Things you have recently learnt

First.Aspect

There's a woke heirarcy of need. Anyone of binary gender is at the bottom.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Curious.
Is displaying a cleavage now flashing?

Not if you don't look at it.

It is well meaning simpleton wokey politics. A bit like the clusterfcuk they are making about male/female spaces.

Fancy hanging out in women's toilets or changing rooms at the gym? Well then, identify as a woman for a day.

Not sure equating people in the background of photographs of other things with some bloke perving on a crowded train is that useful. Criminal law seems to be able to distinguish intentional harm from accident in plenty of other complex areas so not sure you need to worry so much.

Also, they are proposing to extend existing legislation in E&W, too. Are you saying Patel is woke?

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

Curious.
Is displaying a cleavage now flashing?

No.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Curious.
Is displaying a cleavage now flashing?

Not if you don't look at it.

It is well meaning simpleton wokey politics. A bit like the clusterfcuk they are making about male/female spaces.

Fancy hanging out in women's toilets or changing rooms at the gym? Well then, identify as a woman for a day.

Not sure equating people in the background of photographs of other things with some bloke perving on a crowded train is that useful. Criminal law seems to be able to distinguish intentional harm from accident in plenty of other complex areas so not sure you need to worry so much.

Also, they are proposing to extend existing legislation in E&W, too. Are you saying Patel is woke?

Oh well if Priti Patel is doing it, it must be good.

Read what I wrote. The idea is fine - basically to stop revenge porn, but if the consequences is to inadvertently capture lots of things that are perfectly reasonable, it might be a problem.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Curious.
Is displaying a cleavage now flashing?

Not if you don't look at it.

It is well meaning simpleton wokey politics. A bit like the clusterfcuk they are making about male/female spaces.

Fancy hanging out in women's toilets or changing rooms at the gym? Well then, identify as a woman for a day.

Not sure equating people in the background of photographs of other things with some bloke perving on a crowded train is that useful. Criminal law seems to be able to distinguish intentional harm from accident in plenty of other complex areas so not sure you need to worry so much.

Also, they are proposing to extend existing legislation in E&W, too. Are you saying Patel is woke?

Oh well if Priti Patel is doing it, it must be good.

Read what I wrote. The idea is fine - basically to stop revenge porn, but if the consequences is to inadvertently capture lots of things that are perfectly reasonable, it might be a problem.

No, but I don't think anyone would accuse her of being woke. I am suggesting the consequence is entirely imaginary. The law already exists: they are just proposing to tweak the definition. For a start the justice system has all but ground to a halt so amending the definition of one crime is not going to lead to a flood of wrongful prosecutions.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Curious.
Is displaying a cleavage now flashing?

Not if you don't look at it.

It is well meaning simpleton wokey politics. A bit like the clusterfcuk they are making about male/female spaces.

Fancy hanging out in women's toilets or changing rooms at the gym? Well then, identify as a woman for a day.

Not sure equating people in the background of photographs of other things with some bloke perving on a crowded train is that useful. Criminal law seems to be able to distinguish intentional harm from accident in plenty of other complex areas so not sure you need to worry so much.

Also, they are proposing to extend existing legislation in E&W, too. Are you saying Patel is woke?

Oh well if Priti Patel is doing it, it must be good.

Read what I wrote. The idea is fine - basically to stop revenge porn, but if the consequences is to inadvertently capture lots of things that are perfectly reasonable, it might be a problem.

No, but I don't think anyone would accuse her of being woke. I am suggesting the consequence is entirely imaginary. The law already exists: they are just proposing to tweak the definition. For a start the justice system has all but ground to a halt so amending the definition of one crime is not going to lead to a flood of wrongful prosecutions.

There's a whole debate there about overuse of secondary legislation.

And no, it's not terribly important in the grand scheme of things. And no, Priti Patel is not woke. But the SNP are trying to be (except when supporting MPs accused of sexual misconduct).

But someone somewhere will fall foul of a badly written piece of legislation eventually. It is in the nature of bad legislation to cause this.

It is more likely to have a similar noticable effect as the one that prevents you from filming the school play your child is in. In that case, to prevent abusive images, all images of children become problematic. Although it wasnt intended that someone filming the school play might be considered to be acquiring paedophilic images, best be on the safe side now....

briantrumpet

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Curious.
Is displaying a cleavage now flashing?

Not if you don't look at it.

It is well meaning simpleton wokey politics. A bit like the clusterfcuk they are making about male/female spaces.

Fancy hanging out in women's toilets or changing rooms at the gym? Well then, identify as a woman for a day.

Not sure equating people in the background of photographs of other things with some bloke perving on a crowded train is that useful. Criminal law seems to be able to distinguish intentional harm from accident in plenty of other complex areas so not sure you need to worry so much.

Also, they are proposing to extend existing legislation in E&W, too. Are you saying Patel is woke?

Oh well if Priti Patel is doing it, it must be good.

Read what I wrote. The idea is fine - basically to stop revenge porn, but if the consequences is to inadvertently capture lots of things that are perfectly reasonable, it might be a problem.

No, but I don't think anyone would accuse her of being woke. I am suggesting the consequence is entirely imaginary. The law already exists: they are just proposing to tweak the definition. For a start the justice system has all but ground to a halt so amending the definition of one crime is not going to lead to a flood of wrongful prosecutions.

There's a whole debate there about overuse of secondary legislation.

