PC Gone mad!

Vasquez · 5 Mar 2008 at 22:32

Youstolemyname said:
Not one of you has for a second thought that one of those children could have been relocated to avoid an abusive parent.

Posting their pic with their school and location on might have well been an open invite for that parent to find them.

I can see why it has been picked up as bizzare, they would have been better off not posting pics in the first place.

then don't take pics of the kid in question or blank out just their face.

Youstolemyname · 5 Mar 2008 at 22:34

Vasquez said:
then don't take pics of the kid in question or blank out just their face.

You wouldn't know they had been relocated.....that's the whole point of it.

Alex UK · 5 Mar 2008 at 22:36

How ridiculous. The world is indeed going mad.

camels5 · 5 Mar 2008 at 22:36

Youstolemyname said:
Not one of you has for a second thought that one of those children could have been relocated to avoid an abusive parent.

Posting their pic with their school and location on might have well been an open invite for that parent to find them.

I can see why it has been picked up as bizzare, they would have been better off not posting pics in the first place.

I have a child at school and others who have left and at all schools I have been asked if they could photograph my children and that they could be published, if you don't want you child's picture taken you can just say no. That seems to me to be the best way.

Youstolemyname · 5 Mar 2008 at 22:38

camels5 said:
I have a child at school and others who have left and at all schools I have been asked if they could photograph my children and that they could be published, if you don't want you child's picture taken you can just say no. That seems to me to be the best way.

I agree. And the placing of smileys over all the kids faces was a rather bizzare choice of protecting the kids identities.

But before the lolocopter landed in this thread people should consider the other, more sinister, reasons why kids identities are protected.

RDM · 5 Mar 2008 at 22:39

Not exactly sure how this is being politically correct?

manoz · 5 Mar 2008 at 22:40

This reminds of the the time I worked with school kids during one of my first year projects. For the public exhibition we had to cover up the faces of the school kids on the photos. (we were told after we printed so we had to use post it notes with smileys drawn on them)

Vasquez · 5 Mar 2008 at 22:42

Youstolemyname said:
You wouldn't know they had been relocated.....that's the whole point of it.

so why would they blank out everybody's faces then? if no one knew?

Jon33 · 5 Mar 2008 at 22:42

Whats the point of even putting the pictures on then? =/

Youstolemyname · 5 Mar 2008 at 22:45

Vasquez said:
so why would they blank out everybody's faces then? if no one knew?

Think you missed my point.

Here is a real situation that happened at a newspaper I worked on.

We published a class photo that included a child who had been relocated with it's mother to avoid the abusive father. The father bought the paper and saw the pic, put two and two together and tracked down the mother and child. I will end it there....

The school didn't know the little'un had been relocated and wouldn't know.

They blanked out the faces in the above pics because parents had requested, not to hide a kid that had been relocated.

Vasquez · 5 Mar 2008 at 22:49

Youstolemyname said:
Think you missed my point.

Here is a real situation that happened at a newspaper I worked on.

We published a class photo that included a child who had been relocated with it's mother to avoid the abusive father. The father bought the paper and saw the pic, put two and two together and tracked down the mother and child. I will end it there....

The school didn't know the little'un had been relocated and wouldn't know.

They blanked out the faces in the above pics because parents had requested, not to hide a kid that had been relocated.

But again why blank out all the kids faces? why not just the ones of the parents who didn't approve?

I don't disagree with your point about certain children not being shown but it doesn't mean that none of them can.

Selekt0r · 5 Mar 2008 at 22:54

There we go - much better

manoz · 5 Mar 2008 at 22:55

^massive LOL

Azagoth · 5 Mar 2008 at 22:58

Selekt0r said:
There we go - much better

English Primary Schools lead the way in Broadband implementation.

weringo · 5 Mar 2008 at 23:07

LoadsaMoney · 5 Mar 2008 at 23:33

Selekt0r said:
There we go - much better

PMSL, class, pure class.

Johnny Girth · 6 Mar 2008 at 00:57

"Some paedophiles have even been disguising themselves as schools..."

Scania · 6 Mar 2008 at 01:01

sniffy said:
I hope someone is fired for that

Trouble is, in this day & age, t'web is the ideal media for such sicko's to get off on & view images (however innocent) of kids.

I am a parent, and honestly don't know what to make of the way things are going with regard to PC.

I want my daughter to be in the paper with regard to the school, she has been before - with my permission - and she was very pleased about it.

I cannot live my life pandering to the whim of the PC brigade who think banning images such as that school photo will have any positive effect.

Inquisitor · 6 Mar 2008 at 01:18

I really don't understand what this has to do with PC. It's just a stupid idea, that's all.

titaniumx3 · 6 Mar 2008 at 01:29

Inquisitor said:
I really don't understand what this has to do with PC. It's just a stupid idea, that's all.

Because it's cool to be PC. :cool: