http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12372097
Interesting how different governments think...
So does this mean i can take pics of kids without being added to the sex offenders register or being ordered to delete the pics by some plastic plod?
And before any plastic plod gets upset, i work with such people day in and day out, by an extremely large majority they have as yet to demonstrate how they justify wearing their uniforms...
Afraid not. It at least means that voluntary clubs and groups will not continue to lose volunteers worried about haveing Police checks done for them at their own expense that are largely irrelevant unless re-checked regularly to take account of changes in circumstances.
regarding pictures of kids in the street / park there will continue to be those parents and others that think it is against the law and leave you ope to shouts of "paedophile"
It's the effective ending of another badly framed law. And the proposed introduction of another.
I take pics of kids. I've taken pictures of literally thousands of children under 4 years old. At no time was I ever required to register under the scheme they have just scrapped. But a number of kids were prevented from attending school by it (notorious case involving disabled child who got a taxi to school every day - due to delays registering the driver he missed a chunk of lessons).
As it happens I have a CRB check (though that IMO is another really bad and stupid piece of legislation). I've worked in dozens of nurseries but only been asked to show it twice. Once was the same nursery that insisted I wear a name badge while on the premises and said it was an Ofsted requirement. I don't doubt it is - but nobody else has ever heard of that.
IIRC there's never been a suggestion that Ian Huntley would have been barred from working with children under the "new" scheme (just that he would have been breaking another law. In addition to, you know, murder.). And in about 5 years, Gary Glitter should be able to get an entry level CRB (though I suspect we'll have scrapped them by then).
But don't worry. They are bringing in a new scheme. And this one will have a national database. Oh joy. CRB check - £45 (if you can apply for one - it's stupidly difficult), VBS scheme £64. New system - £100? £150? What price the illusion of doing something?
It`s all about appearances. Especially sad that the majority of kids abused are victims of people they know anyway.
The Childrens Act kicks in here anyway which means no you can't take pics of kids in public without permission (model release forms etc) for public display....and even if they are not for public display there are all sorts of questions that would be asked....CRB's pretty uesless as they only show anything you have against you up to the date of processing it....LIST 99 does exist anyway that is pretty effective at stopping anyone with any convictions regarding children of working with them full stop...
Yes the majority of children who are abused are abused by someone they know, but that someone tends to be an adult who not only "grooms" ( I effing hate that expression) the child but the parents as well.....that's what happens in the majority of cases where the abuse is an outsider as opposed to a family member......and as a keen photographer and a survivor I can see both sides of the argument from a slightly different perspective....
"What was done to me was wrong but there's nothing wrong with me" is something I live by...
Krennon, I'd be interested in where it says that in the Childrens Act (Not that I take many kids shots that aren't my own or friends) as AFAIK, anyone in a public place could have their picture taken and published with no requirement for a model release - different countries have different rules, so most agency require model releases for all of the main subjects otherwise they won't accept them.
Quote from: krennon on February 07, 2011, 09:52:33 AM
The Childrens Act kicks in here anyway which means no you can't take pics of kids in public without permission
I can't find that bit.
Here's the entire 1989 Children's Act (BIG file) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41 - the word "photo" only appears in it once (and in a completely irrelevant context).
The 1978 Protection of the children act is much more relevant but that ONLY applies to indecent images. Full text here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/37/body there were revisions in 1994 to cover "images" made with a computer and in 2008 to cover indecent tracings.
Sections of the Human Rights act, anti terrorism act and CD&P might prohibit the display of an image but only under fairly narrow circumstances - children have no more rights under these acts than adults.
As an ex- youth worker involved in working to the Childrens act both above are correct in saying it in no way impinges on photography of children in public places. Subject to the same laws as with adults i.e. if you present them in a negative way you may be opning yourself to a law suit but other than that only indecent images and the like are specifically within legislatio. Try telling that to a parent screaming they don`t want you taking their kid`s picture though. At the end of the day it`s a common sense appraoch as in everything else with photography in public - maybe talk / show parent / child image and agree to send a copy on but fall in with their wishes if they say no.
Jinky that is exactly it "A Common Sense Approach" however that is sadly lacking now and if you have a camera with you and you are taking photos of children there is every chance you will be labelled a paedophile unfortunately that is the way of the world (well in the UK anyaway....a sad fact of life and the climate of fear we live in.....
Glad I'm not going completely mad!
I must admit that I don't generally take pictures of people on the street, so to speak. But I would take pictures of a busker for example, with some sort of "Tip". But somehow I do when I go abroad.