Not true.
You, me, the Police and anyone else can perfectly legally take pictures and video of anyone (including children) in any public space. In privately owned land/buildings the rules are different and the owner of the property is within their rights to refuse permission. However, if a photographer was to gain permission to film or photograph in, say a privately owned park or building, you can object to being filmed but the photographer doesn't have to take notice of your objection and there is nothing you can do about it.
What do you think a parent would do if they refused permission and were ignored? Personally I would just remove my child from the situation, as any parent would. Job done. Permission refused, child taken away from the situation if ignored.
Would you want your face all over the internet? people can often take these vids and upload them out of context.
Fair enough the news agencies show footage but in many cases they'll blur out images whereas when people upload on youtube they don't.
If they have complied with the law, then they've nothing to worry about.
The court however have sufficient evidence/knowledge to make a judgement, which is what they did.
My own view is that where evidence is purposefully withheld from public gaze, decisions taken therein, are subject to abuse/careless decision making. We need more openness in such matters.
In this case we can't define "best interests" because we know little or nothing about the case. However, it does seem that the judgement was made by a court, and though we don't know why the court took the decision it did, presumably it didn't do so without cause.
Yes, I agree that it would be distressing to be a policeman involved in such a case. However, if a police officer were to refuse to intervene in such a case when they'd been instructed to do so they would be professionally negligent, and maybe too it might be necessary for the child to be distressed in the short-term in order to benefit it in the long term — by removing it from a dangerous environment, for example.
However, since we know so little about the case, there's little point in continuing to discuss it.
The reason I could never be a copper. Too many distressing tasks. It takes a certain mentality ~ one which is happy to physically control others to their distress, and I don't have that.
They barked it out like an order possibly in the hope that he would fold under pressure. This they should NOT do. It isn't their business who or what the householder decides to film in his own house, providing that it doesn't contravene the law.
Unless they wanted to hide what they were doing, why would they have a problem in being filmed ?
Depends how you define "best interests" and who precisely has made that judgement. Clearly the child was extremely distressed and wanted to stop with his Dad.
To remove a child by force, whatever the circumstances, would make me ill. Definitely. I couldn't do it.
Even if (and let me be clear I am not saying this is the case in this instance) you knew that the father would later severely beat the child or worse?
Your first point is just semantics. However you want to phrase it.
No it's not. You're just being argumentative for the sake of it again, which is interesting - you being so very argumentative over a subject you consider "irrelevant".
You are entirely wrong about contacts. It is irrelevant what the law says about photopgraphy, if it is not felt to be in the best interests of the child, it won't happen, the LA will ensure that is the case, as any parent would. As much as you would like the legalities of photogrpahy to be relevant to this, it really isn't. It is interest to you, but not relevant to whether this young man will be filmed by his father during contacts.
Restricting a legal right during a contact requires there to be a reason for doing so. That counts as exceptional circumstance.
What do you think a parent would do if they refused permission and were ignored? Personally I would just remove my child from the situation, as any parent would. Job done. Permission refused, child taken away from the situation if ignored.
That's not refusing permission, hehe, that's removing the subject from the situation.
In this case we can't define "best interests" because we know little or nothing about the case. However, it does seem that the judgement was made by a court, and though we don't know why the court took the decision it did, presumably it didn't do so without cause.
Yes, I agree that it would be distressing to be a policeman involved in such a case. However, if a police officer were to refuse to intervene in such a case when they'd been instructed to do so they would be professionally negligent, and maybe too it might be necessary for the child to be distressed in the short-term in order to benefit it in the long term — by removing it from a dangerous environment, for example.
However, since we know so little about the case, there's little point in continuing to discuss it.
That's it exactly.
I don't believe the police were happy with the situation but they were doing the job they were instructed to do.
Strange I can find nothing on google about this apart from the video.
What do you think a parent would do if they refused permission and were ignored? Personally I would just remove my child from the situation, as any parent would. Job done. Permission refused, child taken away from the situation if ignored.
Exactly, and that's all you could do if the photographer refused to stop taking pics or video as they are under no legal obligation to do so.
I would hope any decent photographer would stop when asked, but the whole point is they don't have to stop just because parents object,
However, you haven't refused the permission at all, all you have done is taken your child away from the situation.
To remove a child by force for his own safety would be perfectly reasonable.
I agree I was querying the poster who said they could not do it if it made the child distressed. If you knew that the child would be in genuine danger should you fail to act then surely you would have to put your own feelings aside.
No it's not. You're just being argumentative for the sake of it again.
Restricting a legal right during a contact requires there to be a reason for doing so. That counts as exceptional circumstance.
That's not refusing permission, hehe, that's removing the subject from the situation.
Yes, I am arguing with you, on account of not agreeing with you. Thought we had done that already.
