Photography Child Protection Grumble

[DRM]

i think the one thing that no one has considered is that a photographer could inadvertently take a photo of a foster child for example, who for child protection reasons is not allowed access to one, or both parents, that person could see who is caring for the child and try to make contact, I do know that this is one reason why these rules are put in place.

 

[Bollo]

Thanks Phil. The Wembley link is exactly the kind of thing that I was looking for when starting the thread.

Effectively charging parents for photographing (or having photographs) of their own kids, then bullshitting that it's to do with child protection, and almost insinuating the photographer is a nonce is something else entirely

Now we're getting to the nub of it. I imagine that your common-all-garden kiddie fiddler generally avoids wandering around with half of Jessops hanging
off his shoulders.

 

[Bollo]

i think the one thing that no one has considered is that a photographer could inadvertently take a photo of a foster child for example, who for child protection reasons is not allowed access to one, or both parents, that person could see who is caring for the child and try to make contact, I do know that this is one reason why these rules are put in place.

I know the original post is a beast and best read with a cup of tea and a biscuit, but this has been covered. It was a condition of competition entry that the parent or guardian accept that the child would be photographed and filmed, and there were no caveats on who would be snapping or filming. No agreement, no entry. The programme featured pictures of all teams. The event was streamed live on the interbob. The event was also filmed for a CBBC programme, for which there was a notice at the entrance stating that by entering the event we agreed to be filmed. Anyone at the event could buy any or all of the photographs, irrespective of whether they had any relationship to individual children or the teams.

 

[Profpointy]

i think the one thing that no one has considered is that a photographer could inadvertently take a photo of a foster child for example, who for child protection reasons is not allowed access to one, or both parents, that person could see who is caring for the child and try to make contact, I do know that this is one reason why these rules are put in place.

Assuming of course they happened to get access to photographs taken at a children's ice skating even (or whatever) that they knew nothing about. ie one parent took some pics and by an amazing co-incidence just happened to show the pictures to someone who somehow knew the fostered child who featured somewhere in the background.

 

[summerdays]

i think the one thing that no one has considered is that a photographer could inadvertently take a photo of a foster child for example, who for child protection reasons is not allowed access to one, or both parents, that person could see who is caring for the child and try to make contact, I do know that this is one reason why these rules are put in place.

But in which case the professional photographer could do the same thing.

I've taken photographs at an small event that was for our records, and I ended up having to go through every photograph looking for 3 children that appeared in a number of photos, because their parent did not want them in anything that could be seen by people outside the event.

 

[ufkacbln]

Private individuals and the self-employed cannot apply for DBS -as CRB is now known- checks. Photographers probably will not need one, as they are not usually left alone with children or vulnerable adults, nor in regular contact with them.

In the OP the description was of being the "team photographer" which implies a status within the organisation.

As with Scouts and other youth organisation this falls under the definition of a volunteer is defined in the Police Act 1997 (criminal records) Regulations 2002 as:

“Any person engaged in an activity which involves spending, unpaid (except for travel and other approved out-of-pocket expenses), doing something which aims to benefit some third party and not a close relative.”

The regulations certainly suggest that a DBS / CRB check is at least desirable and is certainly eligible for a fee criminal ecords check under the present guidelines

 

[Moon bunny]

And I have just, in the last few minutes, spoken to a photographer who had his DBS application form , via a well known voluntary organizaton,
returned as he does not need one. I think that settles it.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

The regulations certainly suggest that a DBS / CRB check is at least desirable and is certainly eligible for a fee criminal ecords check under the present guidelines

https://www.gov.uk/disclosure-barring-service-check/overview

"Only employers and licensing bodies can request a DBS check. Job applicants can’t do a criminal records check on themselves. Instead, they canrequest a basic disclosure from Disclosure Scotland (you don’t have to be from Scotland to do this)."

 

[ufkacbln]

https://www.gov.uk/disclosure-barring-service-check/overview

"Only employers and licensing bodies can request a DBS check. Job applicants can’t do a criminal records check on themselves. Instead, they canrequest a basic disclosure from Disclosure Scotland (you don’t have to be from Scotland to do this)."

Volunteers (see definition above) can be checked by an organisation or group without formal employment or licensing.

Most Children's charities and organisations like Scouts, Football teams, and the like carry these out on a regular basis

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Volunteers (see definition above) can be checked by an organisation or group without formal employment or licensing.

Most Children's charities and organisations like Scouts, Football teams, and the like carry these out on a regular basis

And will most likely be registered, or use an umbrella body who is registered to obtain one. I photographed for a semi-professional Ice Hockey team, and was their "official" photographer. But, I had no place within their organisational structure, beyond being a press contact.

 

[Bollo]

In the OP the description was of being the "team photographer" which implies a status within the organisation.

My 'job title' is very much lower case, in the same way that any available dad that get collared for carting the big bag of costumes to and from the transport is called the 'kit man'.

And I have just, in the last few minutes, spoken to a photographer who had his DBS application form , via a well known voluntary organizaton,
returned as he does not need one. I think that settles it.

Just had the same info from the team coach, who was generally unhappy with the heavy-handed approach. She's confirmed that there were no child protection issues with photography at the venue - whatever the venue/NISA claimed, the real reason for the ban lies elsewhere.