A Plymouth-based group is campaigning for an end to mobile phone cameras in nurseries - or their "better control and management". It all depends on your point of view. The campaign was started by Devon mother Cheryl Higgs, whose children attended Little Ted’s, the nursery which is now the focus of a police investigation into …
As usual, this won't actually protect anybody - it will simply inconvenience the law-abiding nursery staff/visitors/etc. who have no malicious intent at all. It is ALREADY ILLEGAL to take and distribute indecent photos of children. Making new laws doesn't make it any MORE illegal. The paedophiles and their associates (the small number that actually exist, let's be clear) will not be deterred any more by this proposed new law than any other...
... does banning camera phones safeguard children exactly?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Can't we just ban paedophiles instead?
I can't see the point.
If there are people employed in childcare who are prepared to take indecent photographs of children, I don't think they would worry at all over breaking a rule banning camera phones at work.
It is rather worrying to think that anyone employed in childcare is in contact with one or more paedophiles.
Oh Come On!
Bloody stupid if you ask me.
What makes that woman think that a law against having cameraphones in a childcare setting is going to make any difference? Isn't it already illegal to fiddle with children or takes indecent photos of them? So if one law won't stop them, why would another?
Unless of course they start putting metal detectors in all nurseries and schools, similar to some US schools, which if course works wonderfully......
They should be careful with kneejerk reactions like that, could have someones eye out. ooh quick ban kneejerk reactions, they are an obvious danger to public health.
Hard Cases make Bad Law
A cliche, but as true here as anywhere.... My sympathy does not extend to agreement.
I must be out of touch
Surely the best way to ensure that your kids are safe is to actually bother to look after them yourself? Just a thought.
Get a grip, grow up and fuck off.
These idiots are ruining my Friday; why do I read this stuff?
so when something happens and a camera might be useful, like a kid gets bitten by a spider and they person takes a picture of said arachnid so that a correct antivenom can be chosen - there are no cameras to hand.
Cameras are in most phones, if the landlines fail they'll need one.
How about "don't let people likely to take inappropriate pictures of kids work in a place filled with kids"?
You see what I did there? I addressed the issue at it's source. Or we coudl just all eat some bananas and it might quell the rampant kneejerking.
Ban paper and crayons too!
Any half-competent paedo artist could come up with a real stonker of a sketch, just as artists are forced to do when depicting English court scenes.
Her proposals do not go far enough. Make the 'voluntary' national ID cards mandatory for all people coming into contact with pre-school age children (i.e. all of us), and ensure that the national DNA database be made truly national, by force, and log every email, web access, phone call ........
....Oh! I just remembered, someone has already thought of all that.
Job done then. And the one and only single example of abuse by a carer is prevented from happening again by millions of pounds worth of additional legislation. Not.
How many phone without a camera are available?
I have the same issue. Not with Nurseries but many companies (and government sites) ban visitors from taking camera phones into their premises whilst letting their staff freely walk around with them. Then for the duration of my visit, I'm almost uncontactable by other customers. PErhaps there was something to be said for the ciggy break outside.
Remember that recent NuLab laws make it an offence to take a picture of ANY Military personnel. Not having a camer on your phone is a real boon here.
When I recenty tried to replace my decrepit Nokia 3310 with a newer phone. It was really hard to gat any 'deals' with a non contract phone.
IMHO, pressure should be put on the likes of Nokia to make more phones available without cameras. I eventually got one but it is certainly not in the same class as something like an iPhone etc.
And another knee-jerk...
Luckily I live in a sane country, where my son goes to a nursery. They recently gave us a DVD of footage of him and his classmates doing their stuff over the last few months. We were delighted to receive it. (And they never asked us or told us that they would be doing this). I suppose that this just couldn't happen in the UK any more.
Some things are just not practical
I am completely for the protection of minors, but seriously, these days where most mobile phones have cameras in them whether you want them or not, this harebrained idea is a little impractical.
I am not in the least interested in getting the latest greatest mobile phone. To me a phone is a phone is a phone, my phone is like 4 years old, replaced only because my prior one died, replaced in the cheapest possible fashion
...and guess what? It's got a camera built in. I didn't want it. It's shite, but it's there.
So, if this gets passed, is the protagonist going to go get all these child-care related workers new mobile phones sans cameras?
Will it extend to other child-related fields? Will paediatric health professionals have to junk their phones? School teachers?
Don't be absurd. Deal with the fact mobiles are here and most have cameras built in. Employees probably need a bit more vetting and ultimately if you don't trust them, what sort of system have you got?
Now the peadophiles will have to get put in charge of cameraphones to get their naughty pictures.
As the saying goes...
... if it is proving difficult to draw a line, then the wise person does not draw one.
