Tuesday 11 February 2014

Oh, I Know Why He’s Contacted The Newsshopper…

…it’s because sunlight is the best disinfectant for your sort:
A proud father who took photographs at a school production has received a worrying letter from the head teacher about his intentions.
Mr Flynn is a professional photographer, but was there to take snaps of his own son in an unofficial capacity. A fellow parent asked him to take some shots of his child.

And that raised alarms, it seems…
… the head teacher of Bromley Road Infant School, Karen Minnis, wrote to the dad with concerns – noting a possible breach of the Data Protection Act.
Mr Flynn explained she intervened and removed the image after he had left it at reception for the parent to pick up. He said: "The letter says ‘I have grave concerns with the manner in which the photo was taken and the purpose in using the photo.
"I was there as just a parent. I was there to see my son. I wanted to get some pictures of him as a memory."
He said: "I didn’t do anything wrong. Parents are allowed to take photos for personal use – I didn’t use it for anything else."
Guilty until proven innocent Mr Flynn! Times have changed...
The head teacher told News Shopper it was "perfectly permissible for a parent to take a photo of a school production for their personal use," adding that other children appearing in shots can be acceptable. However, she declined to comment on policy further.
She added: "I don’t know why he’s contacted you."
Yes. you do.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

The DPA makes for interesting reading, in light of every jobsworth under the sun claiming it covers whatever scenario they're currently involved in... I've found several times that the question "Which section, specifically?" makes them implode in a cloud of impotent self importance.

As the DPA pertains to the collection and processing of personal information, the more focused questions here would be "What personal information is being gathered, and how is it being processed?" to which the answers are (obviously) "none" and "it isn't".

Weekend Yachtsman said...

What Anon 1106 said.

Quoting the DPA in "cases" like this is exactly the same as saying your child can't walk on the beach (or whatever) "because of Health and Safety".

It's a completely meaningless statement that is intended to shut down all debate.

Sadly, usually it does.

bobo said...

Yep, poorly drafted, ambiguous laws enforced by semi- literate and poorly trained state operatives on a cowed and ignorant populace.....Oh,hello 'Anti-In Car Smoking In The Presence of a Child' Legislation.

blueknight said...

The Protection of Children Act 1978.
That the defendant deliberately and/or knowingly either made, took, or permitted to be taken, distributed or showed indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, or possessed them with a view to their being distributed or shown, published or caused to be published an advertisement for indecent photographs.
If the photos taken are not indecent, no offence.
If the Head thinks the photos might be dubious there should be questions about what sort of production it was..

JuliaM said...

"Quoting the DPA in "cases" like this is exactly the same as saying your child can't walk on the beach (or whatever) "because of Health and Safety"."

Indeed. Waffle designed to bluff.

"If the Head thinks the photos might be dubious there should be questions about what sort of production it was.."

Maybe they were doing 'Hair'..?