'Get cameraphones out of nurseries' plea 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 …
If the worker can get away with taking indecent pictures of the children they'll be able to sneak in a camera phone. You can't compair this to anti-weapon laws, totally different situation. Does anyone think that some paedophile who works at a daycare would be stopped by a "no cameraphone" rule? Please.
I'm not supposed to have my phone on me at work, but I do anyway. Just in case there's an emergency or something, otherwise it stays in my pocket.
Of course if a public figure were to reveal this logic, they'd be scared of looking like they support paedophiles.
Here in Oz our daughter goes to a daycare centre where the staff regularly take photos of the kids at play and learning on a compact camera. The results are compiled into a "what the kids did today" poster by the time they're collected. Copies also go into the child's folder to document their progress. To everyone's knowledge nothing bad has ever happened. They'd lose their license, their income, and their liberty if it did. This is all about trust on the part of parents and adequate screening and supervision of staff on behalf of the daycare.
Don't quote me on this, but I think the stats for inappropriate behaviour by a friend/relative are pretty high - what does she intend doing in that case as this seems real horse/stable door action?
"Let's stop agreeing with each other. Instead of posting here, let's post to the Daily Mail's message boards."
Seconded. In fact, we should be posting to the web site involved, the local newspaper, and the local MP.
If you don't make your views known early, you will have an uphill battle to fight when they do kick off their knee-jerk reaction...
Disagree with Leo.
Firstly, you're not paid for your time, you're paid for your WORK. I had an agreeable boss who set me projects to be completed in such-and-such a time. If I got it done early then I could have a couple of days off. Pop into work occasionally to check my post. Work-related emails I could check at home.
But, natch, if it was running late, I'd be in the office most of the night, and maybe weekends. So, balance. Plus, my disabled missus might need some help with the nipper - hence the necessity of a phone.
Tar, Brush, Same?
Agree with number6
Second, I had a real (unbelievable) argument with an American colleague (I worked in Finland). He couldn't understand the concept that Nokia Finland didn't have desk phones anymore - only mobiles. He failed to grasp the concept that I wanted to call HIM, not his bloody desk....
So, because something could be used in a criminal act, the only solution is to ban the object entirely?
It's also a criminal offence to beat children over the head with a chair, so should schools remove all chairs?
Ditto smacking kids - so should we ban anyone with limbs?
This is sheer idiocy from the "something must be done" brigade. These folks just need to accept that you can't control all aspects of life without stifling it.
"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."
Or indeed, the oddity that a 17 year old couple who can legally have sex will be charged with child porn possession if they take a photo of their legal acts (or indeed, if a 17 year old takes a private photo of his or her own body). No doubt the press would refer to them as "pedophiles".
With the Coroners and Justice Bill that will soon be made law, drawing a naughty picture that appears to depict a 17 year old in the scene will get you three years in prison, because the Government think that makes you a pedophile too.
The reason people don't like cameras these days, and didn't mind the old Polaroid ones etc, is not the cameras themselves - it's the internet that's the problem. Nobody minded being publicly photographed in the old days because few if any of those photos would ever reach a wide audience. These days, however, people consider that the image will end up on some popular site, or be used in identity theft, or for somebody to fap to, or whatever. This is also why there's such a palaver about Google Earth - it's not the fact that Google are taking pictures, it that they are publishing them on the internet for all to see.
Yes, this attitude amongst people angers me, as I used to enjoy photography as a hobby - but I gave it away (although I still do it in the countryside when nobody else is around) after being shouted at, abused, and falsely accused of all sorts of things too many times. While I value my privacy in my own place, people have got to learn that if you are in public you have no expectation of privacy.
[she said: "There's a lot of guidelines protecting children from photos being taken on cameras in schools, nurseries and swimming pools, but none to say staff can't take camera phones to work."]
If there are already guidelines about cameras, doesn't cameras on mobile phones also fall under this rule?
"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"
Do they time your fag and toilet breaks too?
Humans do not work a solid 8hrs, we are not built for that. In the time, we:
have tea breaks
chat to other staff
piss around on the internet
read the news
etc.
Anyone who does not understand this is an idiot with a demoralised and demotivated staff. People do not want to come to work, and are not will do anything extra, ever.
Its a massive fail as a business.
Not answering the company phone because of personal calls... well, people should be told off, just ditch the personal call.
This is another example of Political Correctness going Mad.
Cameraphones make up such a big chunk of the available market that NOT getting one is difficult. i had to work on some defence sites a few years ago and the only phone that had bluetooth (and could work my handsfrree) but did not have a camera was the Nokia 6021. Fortunately the MoD seemed pretty relaxed about them so i went and got a cybershot.
There is only one example of a nursery worker abusing their position this way so why inconvenience the rest? If somebody is intent on taking pictures of this sort they can surely smuggle in a decent digital camera and do a better photographic job?
maybe it is a market for stripped out & obselete phones?
What on Earth has any of this got to do with Political Correctness?
No one is suggesting that cameraphones are politically incorrect. Far from it. It's the same crowd of people who bang about the place spouting "PC gone mad" who are usually the first to curtail our freedoms because of the children.
So-called political correctness is an attempt to stop the verbal and physical abuse of people just because they're a wrongskin, wrongsex, wrongwhatever.
In other words so-called political correctness is usually an attempt to curtail the political correctness of the right. Suck on that.
Paris, because I happen to be admiring my Johnny Yeo print.
I know plenty of places that restrict access to R&D sites of cameras, phones with cameras and even laptops with webcam. All have to be left at security/reception when going on site.
No law changes required.
Companies take IP protection very seriosly.
Infact we just had to re-order a liad of laptops and specifucally ask tgat the supplier remove the webcams.
I don't know why someone doesn't make a killing on tamperproof security stickers that could be applied on entry and checked when you leave.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