And no, it's not terribly important in the grand scheme of things. And no, Priti Patel is not woke. But the SNP are trying to be (except when supporting MPs accused of sexual misconduct).

But someone somewhere will fall foul of a badly written piece of legislation eventually. It is in the nature of bad legislation to cause this.

It is more likely to have a similar noticable effect as the one that prevents you from filming the school play your child is in. In that case, to prevent abusive images, all images of children become problematic. Although it wasnt intended that someone filming the school play might be considered to be acquiring paedophilic images, best be on the safe side now....

That was the sort of thing that I was thinking of, along with the more recent GDPR requirement for individual opt-in photo permission. Sooner or later, someone will see how far they can test the law's specifics.

TheBigBean

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Curious.
Is displaying a cleavage now flashing?

Not if you don't look at it.

It is well meaning simpleton wokey politics. A bit like the clusterfcuk they are making about male/female spaces.

Fancy hanging out in women's toilets or changing rooms at the gym? Well then, identify as a woman for a day.

Not sure equating people in the background of photographs of other things with some bloke perving on a crowded train is that useful. Criminal law seems to be able to distinguish intentional harm from accident in plenty of other complex areas so not sure you need to worry so much.

Also, they are proposing to extend existing legislation in E&W, too. Are you saying Patel is woke?

Oh well if Priti Patel is doing it, it must be good.

Read what I wrote. The idea is fine - basically to stop revenge porn, but if the consequences is to inadvertently capture lots of things that are perfectly reasonable, it might be a problem.

No, but I don't think anyone would accuse her of being woke. I am suggesting the consequence is entirely imaginary. The law already exists: they are just proposing to tweak the definition. For a start the justice system has all but ground to a halt so amending the definition of one crime is not going to lead to a flood of wrongful prosecutions.

There's a whole debate there about overuse of secondary legislation.

And no, it's not terribly important in the grand scheme of things. And no, Priti Patel is not woke. But the SNP are trying to be (except when supporting MPs accused of sexual misconduct).

But someone somewhere will fall foul of a badly written piece of legislation eventually. It is in the nature of bad legislation to cause this.

It is more likely to have a similar noticable effect as the one that prevents you from filming the school play your child is in. In that case, to prevent abusive images, all images of children become problematic. Although it wasnt intended that someone filming the school play might be considered to be acquiring paedophilic images, best be on the safe side now....

That was the sort of thing that I was thinking of, along with the more recent GDPR requirement for individual opt-in photo permission. Sooner or later, someone will see how far they can test the law's specifics.

Nothing wrong with that. I don't think schools should be publishing photos of any kids, but if other parents are happy to consent, so be it.

briantrumpet

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Curious.
Is displaying a cleavage now flashing?

Not if you don't look at it.

It is well meaning simpleton wokey politics. A bit like the clusterfcuk they are making about male/female spaces.

Fancy hanging out in women's toilets or changing rooms at the gym? Well then, identify as a woman for a day.

Not sure equating people in the background of photographs of other things with some bloke perving on a crowded train is that useful. Criminal law seems to be able to distinguish intentional harm from accident in plenty of other complex areas so not sure you need to worry so much.

Also, they are proposing to extend existing legislation in E&W, too. Are you saying Patel is woke?

Oh well if Priti Patel is doing it, it must be good.

Read what I wrote. The idea is fine - basically to stop revenge porn, but if the consequences is to inadvertently capture lots of things that are perfectly reasonable, it might be a problem.

No, but I don't think anyone would accuse her of being woke. I am suggesting the consequence is entirely imaginary. The law already exists: they are just proposing to tweak the definition. For a start the justice system has all but ground to a halt so amending the definition of one crime is not going to lead to a flood of wrongful prosecutions.

There's a whole debate there about overuse of secondary legislation.

And no, it's not terribly important in the grand scheme of things. And no, Priti Patel is not woke. But the SNP are trying to be (except when supporting MPs accused of sexual misconduct).

But someone somewhere will fall foul of a badly written piece of legislation eventually. It is in the nature of bad legislation to cause this.

It is more likely to have a similar noticable effect as the one that prevents you from filming the school play your child is in. In that case, to prevent abusive images, all images of children become problematic. Although it wasnt intended that someone filming the school play might be considered to be acquiring paedophilic images, best be on the safe side now....

That was the sort of thing that I was thinking of, along with the more recent GDPR requirement for individual opt-in photo permission. Sooner or later, someone will see how far they can test the law's specifics.

Nothing wrong with that. I don't think schools should be publishing photos of any kids, but if other parents are happy to consent, so be it.

It's an interesting one. Try telling parents that they can't take a snap of their child in the angel costume in the nativity play.

And try taking photos of a stadium concert without showing audience faces.

As ever, somewhere in the middle, between outright ban and complete freedom, there's a woolly happy medium. Writing that into enforcible statute is hard. And enforcing it is even harder.

TheBigBean

briantrumpet said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Curious.
Is displaying a cleavage now flashing?

Not if you don't look at it.

It is well meaning simpleton wokey politics. A bit like the clusterfcuk they are making about male/female spaces.

Fancy hanging out in women's toilets or changing rooms at the gym? Well then, identify as a woman for a day.

Not sure equating people in the background of photographs of other things with some bloke perving on a crowded train is that useful. Criminal law seems to be able to distinguish intentional harm from accident in plenty of other complex areas so not sure you need to worry so much.

