False accusations.... Any advice?

[albion]

Also be aware that the school may or may not know past issues . They sadly have to tick boxes.

 

[spen666]

There are so many things in this case





1. As said, you can take pictures of pretty much anything you like (save limited items like relating to defence) unless you are on private property when you need the lan owner's consent to ake pictures. If you have taken pictures without permission, you cannot be forced to delete them by landowner. Their threats are without grounds

2. If you have taken pictures with or without consent, they are your pictures and generally you can do what you want with them - save unless you are using them to blackmail bribe etc or as part of course of harassment. If you have pictures, you can tag them on fb or wherever you like.


3. If person is making malicious complaints, then it may be the criminal offence of harassment is made out



There are plenty of other issues as well that I have not covered

 

[gbb]

Taking photos of children does bring problems for those working in schools...it can be construed as grooming.

Free to take photos anywhere ? not really. If as an employee at a school there's a bar on taking photos at work , you'd leave yourself open to disciplinary procedures.
(i'm talking generally here, not about FM)
As stated earlier (apologies i can't remember who) the headteachers taking the easy route by going at FM...and in my experience, that's what they ALWAYS do. He who shouts loudest or causes them most trouble, headteachers bend down to and take the easiest getout they can.
I found getting in there and causing them as much trouble as possible usually works, dog with a bone sort of attitude.

 

[GM]

I hope this all works out in your favour.... On a lighter note, my daughter went to school with someone who is now rich and famous in the music world, (not to mention any names but she's been given a wild girl label). Anyway I took loads of photos of their school activities, christmas plays, sports days etc. You could in those days without worrying about PC. Several years later an agency offered my daughter over £400 for a photo of this girl. Naturally she told them no.

 

[spen666]

Thnak you all for your words & advise.
I know I have done nothing wrong, the school have listened to the complaint & have asked me if it true, the Head is willing to take my word it isn't. She has said that the school will now have to consider banning photos from being taken on Sports Day as well now, whcih annoys me - this person is ruining things for so mnay other folks, parents,grandparents, siblings that can't get to go watch these events & rely on photos taken by others that can. They really must ahve sad ife is this is what they do for fun!

Refer the school to the guidance from the Information Commissioner on this subject- IC is very clear schools should not try to ban parents taking pictures at such events

 

[spen666]

ERROR

 

[spen666]

Whoops - just read that FM works at school(s)


She will be covered by contract of employment.



My advice was referring to parents rather than employees

 

[mightyquin]

Not always. One of the scouts in our scout troop has a court order in place forbidding the publication of their photo anywhere for some reason that has never been vouchsafed to me. I would guess that it relates to preventing their rediscovery by an abusive ex-partner of the parent or perhaps, more extremely, a witness protection issue but that is only a guess.

I'm not saying you're wrong but...........

Taking a photo isn't the same as 'publication'. What about if that kid is on a day out somewhere, at a tourist attraction lets say. Do the parents stop everyone from using their cameras? Really? What about being picked up on CCTV? Footage could be replayed at some point on the telly, how do they know about the court order?

I think you would need to know the full details of any court order, it might have applied specifically to the scout group website/publications perhaps.

 

[vernon]

Whoops - just read that FM works at school(s)


She will be covered by contract of employment.



My advice was referring to parents rather than employees

Spen666 - you are demonstrating a lack of knowledge of how schools operate, grooming and, contracts of employment within schools.

Schools have a duty to protect children (the degree of protection is open to debate) as well as educate them.
Taking photos of children is not grooming.
Contracts of employment do not have 'no photography' clauses in them.

 

[spen666]

Spen666 - you are demonstrating a lack of knowledge of how schools operate, grooming and, contracts of employment within schools.

Schools have a duty to protect children (the degree of protection is open to debate) as well as educate them.
Taking photos of children is not grooming.
Contracts of employment do not have 'no photography' clauses in them.

WTF are you on about


a) I have not suggested taking pohotos of children is grooming - I know it is not.

b) I have not said what is and is not within a contract of employment. I have said that an employee is covered by the terms of a contract of employment. Their powers to do things will differ from a member of the public. They can be sacked or disciplined if they break their contract



You are demonstrating a lack of ability to read





Oh and I have not commented on how schools operate, I have however correctly commented on the legal power of an individual to take and use photos they have taken (Individual not employee)

 

[spen666]

I'm not saying you're wrong but...........

Taking a photo isn't the same as 'publication'. What about if that kid is on a day out somewhere, at a tourist attraction lets say. Do the parents stop everyone from using their cameras? Really? What about being picked up on CCTV? Footage could be replayed at some point on the telly, how do they know about the court order?

