find someone, don't know what their new identity is but do have a photo of them, it's a lot easier to do with a reverse image search. Instead of trawling through images yourself, you can ask Google to do it for you."

 

It's not about lumping them in with abusers and pedos. It's about them, probably inadvertently, exposing the location of people in hiding by sharing a photo on the internet. It doesn't have to be photo of a high profile event either. A school play/sports day/swimming gala/etc. are not high profile but are all events that a proud parent might want to share a photo of.

[trastrick]

27 minutes ago, altus said:

I'm the guy who thinks "If you're trying to find someone, don't know what their new identity is but do have a photo of them, it's a lot easier to do with a reverse image search. Instead of trawling through images yourself, you can ask Google to do it for you."

 

It's not about lumping them in with abusers and pedos. It's about them, probably inadvertently, exposing the location of people in hiding by sharing a photo on the internet. It doesn't have to be photo of a high profile event either. A school play/sports day/swimming gala/etc. are not high profile but are all events that a proud parent might want to share a photo of.

I think we agree that folks in the dire situation you mentioned, given new identities to protect them, and all that, would not and should not put their kids on display at any public event. It's a given that they will be photographed.

 

But what does that have to do with banning parents from photographing their kids performances at school events? 

 

It makes sense because...........?

 

[altus]

5 minutes ago, trastrick said:

I think we agree that folks in the dire situation you mentioned, given new identities to protect them, and all that, would not and should not put their kids on display at any public event. It's a given that they will be photographed.

 

But what does that have to do with banning parents from photographing their kids performances at school events? 

 

It makes sense because...........?

 

At small events, such as school plays, it isn't a given that they will be photographed. That people will want to photograph them yes, but it will be practical to enforce a ban so it's not a given that they will be.

 

It comes down to do you prioritise supporting an at risk child having as normal a childhood as reasonably practical or parents wanting to take their own photos of school events. I say 'take their own photos of school events' because a school could arrange for photos to be taken of an event and ensure that those released do not contain at risk children. Parents would still have a photographic record of the event, just not the one they took themselves.

[Guest sibon]

17 minutes ago, altus said:

At small events, such as school plays, it isn't a given that they will be photographed. That people will want to photograph them yes, but it will be practical to enforce a ban so it's not a given that they will be.

 

It comes down to do you prioritise supporting an at risk child having as normal a childhood as reasonably practical or parents wanting to take their own photos of school events. I say 'take their own photos of school events' because a school could arrange for photos to be taken of an event and ensure that those released do not contain at risk children. Parents would still have a photographic record of the event, just not the one they took themselves.

That is the solution. 
 

I’ve seen it done plenty of times. Unfortunately, some schools charge money for the photos/video recording, which makes people suspicious of their motives.

[The_DADDY]

3 minutes ago, sibon said:

That is the solution. 
 

I’ve seen it done plenty of times. Unfortunately, some schools charge money for the photos/video recording, which makes people suspicious of their motives.

My bold.

This...............👆

A few years ago I wanted to snap some pics of my kids sports day event thing. 

"NO NO NO you can't take any pictures....Muh Privacy, But you can buy them from school".

In this instance it was clearly a money making scam.

Edited November 1, 2022 by The_DADDY