On the Jeremy vine show(radio2) today, they had a bloke on who took some pictures of his son playing footy,,?

Question

He was with his wife and daughter and was clearly just being a proud dad, yet he was told to stop doing it. Even tho, its allowed by law to take pics in a public place, even if other kids may appear on the photo. He was also told not to take any at his daughters nursery, so he stopped, yet 2 weeks later a woman at the same nursery snapped away un challenged, total double standards. If the law was on your side and you were 1 of the 99.9999999% of innocent dads out there, would you stop photographing a child playing sport or continue within the law. I would continue, as its time us innocent dads wer'nt treated as criminals when we are just doting on our kids. also nativity plays are seeing cameras banned yet some schools have there own photographer do it, who then sell the prints. Whos to say this non-parent isnt the pervert? I wouldnt mind other parents taking pics that included my kids, but i wouldnt be told no cameras and then have a stranger take them. What do you think?

Answer 1

I agree. I know that people are worried about their children and sexual predators. But personally I really don't think there is much difference to how it was forty years ago or so. It is just that there is such easy access to information, the media makes stories into dramas, there are moving pictures and the internet. There is nothing wrong with taking pictures/video of your children playing football - my guess is that it has only taken a couple of parents at one school pointing fingers at someone taking photos and making a drama about it and now we have this silly situation where noone can keep memories of their children. Its not even as if the children are unclothed or anything - the world has deteriorated into illogical madness. Keep taking the photos. The worst of it is, if you don't, the children lose their memories as well.. of the good times..

Answer 2

Yet another sign, I'm afraid, that allowing the perverted desires of a tiny minority to dominate the thinking of the adult population is destroying normal life in our land. Last year a three-year-old girl wandered from a nursery, crossed a road, and fell into a garden pond and drowned. I find it hard to believe nobody saw her wandering about, particularly as the road was quite busy ('though not a main road): more likely the thing uppermost in any passing adult's mind was the fear of being accused of attempting to abduct the girl.

Answer 3

at the school where i work parents are only allowed to take photographs if they sign to say that they are for their own personal use - i know that some pervert may abuse this - but what else can be done to pretect innocent children--- if there's a will there's a way - it's a sad world that we live in everyone is guilty untill proved innocent

Answer 4

I think the people who object to other people taking photos are the ones with problems. You've got to have a fairly sick mind to suspect a parent taking pictures of his own kid playing football is up to no good.

It'a a sad world when even dads feel uncomfortable about stuff like this.

Answer 5

You are absolutely correct schools cannot argue protection of children then turn that to their advantage just to make a profit that is farcical if my two were still at school I would definitely photograph my own children it's something any parent would do memories like that are not to be bought.

Answer 6

"relating the Sandyhook shooting, isn't it a actuality that there could have been some distance fewer deaths if the criminal in basic terms had a pitchfork instead of semi-computerized firearms?" >>>it incredibly is correct, there might even have been greater deaths if he were armed with a machete than a pitch fork. it incredibly is a pointless loaded question, analagous to saying being run over by ability of a automobile is worse than being run over by ability of a bike. "If weapons have been banned, those perpetrators does no longer be waiting to get such hassle-free accessibility to those weapons, might they?" >>>it incredibly is a pointless assertion because of the fact the 2d assertion is an obtrusive logical effect of the 1st. of course it may be 'much less hassle-free' to get a gun in the event that they have been banned. it would additionally be much less hassle-free to drink force and kill somebody if alcohol became banned. The argument ignores that it would nevertheless be 'no longer that no longer hassle-free' to acquire a weapon nevertheless "the united kingdom cost for gun murders is decrease than 50 consistent with year. isn't that an staggering argument for all international places to undertake a similar stringent regulations that we've for gun possession?" >>>>Why concentration on gun homicide in basic terms? uk hardly has the international's lowest homicide cost or the international's lowest crime cost. many international locations with much less draconian and crazed anti-gun regulations have decrease homicide and decrease crime expenses than the united kingdom.

Answer 7

I heard the programme and thought it was a very interesting debate.

A male colleague was telling me that he is now afraid of taking his grand-daughters to play in the park in case someone accuses him of being a paedophile.

I think we need to reintroduce a bit of good old fashioned common sense back into life in the UK.

Answer 8

I agree its another example of the nanny state gone mad. As a parent and grandparent the photos I have of my children and grandson are vital to me, they mean the world to me. I would defend my right and the right of all parents to take thousands of photos of their kids, its the only way to keep all the memories alive.

Answer 9

I think the world is going nuts.....All of this stuff is going too far.
Just as is scares some parents to death to consider a physical punishment for fear of being thought of a child abuser.
As you say, it is the odd small number of people who are changing the rules for everyone.
As I say it's gone too far.

Answer 10

Another gooner. I agree with you.