Got a better idea
as soon as the little one is born, ship it off to a secure government facility where it can grow up safe and secure without any danger from parents or close relatives, or the other miniscule percentage of the population who have a desire to harm.
Or this country can implement punishments which actually deter potential offenders.
I know which option this government would choose. I wonder where they’re going to sight the UK baby facility?
Ridiculous and misplaced reaction
Whilst the issues surrounding this are valid, they are going overboard as usual. If the staff that are working in a nursery cannot be trusted not to take child pornography shots then carrying a camera phone is the least of their worries. I would be more concerned with the staff than what they carry in their pocket.
I work in a couple of schools and rely on my phone to be contactable wherever I am. It happens to be a cameraphone - FFS get in the real world.
Also are they then saying that if a paedo dirtbag is denied their cameraphone they then can't upload from the camera they CAN use?
Knee jerk reaction
As the article points out this is already illegal so it would seem a little OTT to me.
A friend in social services tells me that it's still far far more likely for a child to be abused by mums new boyfriend etc. than some unconnected pervert, although these cases don't make the news as often.
Society also seems unsure what to do with paedophiles. Are they bound to re-offend, can they be cured? If the answer is know should they be kept in "care"?
Lastly, in recent years it seems that thee definition of what a paedophile is has been blurred, which doesn't help the issue. There's a huge difference between an 18 year old sleeping with a 15 year old and a 40 year old abusing an 8 year old.
Anyway, on that note have a good weekend!
Permits and inspections for everything
Freedom comes at a price. Sometimes this price is obvious, as with casualties during a war, other times it is hidden. Nelson Mandela paid a high price for what he achieved. Another aspect is the price paid for our individual freedoms. Every year, people are killed and injured on the
roads, but there is no thought of taking away our freedom to drive, except in a few limited individual cases. The public accepts that in order for most of us to enjoy that freedom of movement, there is an acceptable casualty rate. We'd all like it to be lower but would all fight against any restrictions that would curtail our perceived right to drive.
In the same way, some children will suffer because we're not all monitored 24/7. There have been some high-profile cases, but when you consider how many, compared to the number involved in road accidents, it is actually quite low. It is the price to be paid for allowing the vast
majority of us to make our own decisions without government interference. We also know that no matter how draconian the rules, the casualty rate will never be zero, so, as in the road case, there's a rate considered acceptable for the freedom it grants. There are occasional adjustments - another example being airport security - as bad things come to light and then recede in the public memory, but on average we put up with it. The acceptability of the price also depends on whether you are the one unlucky enough to have to pay it on behalf of everyone else.
The "if it saves even one child" argument is fallacious. Over-zealous government officials with too much power have the capacity to destroy families just as much as the parents, and there are plenty of cases of that on record too.
From recent news it appears that you are free to choose the school your child will attend, provided it's the one the government wants, and then you'll have to agree to abide by all the school rules with the threat of legal action if you don't. You can't even escape by taking your child out of school, you'll soon need a licence to educate your children at home, and so on.
Benjamin Franklin had it right:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
..have a problem with that.
I can see lots of circumstances where a camera is undesirable - thats one of the reasons I have a second, cheapie mobile with no camera that I keep on standby.
this doesn't even make sense:
"There's a lot of guidelines protecting children from photos being taken on cameras in schools, nurseries and swimming pools"
how can a photo be damaging to the child? it's light hitting a sensor ffs. from what they are saying the kids didnt even know they were being taken.
i'd allways thought the issue was supposed to be about stopping the actual abuse of actual, real kids, although the law banning obscene drawings/anime is equally ludicrous
wouldn't it be better
to keep paedophiles out of nurseries?
This looks like a textbook kneejerk reaction to fixing the wrong problem. While I would hope that the individual who suggested this has does not have a hidden agenda (i.e. the banishment of anything capable of taking an image, of anything, from anywhere, all the time), it seems like one of the less well thought through schemes - particularly when some nurseries are actively promoting the idea of watching your child through their internet connected webcams.
Maybe after the proposer has had a little lie down, she'll realise just how daft this whole idea is.
@And another knee-jerk...
Yes, one of my sons spent his early years in a "sane" country (shockingly I'm describing the US as a sane country) so have loads of photos/videos of him at swimming lessons, mini-gym classes etc ... meanwhile his brother, who was 6 months old when we returned the the UK, is in a single photo of a swimming lesson which I took before being informed by a pool attendant that photos were not allowed (he then went on rather amusingly to attempt to justify this as being required by the data protection act!)
are already banned in some companies on the basis they can be used for spying (ie copying information, taking pictures of building layouts, etc) and or could have an adverse effect on other equipment (for example in hospital wards, planes, computer rooms, etc) or where security could be breached - eg prisons (although that's all cameras, not just camera phones)
Where there's a clearly identified risk the precedent is already there to ban their use.