Also, they are proposing to extend existing legislation in E&W, too. Are you saying Patel is woke?

Oh well if Priti Patel is doing it, it must be good.

Read what I wrote. The idea is fine - basically to stop revenge porn, but if the consequences is to inadvertently capture lots of things that are perfectly reasonable, it might be a problem.

No, but I don't think anyone would accuse her of being woke. I am suggesting the consequence is entirely imaginary. The law already exists: they are just proposing to tweak the definition. For a start the justice system has all but ground to a halt so amending the definition of one crime is not going to lead to a flood of wrongful prosecutions.

There's a whole debate there about overuse of secondary legislation.

And no, it's not terribly important in the grand scheme of things. And no, Priti Patel is not woke. But the SNP are trying to be (except when supporting MPs accused of sexual misconduct).

But someone somewhere will fall foul of a badly written piece of legislation eventually. It is in the nature of bad legislation to cause this.

It is more likely to have a similar noticable effect as the one that prevents you from filming the school play your child is in. In that case, to prevent abusive images, all images of children become problematic. Although it wasnt intended that someone filming the school play might be considered to be acquiring paedophilic images, best be on the safe side now....

That was the sort of thing that I was thinking of, along with the more recent GDPR requirement for individual opt-in photo permission. Sooner or later, someone will see how far they can test the law's specifics.

Nothing wrong with that. I don't think schools should be publishing photos of any kids, but if other parents are happy to consent, so be it.

It's an interesting one. Try telling parents that they can't take a snap of their child in the angel costume in the nativity play.

And try taking photos of a stadium concert without showing audience faces.

As ever, somewhere in the middle, between outright ban and complete freedom, there's a woolly happy medium. Writing that into enforcible statute is hard. And enforcing it is even harder.

I don't have a problem with other parents taking pictures. I have a problem with a school doing it and publishing the photos.

Pross

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Curious.
Is displaying a cleavage now flashing?

Not if you don't look at it.

It is well meaning simpleton wokey politics. A bit like the clusterfcuk they are making about male/female spaces.

Fancy hanging out in women's toilets or changing rooms at the gym? Well then, identify as a woman for a day.

Not sure equating people in the background of photographs of other things with some bloke perving on a crowded train is that useful. Criminal law seems to be able to distinguish intentional harm from accident in plenty of other complex areas so not sure you need to worry so much.

Also, they are proposing to extend existing legislation in E&W, too. Are you saying Patel is woke?

Oh well if Priti Patel is doing it, it must be good.

Read what I wrote. The idea is fine - basically to stop revenge porn, but if the consequences is to inadvertently capture lots of things that are perfectly reasonable, it might be a problem.

No, but I don't think anyone would accuse her of being woke. I am suggesting the consequence is entirely imaginary. The law already exists: they are just proposing to tweak the definition. For a start the justice system has all but ground to a halt so amending the definition of one crime is not going to lead to a flood of wrongful prosecutions.

There's a whole debate there about overuse of secondary legislation.

And no, it's not terribly important in the grand scheme of things. And no, Priti Patel is not woke. But the SNP are trying to be (except when supporting MPs accused of sexual misconduct).

But someone somewhere will fall foul of a badly written piece of legislation eventually. It is in the nature of bad legislation to cause this.

It is more likely to have a similar noticable effect as the one that prevents you from filming the school play your child is in. In that case, to prevent abusive images, all images of children become problematic. Although it wasnt intended that someone filming the school play might be considered to be acquiring paedophilic images, best be on the safe side now....

That was the sort of thing that I was thinking of, along with the more recent GDPR requirement for individual opt-in photo permission. Sooner or later, someone will see how far they can test the law's specifics.

Nothing wrong with that. I don't think schools should be publishing photos of any kids, but if other parents are happy to consent, so be it.

It's an interesting one. Try telling parents that they can't take a snap of their child in the angel costume in the nativity play.

And try taking photos of a stadium concert without showing audience faces.

As ever, somewhere in the middle, between outright ban and complete freedom, there's a woolly happy medium. Writing that into enforcible statute is hard. And enforcing it is even harder.

I don't have a problem with other parents taking pictures. I have a problem with a school doing it and publishing the photos.

I'm convinced part of it is that the school can sell videos if they ban everyone else from filming. That said, my memories of attending the kids' school performances were parents so busy trying to film their little angel they would happily block other parents' view so anything that prevents that is welcome.

The start of Matilda the musical, if anyone has seen it, feels like a documentary of any school performance I attended.

briantrumpet

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Curious.
Is displaying a cleavage now flashing?

Not if you don't look at it.

It is well meaning simpleton wokey politics. A bit like the clusterfcuk they are making about male/female spaces.

Fancy hanging out in women's toilets or changing rooms at the gym? Well then, identify as a woman for a day.

Not sure equating people in the background of photographs of other things with some bloke perving on a crowded train is that useful. Criminal law seems to be able to distinguish intentional harm from accident in plenty of other complex areas so not sure you need to worry so much.

Also, they are proposing to extend existing legislation in E&W, too. Are you saying Patel is woke?

Oh well if Priti Patel is doing it, it must be good.

Read what I wrote. The idea is fine - basically to stop revenge porn, but if the consequences is to inadvertently capture lots of things that are perfectly reasonable, it might be a problem.

