Paranoia

On Armistice Day I attended a service at an old RAF Control Tower which now serves as a museum.

A group of children were there with their headmaster who chose to instruct me to delete photos including the children. Many parents were there none of which took issue with me, a few asked for copies of photos to be emailed to them.

Dismissed him by explaining it was a public place. He walked away muttering at which a few of the older people present looked at me. Explained what he said and they just shook their head in disbelief.

Emailed the head later that day politely explaining it was inappropriate to seek to restrict a person's freedom on a day when we celebrate it.

This is his response. I can't quote mine as it was sent through their website and he didn't quote me in the response.

Dear Steve,

We impeccably observed the silence and supported our friends at the Control Tower at their request.

Your actions taking face photos of children without seeking any sort of permission was at least inconsiderate as
you do not know the personal circumstances and reasons why your actions are potentially harmful. We go to great lengths to safeguard our children.

I am surprised and disappointed at your response and your email, which you may wish to apologise for!

If you wish to make a formal complaint please do so using the schools policy on our website.

No further correspondence will be entered into.

Yours sincerely.

Darron Jackson

Darron Jackson
Headteacher

I despair at how those children will cope with the real world after being indoctrinated by paranoia and fear.

First off, you must understand that it is the headmaster's duty to protect his charges. I think he over-stepped his authority, but laws may be different in the UK vs. the US.

The US Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that individuals HAVE NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY while voluntarily in a public place. Seems to me the UK is the same. Witness traffic cameras.

Anyway, it is legal for me to hang out in the park taking photos of every child who wanders by. Legal and smart are not the same thing. If I am shooting general pictures showing kids having fun on the playground (especially if one is related to me), I have no problems. If I am shooting telephoto face/H&S shots of a stranger's 6 year old girl, I am going to get punched in the nose. In between is grey area. Traverse it at your own peril.

I'm sorry, but they did not fight and die for your right to photograph children. For your right to dismiss and say 'then don't take them to public places'.
In my view 'rights' do not necessarily trump common courtesy and decency.

JWdlft wrote in post #18186025
In my view 'rights' do not necessarily trump common courtesy and decency.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

It is a paranoid response to a non-existent threat. Submitting to unwarranted restrictions is obscene, an admission of doing something wrong.

Such restrictions are to be expected at school run events. That is where they end though. Reasonable expectation of privacy.

I did not, have not and never would say don't take children to public places. Where did you pluck that delusion from?

If the sentiment of hard won freedom is lost on you on Armistice Day, well, you have my sympathies.

I was there to pay my respects and record the event.

I do understand and showed respect. Wide-angle group shots only featuring the children awaiting the two minute silence.

Common courtesy only applies to the select few?

What is indecent about it?

"I did not, have not and never would say don't take children to public places. Where did you pluck that delusion from?"
- From you: "Dismissed him by explaining it was a public place."

"If the sentiment of hard won freedom is lost on you on Armistice Day, well, you have my sympathies."
Forget it, Steve.

You interpret saying it's a public place as meaning they shouldn't be there... hmmm

Armistice Day in the UK commemorates both world wars btw.

OP, I present you with two situations, both of which are completely legal in US.

1.) I am standing at the teeter-totter (see-saw?) while my grandson plays with another boy. I, and someone on his end, record the event with cameras.

2.) I am standing at the teeter-totter while my granddaughter plays with another girl. I am recording the event. A fellow at the other end of the toy is recording upskirts of my 8-year-old granddaughter.

One of my counterparts will get a polite wave and a "Hello!". The other will get a 911 call and a polite request to cease and desist. Non-compliance will almost certainly garner the other gentleman, immediately, a more persuasive form of argument.

Neither shooter is breaking any laws. Why on earth would I respond so differently?

Should add that the event was filmed and shown on local news.

You're response seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I took steps not to be in that position. Elevated angle shooting slightly downwards. Wide-angle group shots featuring the whole scene including parents, teacher, soldiers and airmen.

Gungnir wrote in post #18186127
You're response seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I took steps not to be in that position. Elevated angle shooting slightly downwards. Wide-angle group shots featuring the whole scene including parents, teacher, soldiers and airmen.

Given that, I go back to my original conclusion that the headmaster overstepped his authority. If he were in charge of my children, I'd prefer he err on the side of caution.

Out of courtesy I submitted the few photos taken including the children to the school via Facebook message and received a warm, positive 'FAB! They're great, thank you'.

Gungnir wrote in post #18186121
You interpret saying it's a public place as meaning they shouldn't be there... hmmm

Not worth any further effort.

And you commemorate by defending your right to photograph children against their care giver's wishes. He's paranoid.

In Flanders Fields, John McRae. (Canadian btw.)
...
if ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Stand your ground!