Protecting children?

[Threeracers]

I privately hired a ballpark to celebrate my children’s birthday today and took some photos of the day. I was very surprised when they asked me to sign a register giving my name and address.

Although I am still not sure that I agree with the point, particularly at a private party, they didn’t ask me for anything to confirm who I was, they just wanted me to write my name and address in their book. What is the point of that? Anyone with an ulterior motive would merely give a false name and address!

I refused, pointing out that it was a waste of time. Can they insist? Anyone know the legal position on this?

[agent006]

Apparently there's something called "leisurewatch" which is basically a state endoresed scheme of interfering little busybodies. Their instructions are to challenge anyone who is taking pictures of children, and if your explanation doesn't placate them, then the police will be called, your equipment confiscated and your house firebombed by your neighbours.
there was a big article in Amateur Photographer a few months back about it (except the firebombs bit).

It basically means that any male photographer is pretty much prevented from using their camera in a public place.

[mikef]

www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf

[Monkey Boy 1]

A couple of years ago I organised a football birthday party at our local leisure centre for my two children.
This involved about 45 - 60 mins of indoor football & football oriented games followed by food in the leisure centres private function room. There were about 14 children there, all close friends of my own kids & each child got a party bag. My children, who's birthday party it was, were given the same party bags except in addition they were given a disposable camera by the centre for an extra.
The only problem is that they & myself were not allowed to take photos of either the football matches, the after mach party or even a "team" photo outside the leisure centre. Why give a camera if they were not allowed to use it. ?
So thanks to this "busy body" law, I have no recort of my own childrens birthday party for them to look back on.

[DJFish]

Imagine you're called to do jury service (You'll have to imagine it as if I'd actually done it I wouldn't be allowed to talk about it, especially on a public forum)
Imagine the accused is a fairly non-descript looking chap who was taking videos with a camera hidden in a holdall of kids on the beach and in the changing rooms of public baths.
Now imagine this chap nearly got off on a technicality because the defense was arguing that the pictures weren't actually obscene.....
You get the picture (if you'll pardon the pun).
I'm not au fait with the ins and outs of this new legislation and whether it would have applied in this case, but I suspect that had it been around when I didn't do jury service, the case would've been a lot more clear cut.

Just playing Devil's avocet...

Dave

[simpo two]

DJFish said:

Imagine the accused is a fairly non-descript looking chap who was taking videos with a camera hidden in a holdall of kids on the beach and in the changing rooms of public baths.

Which is not the same as parents being banned from taking photos/videos of their own kids in the school play. You can blame the media for making everyone think that every man is a raincoated weirdo out to steal children.

Somewhere there has to be an element of level-headed judgement.

NB I can't imagine that a photo of a child playing football is going to be of much interest to such people - heck, mail order catalogues are full of pictures of clothed children. It's hardly a taboo! Or will children all have to wear burkas?

>> Edited by simpo two on Sunday 25th September 10:19

[DJFish]

I agree absolutely that its a silly situation where you can't even take pictures of your own nippers, but the laws have to apply to everyone otherwise there's no point in having them.

As with a great many similar rules these days (gun laws etc) it's the law abiding individual that has to lose some of their freedoms for the greater good, or something like that anyway.

[simpo two]

DJFish said:

As with a great many similar rules these days (gun laws etc) it's the law abiding individual that has to lose some of their freedoms for the greater good, or something like that anyway.

Disagree. I'm a single man and the footpath to the town centre goes right past a school playground. To stop men *possibly seeing*, shock horror gasp, children at play you will have to ban all men from using this footpath. SO when muumy is in bed with flu, daddy can't take the kids to school and they'll have to stay at home learning nothing. They can't be left alone, so daddy has to take a day off work to look after them, because he can't take them to school because men can't use the footpath. But hang on - a woman-only footpath breaks the sex equality laws, so you will have to ban *everyone* from using the footpath. So the footpath will then have to be closed. Which means the kids can't get to the school gate any more.

You see, once you abandon common sense (which has got the human race from 4,000,000BC to about 1995 quite well) and try to legislate for everything, you just end up in a pile of contradictory poo that pleases no-one.

>> Edited by simpo two on Sunday 25th September 10:41

[DJFish]

Sadly these days, common sense has very little to do with it.
I'll just continue to take erotic pics of filthy cars in risque poses, much less hassle, until someone bans it!

[Kinky]

At Kinky Juniors school Christmas play the year before last, the headmistress stood up at the beginning and said that parents were welcome to take pictures of the play if they wished. She continued that if you don't what your child photographed, please feel free to remove them.

At which point everyone cheered and clapped.

Suffice to say no kids were removed and we all had a thoroughly great time, and parents commented afterwards how positive that was.

K

[m12_nathan]

DJFish said:

Imagine you're called to do jury service (You'll have to imagine it as if I'd actually done it I wouldn't be allowed to talk about it, especially on a public forum) Imagine the accused is a fairly non-descript looking chap who was taking videos with a camera hidden in a holdall of kids on the beach and in the changing rooms of public baths. Now imagine this chap nearly got off on a technicality because the defense was arguing that the pictures weren't actually obscene..... You get the picture (if you'll pardon the pun). I'm not au fait with the ins and outs of this new legislation and whether it would have applied in this case, but I suspect that had it been around when I didn't do jury service, the case would've been a lot more clear cut. Just playing Devil's avocet... Dave

There is a difference between someone nothing to do with the subject matters taking pics in a covert fashion and parents, or parents of friends recording their own childrens partys and football matches, to even compare the two is utter madness.

[wedge girl]

I thought you were asked to sign in inorder that they could inform you that under child protection act, you should not publish a photo with the childs name/location without the prior consent of the parents of each child.

[simpo two]

Kinky said:

At Kinky Juniors school Christmas play the year before last, the headmistress stood up at the beginning and said that parents were welcome to take pictures of the play if they wished. She continued that if you don't what your child photographed, please feel free to remove them. At which point everyone cheered and clapped.

Perfect solution - shame them into seeing sense! Not sure about the name of the school though

wedge girl said:

I thought you were asked to sign in inorder that they could inform you that under child protection act, you should not publish a photo with the childs name/location without the prior consent of the parents of each child.

That sounds much like a model release form, used for adults.

[simpo two]

DJFish said:

I'll just continue to take erotic pics of filthy cars in risque poses, much less hassle, until someone bans it!

Don't laugh, Labour will get a fourth term...