No, but I don't think anyone would accuse her of being woke. I am suggesting the consequence is entirely imaginary. The law already exists: they are just proposing to tweak the definition. For a start the justice system has all but ground to a halt so amending the definition of one crime is not going to lead to a flood of wrongful prosecutions.

There's a whole debate there about overuse of secondary legislation.

And no, it's not terribly important in the grand scheme of things. And no, Priti Patel is not woke. But the SNP are trying to be (except when supporting MPs accused of sexual misconduct).

But someone somewhere will fall foul of a badly written piece of legislation eventually. It is in the nature of bad legislation to cause this.

It is more likely to have a similar noticable effect as the one that prevents you from filming the school play your child is in. In that case, to prevent abusive images, all images of children become problematic. Although it wasnt intended that someone filming the school play might be considered to be acquiring paedophilic images, best be on the safe side now....

That was the sort of thing that I was thinking of, along with the more recent GDPR requirement for individual opt-in photo permission. Sooner or later, someone will see how far they can test the law's specifics.

Nothing wrong with that. I don't think schools should be publishing photos of any kids, but if other parents are happy to consent, so be it.

It's an interesting one. Try telling parents that they can't take a snap of their child in the angel costume in the nativity play.

And try taking photos of a stadium concert without showing audience faces.

As ever, somewhere in the middle, between outright ban and complete freedom, there's a woolly happy medium. Writing that into enforcible statute is hard. And enforcing it is even harder.

I don't have a problem with other parents taking pictures. I have a problem with a school doing it and publishing the photos.

Ah, got you. Any reason you find it particularly distasteful?

Seems to be a thing now, and I can't see schools who use it as a way of celebrating and publicising the school's and children's achievements stopping it. Most have strict guidelines on how it happens.

TheBigBean

briantrumpet said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Curious.
Is displaying a cleavage now flashing?

Not if you don't look at it.

It is well meaning simpleton wokey politics. A bit like the clusterfcuk they are making about male/female spaces.

Fancy hanging out in women's toilets or changing rooms at the gym? Well then, identify as a woman for a day.

Not sure equating people in the background of photographs of other things with some bloke perving on a crowded train is that useful. Criminal law seems to be able to distinguish intentional harm from accident in plenty of other complex areas so not sure you need to worry so much.

Also, they are proposing to extend existing legislation in E&W, too. Are you saying Patel is woke?

Oh well if Priti Patel is doing it, it must be good.

Read what I wrote. The idea is fine - basically to stop revenge porn, but if the consequences is to inadvertently capture lots of things that are perfectly reasonable, it might be a problem.

No, but I don't think anyone would accuse her of being woke. I am suggesting the consequence is entirely imaginary. The law already exists: they are just proposing to tweak the definition. For a start the justice system has all but ground to a halt so amending the definition of one crime is not going to lead to a flood of wrongful prosecutions.

There's a whole debate there about overuse of secondary legislation.

And no, it's not terribly important in the grand scheme of things. And no, Priti Patel is not woke. But the SNP are trying to be (except when supporting MPs accused of sexual misconduct).

But someone somewhere will fall foul of a badly written piece of legislation eventually. It is in the nature of bad legislation to cause this.

It is more likely to have a similar noticable effect as the one that prevents you from filming the school play your child is in. In that case, to prevent abusive images, all images of children become problematic. Although it wasnt intended that someone filming the school play might be considered to be acquiring paedophilic images, best be on the safe side now....

That was the sort of thing that I was thinking of, along with the more recent GDPR requirement for individual opt-in photo permission. Sooner or later, someone will see how far they can test the law's specifics.

Nothing wrong with that. I don't think schools should be publishing photos of any kids, but if other parents are happy to consent, so be it.

It's an interesting one. Try telling parents that they can't take a snap of their child in the angel costume in the nativity play.

And try taking photos of a stadium concert without showing audience faces.

As ever, somewhere in the middle, between outright ban and complete freedom, there's a woolly happy medium. Writing that into enforcible statute is hard. And enforcing it is even harder.

I don't have a problem with other parents taking pictures. I have a problem with a school doing it and publishing the photos.

Ah, got you. Any reason you find it particularly distasteful?

Seems to be a thing now, and I can't see schools who use it as a way of celebrating and publicising the school's and children's achievements stopping it. Most have strict guidelines on how it happens.

To give you example, I recently googled a client of mine because I wanted to know her background and experience. First hit was a picture of a much younger version of her drunk at her school prom. The school thought it was appropriate to publish the photo with names.

People should be free to fill the internet with images of themselves doing whatever they like, but I don't believe kids are old enough to understand the consequences and consent.

I denied permission for my kids' schools to publish photos and yet they still seem to manage to do it.

First.Aspect

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Curious.
Is displaying a cleavage now flashing?

Not if you don't look at it.

It is well meaning simpleton wokey politics. A bit like the clusterfcuk they are making about male/female spaces.

Fancy hanging out in women's toilets or changing rooms at the gym? Well then, identify as a woman for a day.

Not sure equating people in the background of photographs of other things with some bloke perving on a crowded train is that useful. Criminal law seems to be able to distinguish intentional harm from accident in plenty of other complex areas so not sure you need to worry so much.

Also, they are proposing to extend existing legislation in E&W, too. Are you saying Patel is woke?

Oh well if Priti Patel is doing it, it must be good.

Read what I wrote. The idea is fine - basically to stop revenge porn, but if the consequences is to inadvertently capture lots of things that are perfectly reasonable, it might be a problem.

No, but I don't think anyone would accuse her of being woke. I am suggesting the consequence is entirely imaginary. The law already exists: they are just proposing to tweak the definition. For a start the justice system has all but ground to a halt so amending the definition of one crime is not going to lead to a flood of wrongful prosecutions.

There's a whole debate there about overuse of secondary legislation.

And no, it's not terribly important in the grand scheme of things. And no, Priti Patel is not woke. But the SNP are trying to be (except when supporting MPs accused of sexual misconduct).

But someone somewhere will fall foul of a badly written piece of legislation eventually. It is in the nature of bad legislation to cause this.

It is more likely to have a similar noticable effect as the one that prevents you from filming the school play your child is in. In that case, to prevent abusive images, all images of children become problematic. Although it wasnt intended that someone filming the school play might be considered to be acquiring paedophilic images, best be on the safe side now....

That was the sort of thing that I was thinking of, along with the more recent GDPR requirement for individual opt-in photo permission. Sooner or later, someone will see how far they can test the law's specifics.

Far be it from me to say, but the GDPR is another shittily written bit of legislation that probably brings a foot print in the sand under the definition of personal data.

briantrumpet

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Curious.
Is displaying a cleavage now flashing?

Not if you don't look at it.

It is well meaning simpleton wokey politics. A bit like the clusterfcuk they are making about male/female spaces.

Fancy hanging out in women's toilets or changing rooms at the gym? Well then, identify as a woman for a day.

Not sure equating people in the background of photographs of other things with some bloke perving on a crowded train is that useful. Criminal law seems to be able to distinguish intentional harm from accident in plenty of other complex areas so not sure you need to worry so much.

Also, they are proposing to extend existing legislation in E&W, too. Are you saying Patel is woke?

Oh well if Priti Patel is doing it, it must be good.

Read what I wrote. The idea is fine - basically to stop revenge porn, but if the consequences is to inadvertently capture lots of things that are perfectly reasonable, it might be a problem.

No, but I don't think anyone would accuse her of being woke. I am suggesting the consequence is entirely imaginary. The law already exists: they are just proposing to tweak the definition. For a start the justice system has all but ground to a halt so amending the definition of one crime is not going to lead to a flood of wrongful prosecutions.

There's a whole debate there about overuse of secondary legislation.

And no, it's not terribly important in the grand scheme of things. And no, Priti Patel is not woke. But the SNP are trying to be (except when supporting MPs accused of sexual misconduct).

But someone somewhere will fall foul of a badly written piece of legislation eventually. It is in the nature of bad legislation to cause this.

It is more likely to have a similar noticable effect as the one that prevents you from filming the school play your child is in. In that case, to prevent abusive images, all images of children become problematic. Although it wasnt intended that someone filming the school play might be considered to be acquiring paedophilic images, best be on the safe side now....

That was the sort of thing that I was thinking of, along with the more recent GDPR requirement for individual opt-in photo permission. Sooner or later, someone will see how far they can test the law's specifics.

Nothing wrong with that. I don't think schools should be publishing photos of any kids, but if other parents are happy to consent, so be it.

It's an interesting one. Try telling parents that they can't take a snap of their child in the angel costume in the nativity play.

And try taking photos of a stadium concert without showing audience faces.

As ever, somewhere in the middle, between outright ban and complete freedom, there's a woolly happy medium. Writing that into enforcible statute is hard. And enforcing it is even harder.

I don't have a problem with other parents taking pictures. I have a problem with a school doing it and publishing the photos.

Ah, got you. Any reason you find it particularly distasteful?

Seems to be a thing now, and I can't see schools who use it as a way of celebrating and publicising the school's and children's achievements stopping it. Most have strict guidelines on how it happens.

To give you example, I recently googled a client of mine because I wanted to know her background and experience. First hit was a picture of a much younger version of her drunk at her school prom. The school thought it was appropriate to publish the photo with names.

People should be free to fill the internet with images of themselves doing whatever they like, but I don't believe kids are old enough to understand the consequences and consent.

I denied permission for my kids' schools to publish photos and yet they still seem to manage to do it.

I'd hope that using full names isn't practised any more, for exactly that reason. I'm less concerned about "Jenny and John had a great time translating Catullus poems in their Y3 Latin class today with Mr Caligula", with two smiling faces on a school website. Yeah, I'd be cross if I hadn't given consent and yet there they were.

I'm generally more troubled by parents who feel they have to document every stage of their children's development ("Ptolemy going to the toilet by himself for the first time today!") daily on Facebook or similar - that feels much more intrusive, as the children can't withdraw that regular documentary evidence from the memories of people they might well meet later in their lives as part of the family's circle of friends.

briantrumpet

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Curious.
Is displaying a cleavage now flashing?

Not if you don't look at it.

It is well meaning simpleton wokey politics. A bit like the clusterfcuk they are making about male/female spaces.

Fancy hanging out in women's toilets or changing rooms at the gym? Well then, identify as a woman for a day.

Not sure equating people in the background of photographs of other things with some bloke perving on a crowded train is that useful. Criminal law seems to be able to distinguish intentional harm from accident in plenty of other complex areas so not sure you need to worry so much.

Also, they are proposing to extend existing legislation in E&W, too. Are you saying Patel is woke?

Oh well if Priti Patel is doing it, it must be good.

Read what I wrote. The idea is fine - basically to stop revenge porn, but if the consequences is to inadvertently capture lots of things that are perfectly reasonable, it might be a problem.

No, but I don't think anyone would accuse her of being woke. I am suggesting the consequence is entirely imaginary. The law already exists: they are just proposing to tweak the definition. For a start the justice system has all but ground to a halt so amending the definition of one crime is not going to lead to a flood of wrongful prosecutions.

There's a whole debate there about overuse of secondary legislation.

And no, it's not terribly important in the grand scheme of things. And no, Priti Patel is not woke. But the SNP are trying to be (except when supporting MPs accused of sexual misconduct).

But someone somewhere will fall foul of a badly written piece of legislation eventually. It is in the nature of bad legislation to cause this.

It is more likely to have a similar noticable effect as the one that prevents you from filming the school play your child is in. In that case, to prevent abusive images, all images of children become problematic. Although it wasnt intended that someone filming the school play might be considered to be acquiring paedophilic images, best be on the safe side now....

That was the sort of thing that I was thinking of, along with the more recent GDPR requirement for individual opt-in photo permission. Sooner or later, someone will see how far they can test the law's specifics.

Far be it from me to say, but the GDPR is another shittily written bit of legislation that probably brings a foot print in the sand under the definition of personal data.

It was well meaning (for instance, recognising that facial recognition software has transformed the amount of retrievable information that photos contain), but it does feel disproportionate... for instance, filming/photographing graduations, the university strictly shouldn't get away with disclaimers saying 'Today's ceremony will be filmed and published - please inform us if you do not wish to appear in the film", as that's an opt-out, not an opt-in... but it seems perfectly reasonable to me, and proportionate.

TheBigBean

briantrumpet said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Curious.
Is displaying a cleavage now flashing?

Not if you don't look at it.

It is well meaning simpleton wokey politics. A bit like the clusterfcuk they are making about male/female spaces.

Fancy hanging out in women's toilets or changing rooms at the gym? Well then, identify as a woman for a day.

Not sure equating people in the background of photographs of other things with some bloke perving on a crowded train is that useful. Criminal law seems to be able to distinguish intentional harm from accident in plenty of other complex areas so not sure you need to worry so much.

Also, they are proposing to extend existing legislation in E&W, too. Are you saying Patel is woke?

Oh well if Priti Patel is doing it, it must be good.

Read what I wrote. The idea is fine - basically to stop revenge porn, but if the consequences is to inadvertently capture lots of things that are perfectly reasonable, it might be a problem.

No, but I don't think anyone would accuse her of being woke. I am suggesting the consequence is entirely imaginary. The law already exists: they are just proposing to tweak the definition. For a start the justice system has all but ground to a halt so amending the definition of one crime is not going to lead to a flood of wrongful prosecutions.

There's a whole debate there about overuse of secondary legislation.

And no, it's not terribly important in the grand scheme of things. And no, Priti Patel is not woke. But the SNP are trying to be (except when supporting MPs accused of sexual misconduct).

But someone somewhere will fall foul of a badly written piece of legislation eventually. It is in the nature of bad legislation to cause this.

It is more likely to have a similar noticable effect as the one that prevents you from filming the school play your child is in. In that case, to prevent abusive images, all images of children become problematic. Although it wasnt intended that someone filming the school play might be considered to be acquiring paedophilic images, best be on the safe side now....

That was the sort of thing that I was thinking of, along with the more recent GDPR requirement for individual opt-in photo permission. Sooner or later, someone will see how far they can test the law's specifics.

Nothing wrong with that. I don't think schools should be publishing photos of any kids, but if other parents are happy to consent, so be it.

It's an interesting one. Try telling parents that they can't take a snap of their child in the angel costume in the nativity play.

And try taking photos of a stadium concert without showing audience faces.

As ever, somewhere in the middle, between outright ban and complete freedom, there's a woolly happy medium. Writing that into enforcible statute is hard. And enforcing it is even harder.

I don't have a problem with other parents taking pictures. I have a problem with a school doing it and publishing the photos.

Ah, got you. Any reason you find it particularly distasteful?

Seems to be a thing now, and I can't see schools who use it as a way of celebrating and publicising the school's and children's achievements stopping it. Most have strict guidelines on how it happens.

To give you example, I recently googled a client of mine because I wanted to know her background and experience. First hit was a picture of a much younger version of her drunk at her school prom. The school thought it was appropriate to publish the photo with names.

People should be free to fill the internet with images of themselves doing whatever they like, but I don't believe kids are old enough to understand the consequences and consent.

I denied permission for my kids' schools to publish photos and yet they still seem to manage to do it.

I'd hope that using full names isn't practised any more, for exactly that reason. I'm less concerned about "Jenny and John had a great time translating Catullus poems in their Y3 Latin class today with Mr Caligula", with two smiling faces on a school website. Yeah, I'd be cross if I hadn't given consent and yet there they were.

I'm generally more troubled by parents who feel they have to document every stage of their children's development ("Ptolemy going to the toilet by himself for the first time today!") daily on Facebook or similar - that feels much more intrusive, as the children can't withdraw that regular documentary evidence from the memories of people they might well meet later in their lives as part of the family's circle of friends.

I don't think parents should be sharing photos of their kids on social media either, but sometimes you need to pick your battles, and that is not one I have chosen.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Curious.
Is displaying a cleavage now flashing?

Not if you don't look at it.

It is well meaning simpleton wokey politics. A bit like the clusterfcuk they are making about male/female spaces.

Fancy hanging out in women's toilets or changing rooms at the gym? Well then, identify as a woman for a day.

Not sure equating people in the background of photographs of other things with some bloke perving on a crowded train is that useful. Criminal law seems to be able to distinguish intentional harm from accident in plenty of other complex areas so not sure you need to worry so much.

Also, they are proposing to extend existing legislation in E&W, too. Are you saying Patel is woke?

Oh well if Priti Patel is doing it, it must be good.

Read what I wrote. The idea is fine - basically to stop revenge porn, but if the consequences is to inadvertently capture lots of things that are perfectly reasonable, it might be a problem.

No, but I don't think anyone would accuse her of being woke. I am suggesting the consequence is entirely imaginary. The law already exists: they are just proposing to tweak the definition. For a start the justice system has all but ground to a halt so amending the definition of one crime is not going to lead to a flood of wrongful prosecutions.

There's a whole debate there about overuse of secondary legislation.

And no, it's not terribly important in the grand scheme of things. And no, Priti Patel is not woke. But the SNP are trying to be (except when supporting MPs accused of sexual misconduct).

But someone somewhere will fall foul of a badly written piece of legislation eventually. It is in the nature of bad legislation to cause this.

It is more likely to have a similar noticable effect as the one that prevents you from filming the school play your child is in. In that case, to prevent abusive images, all images of children become problematic. Although it wasnt intended that someone filming the school play might be considered to be acquiring paedophilic images, best be on the safe side now....

I'm intrigued how you know that it's bad legislation. Schools don't stop people filming the school play or concert. They just remind parents not to post the images publicly on social media. You are fussing over nothing.

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Curious.
Is displaying a cleavage now flashing?

Not if you don't look at it.

It is well meaning simpleton wokey politics. A bit like the clusterfcuk they are making about male/female spaces.

Fancy hanging out in women's toilets or changing rooms at the gym? Well then, identify as a woman for a day.

Not sure equating people in the background of photographs of other things with some bloke perving on a crowded train is that useful. Criminal law seems to be able to distinguish intentional harm from accident in plenty of other complex areas so not sure you need to worry so much.

Also, they are proposing to extend existing legislation in E&W, too. Are you saying Patel is woke?

Oh well if Priti Patel is doing it, it must be good.

Read what I wrote. The idea is fine - basically to stop revenge porn, but if the consequences is to inadvertently capture lots of things that are perfectly reasonable, it might be a problem.

No, but I don't think anyone would accuse her of being woke. I am suggesting the consequence is entirely imaginary. The law already exists: they are just proposing to tweak the definition. For a start the justice system has all but ground to a halt so amending the definition of one crime is not going to lead to a flood of wrongful prosecutions.

There's a whole debate there about overuse of secondary legislation.

And no, it's not terribly important in the grand scheme of things. And no, Priti Patel is not woke. But the SNP are trying to be (except when supporting MPs accused of sexual misconduct).

But someone somewhere will fall foul of a badly written piece of legislation eventually. It is in the nature of bad legislation to cause this.

It is more likely to have a similar noticable effect as the one that prevents you from filming the school play your child is in. In that case, to prevent abusive images, all images of children become problematic. Although it wasnt intended that someone filming the school play might be considered to be acquiring paedophilic images, best be on the safe side now....

I'm intrigued how you know that it's bad legislation. Schools don't stop people filming the school play or concert. They just remind parents not to post the images on social media. You are fussing over nothing.

Yours may not but many do.

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Curious.
Is displaying a cleavage now flashing?

Not if you don't look at it.

It is well meaning simpleton wokey politics. A bit like the clusterfcuk they are making about male/female spaces.

Fancy hanging out in women's toilets or changing rooms at the gym? Well then, identify as a woman for a day.

Not sure equating people in the background of photographs of other things with some bloke perving on a crowded train is that useful. Criminal law seems to be able to distinguish intentional harm from accident in plenty of other complex areas so not sure you need to worry so much.

Also, they are proposing to extend existing legislation in E&W, too. Are you saying Patel is woke?

Oh well if Priti Patel is doing it, it must be good.

Read what I wrote. The idea is fine - basically to stop revenge porn, but if the consequences is to inadvertently capture lots of things that are perfectly reasonable, it might be a problem.

No, but I don't think anyone would accuse her of being woke. I am suggesting the consequence is entirely imaginary. The law already exists: they are just proposing to tweak the definition. For a start the justice system has all but ground to a halt so amending the definition of one crime is not going to lead to a flood of wrongful prosecutions.

There's a whole debate there about overuse of secondary legislation.

And no, it's not terribly important in the grand scheme of things. And no, Priti Patel is not woke. But the SNP are trying to be (except when supporting MPs accused of sexual misconduct).

But someone somewhere will fall foul of a badly written piece of legislation eventually. It is in the nature of bad legislation to cause this.

It is more likely to have a similar noticable effect as the one that prevents you from filming the school play your child is in. In that case, to prevent abusive images, all images of children become problematic. Although it wasnt intended that someone filming the school play might be considered to be acquiring paedophilic images, best be on the safe side now....

