In Scotland, Parents Unsure They Can Photograph Their Own Kids

W

wgerrard

Veteran
Local time
6:36 AM
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
2,450
View My Gallery
A BBC investigation has found "widely different policies" across Scotland about parents photographing their own children at schools, playgrounds, etc.

While I don't want to beat on this particular horse, previous threads on this subject have focused on attempts to prevent photographers from taking pictures of strangers and public buildings. In this BBC report, we see that the fear and confusion surrounding photography of children extends even to parents photographing their own children.
 
I imgaine a scenario where a child is being given a birthday party by his/her parents with invited mates from school and play etc ... are the parents game to take photos of their birthday child during celebrations for fear of being repremanded for photographing other people's children.

Could it come to this?

When the hell are we going to get over this and accept that life has risks?
 
paulfish4570 said:
what has happened to the warrior soul of the scots? just how far can the nanny-state mentality go?
Click to expand...

Haha...


On the Sunshine Coast of QLD, Australia, the local council is calling to ban female waitstaff at cafes from wearing singlet tops due to "health concerns" for customers. This is in a place that is 30+ degrees celcius and high humidity pretty much all year round.

You can add it to the list of other stupid laws around here, such as it being illegal to ride a skateboard after it gets dark.

Does my head in.
 
Same as to the warrior soul of the U.S. of A. ;-)

I would not call it "nanny-state mentality", but rather psychopathic.
And it's not just photography.

Why the heck do need my fingerprints and picture data to be electronically recorded on my passport? All because of the U.S.'s fear of me trying to bomb?
I remember that my British friends did not understand why we in Germany had to carry I.D. cards - and now?

Britain is more and more becoming Airstrip One.

Cheers,
Uwe
 
paulfish4570 said:
just how far can the nanny-state mentality go?
Click to expand...

I don't think this has anything to do with a nanny-state mentality. As the anecdote in the BBC reflects, many parents object to photography by other parents that only incidentally includes their children. E.g., Sally objects to Sam taking pictures of his own kids at a school playground because her kids might be in them.

On the other hand, many parents do not object. Hence, the confused state of local council policy in Scotland.

If those councils passed ordinances clearly stating that parents have the right to photograph their children in public places even if other children might appear in the photos, parents who do not want their kids to be photograph would still try to prevent it. Parental concern for a child's safety, however ill-considered, is going to trump anything the local council says. In addition, as other threads have illustrated, parental knowledge of their local laws on this matter is often distorted or nonexistent.

The issue is the unreasonable fear of photography, fueled by profit-driven tabloid exploitation of incidents involving children and misguided broadbrush anti-terror legislation.

And, here in that States, the opposing mindset is also fueled by cynical politicians trying to distract those independent redneck Appalachians from looking after their own best interests. Too many people seem to be willing to suffer with bad schools, bad jobs, bad local government and self-inflicted bad health so long as they can huff and puff about their "independence". The best thing people who live in those place can do is leave.
 
Last edited:
Paranoia is alive and well in the US, as well. And growing, as I get more complaints each month while shooting stuff for the newspaper.

This weekend I had a lady, who startled me when she yelled at me because she (and her kids) were actually standing behind me, demand I not take her or her kids photos because she was hiding from an abusive husband. I was shooting a local festival and there were at least 1,000 people milling around in a one block area of downtown, half of them snapping away with digital cameras.

I pointed out (being my usual ornery self) that it was pretty stupid hiding in a public area surrounded by 1,000 people. She found the police chief (a good friend of mine) and demanded my camera be taken away! Same kind of thing happens a lot these days.

Modern times.
 
say what? i'll huff and puff at will - because i can. huffing and puffing still is covered by the first amendment of the constitutuion, i do believe ... 🙂 and i surely do not need anyone - repeat, anyone - making health decisions for me ... 🙂
 
The US and the UK have similar bizzarre paranoias at the moment. Common sense has left the building and you can't say boo to a goose. Things will change though, hopefully sooner rather than later.



How can anyone complain about a someone using a camera in the UK ? The place is bristling with CCTV watched/recorder/information used by who ? Those that moan/whinge/whine/complain about private camera use should redirect their energies to CCTV if thay're so precious about their "privacy" (there being no privacy in the stalinist state that is the modern Britain) 🙁

(Rant over)
 
paulfish4570 said:
say what? i'll huff and puff at will - because i can. huffing and puffing still is covered by the first amendment of the constitutuion, i do believe ... 🙂 and i surely do not need anyone - repeat, anyone - making health decisions for me ... 🙂
Click to expand...

Indeed. You are quite free to huff and puff, strut and prance, or whatever. I'm just saying that a lot of the huffing and puffing I hear these days from people bravely asserting their independence is akin to people standing on the roof of their own collapsing home yelling at the neighbors to stay away and not restrain their independence by coming to help.

As for health care choices... well, I'm perfectly happy to let you make your own health care choices in perpetuity, so long as you are legally prevented from receiving any care at any facility receiving any public funds or compensation, and prevented from receiving any care at any facility that would recoup the cost by increased billing to paying customers or that would result in similar increased insurance costs. Either you pay for your care out of pocket or rely on private charity, or you don't get the care. I'm not willing to spend my money to allow you to have that kind of "independence".
 
Peter_Jones said:
...should redirect their energies to CCTV if thay're so precious about their "privacy" (there being no privacy in the stalinist state that is the modern Britain) 🙁

(Rant over)
Click to expand...

Let's hold off on the "Stalinist" adjectives until people are hauled off to gulags along the North Sea.
 
I got two letters saying a census form will come. It came saying to return it with data correct as of 4/1/2010. That was two weeks into the future. Fine.

Then I kept getting letters to please return it although it was not 4/1 yet. I finally gave in and sent it back ignoring the instructions on the form.

I hope health care works better than this.
 
Don't worry - this isn't the government.

It is, as wgerrard said - it is other parents getting hysterical - a problem caused by the many media channels competing by trying to scream exaggerations the loudest.
 
Ronald M said:
I got two letters saying a census form will come. It came saying to return it with data correct as of 4/1/2010. That was two weeks into the future. Fine.

Then I kept getting letters to please return it although it was not 4/1 yet. I finally gave in and sent it back ignoring the instructions on the form.

I hope health care works better than this.
Click to expand...

Former Census taker here: Everything seemed to work as it should. The letters and the reminders are intended to get you to send the form back by April 1. If you don't send it back by then, or don't fill it out correctly, paid employees will be sent to interview you. (So it would be pointless to wait until April 1 to send you reminders.) Letters and post cards consume much less of your tax dollars than paying a census taker to track you down, so the nagging makes sense.
 
I was told I could not photograph my own children. It was at a local outside swimming pool. The are rules about photographing in or around the changing room but nothing about photographing my own kids playing. There was no one in the background so no reason for anyone to complain. A life guard asked to to stop and said cameras were not allowed. I only had a small canon ixus with me. I stopped photographing as I had not read the rules at that point and did not want to spoil the rest of the day for my family. This summer they will get a different answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom