7 ms·
If the building she's in is their property, then they very likely do have that right. (I'm not condoning their decision, of course.)
by radiowave 14y ago
If the building she's in is their property, then they very likely do have that right. (I'm not condoning their decision, of course.)
- SagelyGuru 14y ago> If the building she's in is their property .... You may well be right. Still, I find the concept questionable. I mean forbidding the lawful use of her property (camera, lunch), just because she is inside someone else's property? She is not photographing the school. Besides, council property does not belong to the council officials but to the residents in the area and I suspect that, if their rights and opinions were respected, this order would not have been issued.
- edd 14y agoFrom wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law]: "In general under the law of the United Kingdom one cannot prevent photography of private property from a public place, and in general the right to take photographs on private land upon which permission has been obtained is similarly unrestricted. However landowners are permitted to impose any conditions they wish upon entry to a property, such as forbidding or restricting photography." I think the council would argue that they are enforcing the ban of photography to protect the children from people who might want photographs of the children. I know when I used to work with children we had to get written consents from parents before any child could apear in a photo and in some cases we were instructed to make sure some children were never photographed and step in the way if we saw anyone with a camera.
- pbhjpbhj 14y agoIt's not really to protect the children, it's to protect the Council from being sued by over-protective parents. That said letting the kids loose with cameras is going to be quite disruptive.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- planetguy 14y agoDon't you guys remember school at all? The school has the legal right to force you, especially at the age of nine, to obey any number of arbitrary rules and instructions. When you think of it from an adult perspective, the idea that an arbitrarily-chosen authority figure can walk into the room, tell you to put your hands on your head for no reason, and if you don't put your hands on your head then you get punished, is pretty weird. But children have fewer rights than adults and there's no good way around that except to suck it up and wait a few years.
- SideburnsOfDoom 14y agoI would hesitate to apply that rule. A school is not a private club or an Apple store; it is taxpayer-funded and compulsory for all children.
- prof_hobart 14y agoIt's also private property owned by the council - I couldn't just wander into a local school that my taxes pay for and start taking photos in the way that I could do in any public space.
- arethuza 14y agoI sense that after Dunblane Scottish schools are just a wee bit twitchy about random adults appearing and doing odd-looking things.
- noobiscus 14y agoAll UK schools are more than a 'wee bit twitchy' about random adults on site AT ALL.
- jack-r-abbit 14y agoUS schools too. And rightly so. The kids are in their care so they better take care of them.
- arethuza 14y agoNitpick: attendance at a council run school is not compulsory (i.e. you are free to home school or send your kid to private schools). Of course, paying for council run schools is compulsory.
- SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago> attendance at a council run school is not compulsory You're right, but what I was trying to say was "A school is ... compulsory for all children" (home schooling being special case of school).