It really does not count as exceptional circumstances. Just the circumstance for that child. Contact contracts can be restrictive in varying ways, depends on the parent, but it is not exceptional for them to be so.
I refused permission for my child to eat candyfloss at a fair a while back. But my sister ignored me and bought it for him anyway (not at all illegal) and I removed the candyfloss directly from him. There is more than one way to skin a cat, it is not about law but exercising parental right to make choices for your child.
Exactly, and that's all you could do if the photographer refused to stop taking pics or video as they are under no legal obligation to do so.
I would hope any decent photographer would stop when asked, but the whole point is they don't have to stop just because parents object,
However, you haven't refused the permission at all, all you have done is taken your child away from the situation.
I never suggested the photpgraphers had to stop. It is not about the photographer's legal rights, but the parent's legal right to make choices for their child and act accordingly. I am not sure if there is any other way of me phrasing it to be honest.
Yes, I am arguing with you, on account of not agreeing with you. Thought we had done that already.
It really does not count as exceptional circumstances. Just the circumstance for that child. Contact contracts can be restrictive in varying ways, depends on the parent, but it is not exceptional for them to be so.
I refused permission for my child to eat candyfloss at a fair a while back. But my sister ignored me and bought it for him anyway (not at all illegal) and I removed the candyfloss directly from him. There is more than one way to skin a cat, it is not about law but exercising parental right to make choices for your child.
Strange question. He was premature and lacks enamel on his teeth, which has led to a number of cavities. Candyfloss is just fluffy refined sugar and sticky to boot. A filling on a stick.
I did Fascism at University. I have a qualification in it. So I can happily recognise and comment on it. Anything that involves state interference is [fascism].
By your reasoning state benefits would be a form of fascism.
If they have complied with the law, then they've nothing to worry about.
.
I disagree, a friend of the family is in the police. He's now in CID but years ago I bumped in to him in one of the pubs in my town, he asked how I was getting on, then when I asked what he was up to, he replied "you know what I do" and gave me a look as if to say drop it. He then looked pretty uncomfortable and left, when I got home I asked parents what he was doing and they said he was in the police.
He may have been working undercover that night I don't know or maybe he didn't want people knowing. Surely it could affect future work or even cause risks to personal safety the more people are aware of that person?
I refused permission for my child to eat candyfloss at a fair a while back. But my sister ignored me and bought it for him anyway (not at all illegal) and I removed the candyfloss directly from him.
Strange question. He was premature and lacks enamel on his teeth, which has led to a number of cavities. Candyfloss is just fluffy refined sugar and sticky to boot. A filling on a stick.
Not really. Without a reason, which is a good one, I agree, it just sounded as though you were being controlling for its own sake. It also appeared that you didn't give your sister a valid reason.
Not really. Without a reason, which is a sound one, I agree, it just sounded as though you were being controlling for its own sake. It also appeared that you didn't give your sister a valid reason.
Why would I be controlling for the sake of it? Very few parents have negative intentions for their actions in my experience. I probably would have presumed an allergy to colourant of some kind or something if I had read that short anecdote. Maybe it is just a mum thing.
Why would I be controlling for the sake of it? Very few parents have negative intentions for their actions in my experience. I probably would have presumed an allergy to colourant of some kind or something if I had read that short anecdote. Maybe it is just a mum thing.
No reason, and I'm not getting at you personally, just trying to prove a point of principle, especially as your sister was also involved.
It does highlight that unless reasons are provided, many people will assume that such use of force as we have distressingly witnessed on the video, is totally unjustified. This is why there should be more openness in family court decisions
The courts issued a warrant and the Police executed it. The parent made it difficult to be executed without force so appropriate force was used.
What's the issue?
No reason, and I'm not getting at you personally, just trying to prove a point of principle.
But it does show that unless reasons are provided, people will assume that such forced removals as we have disressingly witnessed on the video, are totally unjustified. This is why there should be more openness in family court decisions
I disagree, as I think your need for clarity on that point was effected and very strange given that it required consideration of me being controlling for the sake of it. A very odd and paranoid presumption, and entirely unecessary to clarify for your piece of mind, I did so out of politeness.:)
I disagree, as I think your need for clarity on that point was effected and very strange given that it required consideration of me being controlling for the sake of it. A very odd and paranoid presumption, and entirely unecessary to clarify for your piece of mind, I did so out of politeness.:)
Hmmm, I think we'll leave it at that as you appear to be getting rather defensive and unpleasant about the issue.
Hmmm, I think we'll leave it at that as you appear to be getting rather defensive and unpleasant about the issue.
An understandable response. I didn't think the candy floss inquisition of parenting was either appropriate or relevant to the discussion. You seem to be prodding for a reaction.
