Besides, why don’t they just tell the parish priest that he’s not welcome?
:d&r:
It seems to me that this is not only stupid, it’s actually, I dunno, potentially harmful. It says “hey, if some stanger wacks off while looking at your kid, your kid is somehow tainted or harmed. In fact they are so harmed, the consequnces are so dire, that it is worth going to extreme measures to make sure that no one ever looks at your children with lust in their hearts.”
I’m not at all defending pedophiles who wack off to pictures here: child phonography is wrong, wrong, wrong. But even if, horrible as it would be, you discovered that weird neighbor Bob is filming your child on the lawn and wacking off to those films, the last thing you want to do is to lead you child to believe that somehow they are tainted or polluted by it. Me, I wouldn’t even tell them why Neighbor Bob was hauled away by the cops, except to confirm that there wasn’t more to the story.
Kids have funny minds, and tend to worry and fret too much anyway. It’s unbelivably irreponsible to send a message that they should be worrying about whether or not somewhere someone is having indecent thoughts about them. As soon as the kids hear that no one can take pictures athte play because somebody might be a “bad man” taking “bad pictures”, they ar going to remember every strange man with a camera they ever saw and start worrying.
That’s 'cause Daddy spends all his time with her brother.
Okay, that’s sick even by my standards.
I think we may not be getting the whole story. Perhaps previous nativity play videos were found in the video collection of a local paedophile?
It does sound like a complete overreaction, but normally there is at least some fire where there is smoke.
What kind of enforcement would the school have for this policy?
Absolutely. In this day and age, children should be listening to CDs, not phonograph albums.
[sub]I’m sorry, I know making fun of unintentional typos is frowned on, but I couldn’t help it with this one![/sub]
the could refuse entry to the play for anybody with a videocamera, or ask them to leave if seen with one.
This doesn’t go far enough in my opinion.
We must ban children! Then there would be no paedophiles!!
I thought this thread was gonna be about royalties and copyright. My niece is in ballet school, and last year the parents weren’t allowed to tape a spring recital because, they were told, it was Balanchine choreography, and the ballet school couldn’t get permission from whoever owns the copyright on it to make videotapes of it. Even for home use.
So this year they went with their own homegrown choreography.
Anyway, to address the OP: If you look at the BBC sidebar, this is not a new issue.
Sunday, 21 January, 2001, School website paedophile fears
Friday, 15 December, 2000,
Row over filming school shows
Thursday, July 15, 1999,
Parents asked not to video sports day
And, in the “There Will Always Be An England” category:
Monday, 18 December, 2000, Church nativity bans wise men
Oooh, you’re getting coal in your stocking for sure after that crack.
H’uh? Balanchine copyrighted his own choreography?
Oh well, it does sound like something he would do.
At the moment it doesn’t seem to be the case. Our local rag would usually dig up something on this; and parents I’ve spoken to are just saying “what the fuck is she on?” How totally misguided can a person be? * Honestly*…
This is more likely to be the real reason behind the decision. It happened here in Melbourne last year (to a similar furore) when home-videos were banned, but the video was available (at $29.95) for devoted parents to PURCHASE afterwards.
Nothin’ to do with paedophiles…just a money making venture for the school!!
How come? Wales isn’t in England.
When I was a kid, my mum always insisted for the sake of accuracy that the kings shouldn’t make it into the crib until late in the holiday, so we moved the figures gradually over from the far side of the room (the zebras, pelicans and stuff from my zoo were acceptable as “artistic licence” though). Same story at church - no kings at midnight Mass, only shepherds. Of course, nativity plays telescope the story’s timescale up quite a bit.
It’s still overkill to ban videoing and photographing kids IMHO. The risk of some nutter abusing the results must be dwarfed by the disappointment of some little kid being lost to posterity while giving his “no room at the inn” speech.
Maybe they should ban nativity plays. That can’t be good for young children.
ah, the good old days.
Every year we were allowed make our own costumes. Everyone turned up with a towel tied to their head with a thin belt, and an old bedsheet with a hile in the middle worn poncho style, tied in the middle.
We would sit in a circle holding candles while a short nativity play would be performed, and then we would all sing hymns and carols.
And Every year the highlights were the Innkeeper forgetting his lines, and one of the kids costumes catching fire from the candles.
every, single, year.
Thankfully no one was ever hurt, and the events were much to the amusement of all (except the fire things, which usually lead to a moments panic before normality would resume.
Were we at the same school.
Actually the highlight of my primary school stage performance was when one year they decided to do some sketch about Robin Hood. One kid got a green robe, a pillow under his jumper, and the role of Friar Tuck. My one line was to introduce him
“Look, its Friar Tuck, the trusty monk”
which with stage fright became
“Triar Fuck the trust monkey”
And then I got to wonder why all the parents were laughing. Oh well.
Maybe the school hadn’t sold many tickets and wanted a bit of publicity?
They’ve certainly got it.
One of the parents in this account was complaining that there isn’t enough space in the hall for everyone who wanted to attend, so ticket sales are unlikely to have been a problem. The article also says the idea has been condemned by a childrens’ charity because it trivialises such an important child welfare issue.