In one company I worked for all mobile phones, regardless of whether they had a camera, were collected from staff visitng the site and handed back at the end of their visit - it does make life hard for the poor engineer who needs his phone for looking up call details, etc, but there are always workarounds in most situations.
Names, misuse of
This horse has long bolted, *BUT* why has the meeja spinelessly used paedophiles own somewhat misleading pet name for themselves?
Kindly call the bastards what they are and what they always used to be correctly called:
"my phone is like 4 years old, replaced only because my prior one died"
My apologies in advance, I read that as:
"my phone is like a 4 year old, replaced only because my prior one died"
My wife runs a nursary
and part of keeping track of childrens development, is to take photos/videos of them, it is expected by ofstead that you do this so my wife has several cameras that she and the other staff use to take photos. However as with well run nursaries, people are not left in sole charge, and doors are not shut when nappies etc are changed so that the childrens welfare is protected and the staff are not left in a situation where there actions are not monitored.
Brown paper bags
Brown paper bags be worn by all children when out and about.
All pianos should have there legs covered.
Swimming pools, beaches, and TV channels should be segregated by sex.
All cameras, oil paintings, sketches etc should have the faces obscured for all people and animals, especially sheep.
This would obstruct justice
Enacting any proposal to limit camera phones would obstruct justice by reducing the number of people with camera phones on the street and in workplaces.
The camera phones are needed to record illegal events, such as police officers or others beating people, automobile accidents, etc.
I've got a better idea
Since it's people taking the pictures, keep them out of nurseries.
Coukld you suggest
to the originator of this campaign that she puts her well-meaning effort into improving recruitment and selection processes so they don't employ paedophiles in the first place, and then into improving staff supervision so staff don't have the opportunities to molest children at work, which must take some time. It is the person, not the camera phone, which committed the offence. A perpetrator, deprved of a cameraphnoe, will offend using something else.
Kneejerk reactionary legislation should be illegal
I think that knee-jerk reactionary legislation should be banned.
In other news.
I occasionally work at a site in an Asian country, where if you have a phone on your camera, it is tapped over when you go on site, as are any CD/DVD writing drives. If the tape is not there when you leave then security get involved.
Quite ironic given they are a major manufacture of, guess what, mobile phones with cameras.
Works quite well, although their particular system is full of holes.
Probably work OK in nurseries too.
Although I agree with the above - a knee jerk reaction to a non-existent problem. (1 known case out of god knows how many nurseries in the UK over the whole history of nurseries)
It is STILL legal for lab assistants to take pictures of the fetus??
But hang on...
At the end of the day, this person was caught?
Obviously they are going to prison for a very long time, and the police are hunting down any online connections. Contrary to popular (tabloid) belief, the police are very keen on this, and have a pretty good success rate at removing the content, and catching those responsible
Unless the parents sat their kids down, and traumatized them for life with an explicit description of what their minder was actually doing, then these children should be blissfully unaware of what went on.
So, children unharmed, bad guys caught, and cleanup operation underway. Did I miss something, or did the legal infrastructure actually work for a change?
What we have here is a mother feeling violated on behalf of her child. It's a perfectly natural human reaction, but completely innapropriate in legaslative procedure, and one we as a society have spent hundreds of years trying to safeguard our legal systems from.
This is why we have a jury of 12, explicitly devoid of victims or relatives involved in the case.
I just looked at there site
Interesting they name the suspect (as yet untried) and people talk in open comments about the guilt and the actions etc.
Given the publicity for this its going to make jury selection interesting and commenting on guilt in a public format could lead to a mistrial.
I bet the rocket scientist who came up with this idea would feel a little miffed if her campaign actually derailed the trial!
Paris - brighter and more useful than the average knee jerker
What about all the nurseries that have installed CCTV systems with web access so "concerned" can check on their offspring from afar?
Are these going to be banned as well?
btw I've just sold a similar system to a cattery, so people can watch their little kitties whilst they're on holiday - sad fucks...
@ Matt 21
The definition has been blurred by the press.
The term paedophile (or pedophile, tho why you would be attracted to feet is beyond me) actually refers to the attraction towards pre-pubescent children, legally in the UK that means girls under 12 and boys under 14.
When discussing anything to do with girls from 12-16/18 or boys from 14-16/18 the term is actually ephebophile, meaning someone attracted to adolescents, not children.
It's also not helped by oddities in the law that mean a 15 year old couple having sex could lead to the male being charged with Statutary Rape.
As for the article, as many have pointed out, this is an attempt to ban the means, not to make any difference to the problem. Much like banning knives has cut knife crime and banning hand guns has cut down on their number.
Anyone who agrees with this idea goes and lives in a Taliban controlled area of Afghanistan, I believe they're opposed to all photos, graven images etc. which should solve the problem nicely.