I think you would need to know the full details of any court order, it might have applied specifically to the scout group website/publications perhaps.

I would hazard a guess that any order may prevent the naming of individual in publications. The order may define where photo cannot be published. It is difficult to comment without seeing a copy of the court order



As you say the image could easily be published by others unwittngly.

 

[vernon]

WTF are you on about


a) I have not suggested taking pohotos of children is grooming - I know it is not.

Mea culpa it was someone else who made that observation.

I stand by my other comments.

Replying to this posting will add no value to the advice given to FM the issue has been fully addressed and I think she has a good idea of the actions to take.

 

[spen666]

True. I meant publication as in putting a photo onto a paper publication or a website etc.

So parent at Blackppol pleasure beach takes a photo of their child on a ride and posts it on FB. They do not know this scout (well call him "X") and know nothing of the order. Are you suggesting they are in contempt of court because X happens to be in the background as he was on the ride as well?

That cannot be an enforceable order

Obviously a court order could never give 100% protection but whilst the chances of being caught on CCTV are high to certain, the chances of that then being published are minuscule.

As for the detail of the court order, I don't need to know it at all. I have been told by people I trust that something is not to be done. That is sufficient.

Without knowing the details of the court order, you are:

1. Relating hearsay evidence without knowing what the order says

2. putting yourself at risk of either:
a) breaching the order inadvertently becuse the person rlaying the order to you has made a mistake. This would not afford you a defence to contempt of court proceedings as where you have knowldge of the order, the court expect you t make sure of the extent of the same
b) trying to restrain others lawfully taking pictures because you are not in possession of the correct nformation as to the extent of the court order.

It is of course your choice not to examine the court order and to rely on someone elses interpretation of the order

 

[spen666]

FM



Information Commissioner links

http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/docum...ristmas_duck_outs_press-release_07122010.ashx

Press Release

7 December 2010

Parents can snap away this Christmas

The Data Protection Act does not prevent family and friends from taking photographs at school concerts or plays this Christmas, the Information Commissioner said today.

Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham said:

"Having a child perform at a school play or a festive concert is a very proud moment for parents and is understandably a memory that many want to capture on camera. It is disappointing to hear that the myth that such photos are forbidden by the Data Protection Act still prevails in some schools.

"A common sense approach is needed – clearly, photographs simply taken for a family album are exempt from data protection laws. Armed with our guidance, parents should feel free to snap away this Christmas and stand ready to challenge any schools or councils that say ‘Bah, Humbug’ to a bit of festive fun."

The ICO has produced guidance to dispel any confusion and explain parents’ rights under the Act. The guidance also provides advice for local education authorities and those working within schools, explaining that the Data Protection Act is unlikely to apply in most situations where photographs are taken by parents in schools.

The Act does apply when photographs of children are taken for official use by a school or college such as for issuing identification passes. In the other small number of instances where the Data Protection Act does apply, if the photographer obtains permission from the parent or individual to take a photograph, then this will usually be enough to ensure compliance.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/about_us/perf...h_and_reports/annual_report_summary_2011.ashx

 

[classic33]

If you feel you know the accusser try going under the Harrassment Act.
http://www.problemneighbours.co.uk/rights-under-protection-harassment-act.html

What Constitutes Harassment?
Harassment can occur in many forms. It can include, but is not limited to, the following types of behaviour:

• Threats of violence against you or an actual act of violence committed upon you
• Abusive and/or insulting behaviour or words
• Threats of damage to your property and possessions or actual damage to them
• Any written form of abuse or threat made to you, including letters, graffiti or any other kind of written material such as posters being put up that are derogatory towards you

Basically, harassment can be any type of behaviour or action taken towards you which threatens your own sense of security and peace or which causes you unnecessary inconvenience.
Its happenned more than once, at seperate locations and you believe the same person to be responsible. You also have clearly said that it is causing you some concern.

Speaking for myself & repeating what others have already said, photography in a public place is not illegal. Also worth noting that in the UK no-one has copyright over their own features. The school allowed the pictures to be taken, what did they think would be done with them. I'm old fashioned, I still use film, but if I take pictures of people then it is usually so that they can be shown, in printed form, to others at a later date.

Get the school & the accuser to put up or shut up.

I had a well known high street shop accuse me of taking pictures that are banned under law from high street processing. Their system couldn't be wrong, nor could they. Every argument presented by them, as to why they were mine was destroyed in front of them. I'd met them head on & it wasn't expected. But the content of the photos & the fact that they had placed security outside the office for when I was invited to see the manager didn't rest easy for me. Not nice at all.