Photography Child Protection Grumble

[Profpointy]

Interesting, because it's always the lentil eaters that get their kaftans in a twist and invent imaginary legislation to justify the banning of photos. Not heard of any goose stepping right wingers doing anything like that lately.

yet people who spout such things are traditionally labelled "little Hitlers".

 

[Moon bunny]

Simply ask for a copy of the risk assessment and details of the systems in place to stop "inappropriate use" of the images by the "official" photographer

More dodgy ground (it opens a can of worms if you do not have one) is for details of the official photographers CRB checks

They cannot ignore such requests

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.

 

[Arrowfoot]

Cool your jets Arrow, no one's going to court. The rink is absolutely entitled under civil law to prohibit or restrict the use of photographic or video equipment on their own property, which they've done. It might pish me off, but in the end that's my problem. My gripes are that

• the change in policy was implemented literally at the last minute, and at some inconvenience to me,
• the given reason for the change is most likely bogus and has just been rolled out to stifle any debate.
• the organisation responsible for the change have a track record of arrogance and high-handed behaviour.

Bullet points. Yeah!

Sorry, I thought you wanted to take photos of your kid participating. Did not realise that the gripe was about the last minute change.

 

[Profpointy]

Sorry, I thought you wanted to take photos of your kid participating. Did not realise that the gripe was about the last minute change.

are you just arguing for the sake of it?
He objected to the ban AND objected to it being introduced at last minute having lugged all his gear needlessly

 

[Arrowfoot]

are you just arguing for the sake of it?
He objected to the ban AND objected to it being introduced at last minute having lugged all his gear needlessly

Do read what he wrote -
"The rink is absolutely entitled under civil law to prohibit or restrict the use of photographic or video equipment on their own property, which they've done."

I disagree but that does not seem to be his beef.

 

[srw]

Interesting, because it's always the lentil eaters that get their kaftans in a twist and invent imaginary legislation to justify the banning of photos. Not heard of any goose stepping right wingers doing anything like that lately, although that could be because professions such as teaching etc are less likely to attract those politically aligned to the right, so in this case it probably is systemic.

Apart from the cops who regularly try and stop people taking photos in London, you mean? Not many lentil-knitters among the Met's finest.

 

[Profpointy]

Do read what he wrote -
"The rink is absolutely entitled under civil law to prohibit or restrict the use of photographic or video equipment on their own property, which they've done."

I disagree but that does not seem to be his beef.

they are "entitled" but it's still a crap thing to do.

 

[Arrowfoot]

they are "entitled" but it's still a crap thing to do.

They are not entitled to just because they own the joint or run the show. Any condition must be reasonable and must have merit.

 

[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.

If the OP is formally involved with a children's organisation, they will have a form of CRB. THe post certainly suggests a ormal involvement

 

[Profpointy]

They are not entitled to just because they own the joint or run the show. Any condition must be reasonable and must have merit.

not really - private party, host makes the rules. Still stupid and crap but they are entitled unless someone can convince me otherwise

 

[Bollo]

They are not entitled to just because they own the joint or run the show. Any condition must be reasonable and must have merit.

Yes they are. I repeat, they do not have to be reasonable or even fair. As long as their policy is not overtly discriminatory then they are entitled. I have the same rights on their property as a pair of Jehovah's witnesses have in yours.

And it's beefs in the plural, as listed above in my handy cut out and keep bullet points.

If the OP is formally involved with a children's organisation, they will have a form of CRB. THe post certainly suggests a ormal involvement

I'm not CRB checked, but I'm not doing anything that requires a CRB check. This goes back to to one of my original points that the scope of child protection is both widely misunderstood and abused.

If you need further evidence, I could have tried to take photos of the adult teams only, where all participants are over 18 (the 'mazingstoke adult team has two skaters in their 60s). Trust me, it wasn't going to be allowed, despite the raison d'etre of the ban being 'child protection'.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Some events I've attend (as public) have stipulated that they allow photographer, and have restrictions on lens focal length, or physical dimension restrictions.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

To add:

http://www.wembleystadium.com/TheStadium/StadiumGuide/RulesnRegulations

In prohibited items. "professional cameras & recording devices (This applies to cameras that have interchangeable lenses)"

 

[Profpointy]

To add:

http://www.wembleystadium.com/TheStadium/StadiumGuide/RulesnRegulations

In prohibited items. "professional cameras & recording devices (This applies to cameras that have interchangeable lenses)"

that's a bit more fair enough though in that licencing their content to the press and the like is a key revenue stream.

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

 

[PhilDawson8270]

that's a bit more fair enough though in that licencing their content to the press and the like is a key revenue stream.

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

I agree. I have no issue with venues or organisers protecting the revenue of professional photographers. But I agree, blaming it on child protection instead of being honest about the reasons is wrong.