Although you do wonder how they justify those videos they put out...
I assume that the person at the centre of this had passed a CRB check which proves the governments obsession with anyone that works with children has one proves nothing.
How long before the government uses this case to include all known associates n the CRB check as they do for some levels of security clearance.
Also banning something twice does not make it any less likely to happen.
A phone as only a phone
If you want a phone which is free of all gimmicks and has superb charge stamina you need a Nokia 1200. This is available on the Web, Sim-free for £24.00 or less.
This was designed for the micro finance market in Africa and Asia where poor female entrepreneurs can borrow $20 and set up a business in their village to sell call time to their neighbours. That is why it has multiple phone books and displays call and charge time and has a torch.
I have seen criticism of this phone for being simple but the critics don't understand the market and the end user it is aimed at. I think it is a brilliant robust phone which has already created several rich women in Africa.
Having worked at a hospital, I know the hospital banned phones because of they had cameras, but even if a patient was that bored to take photos (of patients or dirty wards) then surely another patient would notice.
But why surely we've had digital cameras and polariod cameras before that, ok they probably needed a flash to take a photo indoors, but nobody thought to ban those!
My phone is dead old and even it has a camera - so if you want a pic of something that looks like a low-res thumbnail, it's great (!)
I very much doubt this will ever take off the ground, admittely I have a pager as well (but i can never be ar$ed to change the battery for it every month) but there are just times when you need to be contacted in an emergency and I can't see me leaving my phone with a receptionist ... but on the plus side ... less stress :-)
Surely the best thing you can do is make sure chidren are not in a vunerable situation, like going to the toilet, changing nappies etc, you could get a paedo who doesn't take pics!
ah yes, lets ban something tangientally involved
because banning handguns has stopped all gun crime within the uk hasnt it?
Who allows staff to use mobile phones when they are at work anyway?
Sorry, but in my company, the use of personal mobile phones during work hours is forbidden, and rightly so.
When you are at work, you are being paid for your time, not to take personal phone calls.l
We instigated this when we found staff spending time on their mobile phone and ignoring the ringing company phone on their desk.
So I see no problem with insisting that mobile phones are kept in lockers, in the car, or left at home.
Knee-jerk reaction (aren't they ALWAYS!!)
This woman needs to get things in perspective, we have had ONE incident in a SINGLE nursery school involving ONE member of staff and an associate.
As mentioned above, we (I am a Nursery Manager), are REQUIRED by OFSTED to take photos recording the child's development; dragging a "normal" camera, either 35mm or digital is not possible all the time, so camera phones get used a lot by individual staff to take photos when a child does something noteworthy; going to get the "real" camera often takes too long and/or disrupts whatever it is the child is going.
A far bigger scandal is the fact that OFSTED inspectors are using their positions to carry out vendettas against nurseries and staff they do not like, or who they had " issues with" when they themselves worked in childcare; with OFSTED being a QUANGO, there is very little that can be done to report these actions and only the bravest Owner/Operator is prepared to makes these complaints when OFSTED send the SAME PERSON out as part of the complaint investigation!!
Email parents. Ask if they are ok with the event being ilmed / pictures taken
We pussyfoor aroundf way too much.
Let's stop agreeing with each other. Instead of posting here, let's post to the Daily Mail's message boards.
Banning personal mobiles in places I've worked would decrease progress, I've noticed that many people get calls on their mobile from suppliers or customers or even other employees rather than get them on their company phone. This is often because they're not always at their desks and people have learned that the mobile is a better choice. The downside is that you might also get work-related calls outside of work hours, but that just compensates for the occasional personal call when at work.
As with all things, sensible balance is called for. Bringing in overly-restrictive rules for the vast majority of sensible people to cope with the small minority of abusers may well end up costing more in lost goodwill and productivity.
Was she dropped on her head as a child?
So the facts are these:
1. She wants camera phones banned or controlled in nurseries, lest a member of staff take a picture of a child there.
2. She acknowledges that the staff already have (superior) digital cameras at said nurseries which they use and will continue to use to take pictures of the children there, and this will not change.
Therefore if a dodgy member of staff IS prevented from taking pictures with a camera phone (and the chances are that they will just ignore this rule, like the others), they will just have to take better ones with a normal camera.
The question is:
Was she looked after properly as a child, or was she dropped on her head... Repeatedly.
- Just TWO climate committee MPs contradict IPCC: The two with SCIENCE degrees
- 14 antivirus apps found to have security problems
- Feature Scotland's BIG question: Will independence cost me my broadband?
- FTC to mobile carriers: If you could stop text scammers being jerks that'd be just great
- Apple winks at parents: C'mon, get your kid a tweaked Macbook Pro