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,

Children and the WWW

Hi All,

"Three out of four children have seen images on the internet that disturbed them, an NSPCC poll suggests." This is how the BBC news story begins. So it is how I will start mine. It goes on to say that these figures are taken from a poll of visitors to there there4me.com website, which caters for 12-16 year olds.

Ok, yes fine, there are lots of images out there that can disturb children. What got me were these quotes from Zoe Hilton, who is the "policy advisor" for the NSPCC. I shall deal with them individually.

"Children are just a few clicks away from innocently stumbling across upsetting or even dangerous pictures and films such as adult sex scenes, violent dog fights, people self-harming and children being assaulted."

Children are always a few steps\clicks\hops\limps away from all the above all the time. With the exception of "violent dog fights" (as opposed to the non-violent type?). Where in the hell did that come from? But anyway. Any child between the ages of 12 and 16 who has stayed up beyond 9pm has probably already seen all of the above. Even some 12 rated films have these scenes in, so why pick on the internet? Can also someone explain to me what a dangerous picture is? Is it one with really sharp edges? Or one you can fall off quite easily?

Ms Hilton said that ..."every child should be using a computer with child protection software."

It's traditionally called a parent.

"High-security parental controls installed in their computers would help shield them. "

Do we really need another bunch of controls forced upon us, to teach us what is right and wrong?

"Currently computer manufacturers and retailers leave it to parents to find and install software that filters out material unsuitable for children...."

Since when has it been their responsibility? When I buy a PC I don't want to be asked if I have kids so they know what software to put on. Or, why the hell should I have more bloaty ad-ware that will go out of date in 12 months and that I have to renew or whatever?

When I was in high school, I remember quite vividly being shown images of the holocaust, seeing all these people in trenches, dead bodies being rolled into the pit and then covered in lime, people being shot, lined up in bloodied tattered clothes against a wall. I also remember seeing sex scenes in various programs on telly and films. Dog fights is a hard one I admit (unless they mean Spitfire vs. ME109), but then I have never seen one of those videos, and I have been on the internet for a long time. I reckon if I looked for it I'd find it, but I'd have to look for it.

The kids need to be taught to be "web-wise". I have never seen a video or image that I haven't expected to see. I am a true googleite too, and their safe search is fairly good. I don't understand what these kids have been looking for in order to get hardcore porn, self-harm and children being assaulted. In fact....

Hey, this is a thought, what if the children now are so obsessed with finding help that they are now looking for it. They are going to Google and typing "sex advice" or "I self harm please help me" or "I am being abused, help" all 3 I imagine would throw up these images and videos they don't like, and then they finally get to "there4you.com" and sure enough the ones that need help have found abusive stuff on the internet.

I have kids, young kids admittedly, and I have always supervised them on the internet, and they do well. They shall become web-wise. Also if they have a problem they are secure in themselves so they can come and talk to me about whatever, they don't need some webby, self appointed, self regulating, nationalised, pointless group of childless do-gooders helping them. What we actually need are parental classes to help the minority of parents bring up their children. You don't need software for that. In fact its a bad idea. "The software let it through, the software blocks badness, so this must be good"

Ok, last quote:

"I've seen violent images I didn't search for. I was freaked out."
I'd be freaked out too, if google came up with matches and I hadn't typed anything in.

Be careful what you search for, you might just get it.

Thanks for reading.