If they have complied with the law, then they've nothing to worry about.
My own view is that where evidence is purposefully withheld from public gaze, decisions taken therein, are subject to abuse/careless decision making. We need more openness in such matters.
The reason I could never be a copper. Too many distressing tasks. It takes a certain mentality ~ one which is happy to physically control others to their distress, and I don't have that.
I disagree, as I think your need for clarity on that point was effected and very strange given that it required consideration of me being controlling for the sake of it. A very odd and paranoid presumption, and entirely unecessary to clarify for your piece of mind, I did so out of politeness.:)
Agreed. The presumption he made was not one that "many" others would have, in my opinion, despite what he thinks.
Comments
What do you think a parent would do if they refused permission and were ignored? Personally I would just remove my child from the situation, as any parent would. Job done. Permission refused, child taken away from the situation if ignored.
If they have complied with the law, then they've nothing to worry about.
My own view is that where evidence is purposefully withheld from public gaze, decisions taken therein, are subject to abuse/careless decision making. We need more openness in such matters.
The reason I could never be a copper. Too many distressing tasks. It takes a certain mentality ~ one which is happy to physically control others to their distress, and I don't have that.
Even if (and let me be clear I am not saying this is the case in this instance) you knew that the father would later severely beat the child or worse?
Restricting a legal right during a contact requires there to be a reason for doing so. That counts as exceptional circumstance. That's not refusing permission, hehe, that's removing the subject from the situation.
That's it exactly.
I don't believe the police were happy with the situation but they were doing the job they were instructed to do.
Strange I can find nothing on google about this apart from the video.
Exactly, and that's all you could do if the photographer refused to stop taking pics or video as they are under no legal obligation to do so.
I would hope any decent photographer would stop when asked, but the whole point is they don't have to stop just because parents object,
However, you haven't refused the permission at all, all you have done is taken your child away from the situation.
To remove a child by force for his own safety would be perfectly reasonable.
I agree I was querying the poster who said they could not do it if it made the child distressed. If you knew that the child would be in genuine danger should you fail to act then surely you would have to put your own feelings aside.
Yes, I am arguing with you, on account of not agreeing with you. Thought we had done that already.
It really does not count as exceptional circumstances. Just the circumstance for that child. Contact contracts can be restrictive in varying ways, depends on the parent, but it is not exceptional for them to be so.
I refused permission for my child to eat candyfloss at a fair a while back. But my sister ignored me and bought it for him anyway (not at all illegal) and I removed the candyfloss directly from him. There is more than one way to skin a cat, it is not about law but exercising parental right to make choices for your child.
I never suggested the photpgraphers had to stop. It is not about the photographer's legal rights, but the parent's legal right to make choices for their child and act accordingly. I am not sure if there is any other way of me phrasing it to be honest.
Why ?
Strange question. He was premature and lacks enamel on his teeth, which has led to a number of cavities. Candyfloss is just fluffy refined sugar and sticky to boot. A filling on a stick.
By your reasoning state benefits would be a form of fascism.
I disagree, a friend of the family is in the police. He's now in CID but years ago I bumped in to him in one of the pubs in my town, he asked how I was getting on, then when I asked what he was up to, he replied "you know what I do" and gave me a look as if to say drop it. He then looked pretty uncomfortable and left, when I got home I asked parents what he was doing and they said he was in the police.
He may have been working undercover that night I don't know or maybe he didn't want people knowing. Surely it could affect future work or even cause risks to personal safety the more people are aware of that person?
Not really. Without a reason, which is a good one, I agree, it just sounded as though you were being controlling for its own sake. It also appeared that you didn't give your sister a valid reason.
Why would I be controlling for the sake of it? Very few parents have negative intentions for their actions in my experience. I probably would have presumed an allergy to colourant of some kind or something if I had read that short anecdote. Maybe it is just a mum thing.
No reason, and I'm not getting at you personally, just trying to prove a point of principle, especially as your sister was also involved.
It does highlight that unless reasons are provided, many people will assume that such use of force as we have distressingly witnessed on the video, is totally unjustified. This is why there should be more openness in family court decisions
What's the issue?
Best to ignore stud, tends to talk a lot of rubbish.
I disagree, as I think your need for clarity on that point was effected and very strange given that it required consideration of me being controlling for the sake of it. A very odd and paranoid presumption, and entirely unecessary to clarify for your piece of mind, I did so out of politeness.:)
Hmmm, I think we'll leave it at that as you appear to be getting rather defensive and unpleasant about the issue.
Do I? I am sorry you feel that way. I consider my reply to be honest and to the point.
An understandable response. I didn't think the candy floss inquisition of parenting was either appropriate or relevant to the discussion. You seem to be prodding for a reaction.
Or to actually help them of course.
Is it just me?