pre-school play pictures, the decision is mine

Hi All

Well I don't know what to say....I need some advice.

Some twat has complained to OFSTED about a picture that was taken at one of the pre-school shows that was on a few months ago.

Why does that bother you Trev? Was it your kids?
No. But I am a committee member at that pre-school, and now we have to make a decision on having a blanket ban on all photos and videos taken at the pre-school or re-writing it so we effectively single out particular types of people who don't mind having photos taken of their kids.

Here is some background. Currently the contract does cover certain parts of this privacy. But we are being asked by OFSTED to police the internet. Basically the contract asks the parents to promise not to put piccies up on t'internet. In return for which we'll ask you if we can use the photos for promotions etc...

What we also do, which is kind of unique, is that we take piccies of the kids while they are playing or doing something and we put the piccies into their "home record book". Parents miss out on what their kids do at the pre-school and this is a good way of communicating with the parents.

With a blanket ban, all this would stop. we would have to hand-pick kids to use for photo ops and things, and we wouldn't be able to film or take piccies of the kids in plays or productions or events or anything. We can't exclude the kids from taking part in the plays because that is against the law. So we cannot record any of it for prosperity.

If we say no to a blanket ban, then the parents who are concerned about privacy in this way will leave. But we will still get the benefits and FREEDOMS for the parents to video their children in a play.

In my view I say no to the blanket ban. But can I as a committee member possibly put kids at risk by having their pictures on the internet?

If a kid falls off a swing or something we can put a crash mat down can't we? If a kid gets a picture taken and if that picture is grabbed out of thousands available by a peado, then...what? Do the kids become a target? Or not? If not, as distateful as it is, no harm has come to the kid. If so, then by allowing the photo to be taken we are partly responsible.

That is my quandry. And one that schools all over the land will have to face now, and all because of 2 miniority groups.

Those who demand that no-ones takes pictures of any children
And those who want to fuck children.

Thanks for reading,

Something-Flu, Victory is ours!

Hi All,

Media Hype, is it all it's cracked up to be? Sensationalising every tiny little thing. Basically newspapers and the media are in love not with the story, but with prefixes. Flu, is dull. But "Bird Flu" is exciting. "Pig Flu"? does it have a prefix? Yes, so its exciting. Pig flu has killed under 200 people, and yet it is splashed all over papers. "Normal" Flu has killed 5000 people so far this year.
why are the papers not going mental about that?

I actually believe it is because it has the mystical prefix. Of course, you know what the next one is going to be:

Bird Flu, killed less than 100
Pig Flu, killed less than 200
Normal Flu, Kills 38,000 per year

and now I reveal to you the next big influenza:

MAN FLU: It feels like it's killed 500,000 people already!

Luckily we have something in our arsenal that Mexicans do not. While they are alone fighting evil pig influenza, we have the mightiest weapon known to man. The good bacteria in a pot of Yakult. We have a limitless supply of these mini friends to defeat our evil curly tailed microbiotic foes. Unfortunately, our doctors have not realised this. They give us so called antibiotics. These are probably invented by the Americans. After all, it is friendly fire they can get away with. So if you do get ill, here is your choice. Eat Yakult or take medicine, but don't do both otherwise you may as well eat Ski and die.

Thanks for reading,