I'm intrigued how you know that it's bad legislation. Schools don't stop people filming the school play or concert. They just remind parents not to post the images on social media. You are fussing over nothing.

Yours may not but many do.

I would guess an outright ban has followed parents taking the piss and publicly posting stuff on Facebook after they have been very clearly asked not to by the school. It's certainly not a blanket legal ban though as FA suggests.

TBB's experience on the other hand is way out of line and warrants speaking to the governors.

pblakeney

FA's suggestion was that well intended actions can have unintended consequences and outcomes. This is one example. Some schools have taken the safe easy option and over reacted.

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Curious.
Is displaying a cleavage now flashing?

Not if you don't look at it.

It is well meaning simpleton wokey politics. A bit like the clusterfcuk they are making about male/female spaces.

Fancy hanging out in women's toilets or changing rooms at the gym? Well then, identify as a woman for a day.

Not sure equating people in the background of photographs of other things with some bloke perving on a crowded train is that useful. Criminal law seems to be able to distinguish intentional harm from accident in plenty of other complex areas so not sure you need to worry so much.

Also, they are proposing to extend existing legislation in E&W, too. Are you saying Patel is woke?

Oh well if Priti Patel is doing it, it must be good.

Read what I wrote. The idea is fine - basically to stop revenge porn, but if the consequences is to inadvertently capture lots of things that are perfectly reasonable, it might be a problem.

No, but I don't think anyone would accuse her of being woke. I am suggesting the consequence is entirely imaginary. The law already exists: they are just proposing to tweak the definition. For a start the justice system has all but ground to a halt so amending the definition of one crime is not going to lead to a flood of wrongful prosecutions.

There's a whole debate there about overuse of secondary legislation.

And no, it's not terribly important in the grand scheme of things. And no, Priti Patel is not woke. But the SNP are trying to be (except when supporting MPs accused of sexual misconduct).

But someone somewhere will fall foul of a badly written piece of legislation eventually. It is in the nature of bad legislation to cause this.

It is more likely to have a similar noticable effect as the one that prevents you from filming the school play your child is in. In that case, to prevent abusive images, all images of children become problematic. Although it wasnt intended that someone filming the school play might be considered to be acquiring paedophilic images, best be on the safe side now....

I'm intrigued how you know that it's bad legislation. Schools don't stop people filming the school play or concert. They just remind parents not to post the images on social media. You are fussing over nothing.

Yours may not but many do.

I would guess an outright ban has followed parents taking the piss and publicly posting stuff on Facebook after they have been very clearly asked not to by the school. It's certainly not a blanket legal ban though as FA suggests.

TBB's experience on the other hand is way out of line and warrants speaking to the governors.

Yes, there's no blanket ban enshrined in law, AFAIK, but I think many schools overinterpret guidance.

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/sme-web-hub/whats-new/blogs/taking-photographs-data-protection-advice-for-schools/

And I might have been relying on early over-zealous interpretations of GDPR on photography... I think subsequent reading is that if the person/organisation isn't using the photos to collect personal data, if people aren't identified, then it doesn't need to be opt-in, generally. https://suzannedibble.com/gdpr-and-taking-photographs-in-public-places-at-large-events/

katani

TheBigBean said:

To give you example, I recently googled a client of mine because I wanted to know her background and experience. First hit was a picture of a much younger version of her drunk at her school prom.

Are you able to tell somebody is drunk from a photograph only?

First.Aspect

katani said:

TheBigBean said:

To give you example, I recently googled a client of mine because I wanted to know her background and experience. First hit was a picture of a much younger version of her drunk at her school prom.

Are you able to tell somebody is drunk from a photograph only?

No, it's hard to tell.

https://images.app.goo.gl/oh7bsSSUF6Yfdvdt8

TheBigBean

katani said:

TheBigBean said:

To give you example, I recently googled a client of mine because I wanted to know her background and experience. First hit was a picture of a much younger version of her drunk at her school prom.

Are you able to tell somebody is drunk from a photograph only?

Yes.

rjsterry

Depends if there is some sort of caption.

pblakeney

Not only is Whoop a sports app it will also tell you to reduce alcohol consumption.
As if the price alone isn't enough to be off putting... 😉

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Curious.
Is displaying a cleavage now flashing?

Not if you don't look at it.

It is well meaning simpleton wokey politics. A bit like the clusterfcuk they are making about male/female spaces.

Fancy hanging out in women's toilets or changing rooms at the gym? Well then, identify as a woman for a day.

Not sure equating people in the background of photographs of other things with some bloke perving on a crowded train is that useful. Criminal law seems to be able to distinguish intentional harm from accident in plenty of other complex areas so not sure you need to worry so much.

Also, they are proposing to extend existing legislation in E&W, too. Are you saying Patel is woke?

Oh well if Priti Patel is doing it, it must be good.

Read what I wrote. The idea is fine - basically to stop revenge porn, but if the consequences is to inadvertently capture lots of things that are perfectly reasonable, it might be a problem.

No, but I don't think anyone would accuse her of being woke. I am suggesting the consequence is entirely imaginary. The law already exists: they are just proposing to tweak the definition. For a start the justice system has all but ground to a halt so amending the definition of one crime is not going to lead to a flood of wrongful prosecutions.

There's a whole debate there about overuse of secondary legislation.

And no, it's not terribly important in the grand scheme of things. And no, Priti Patel is not woke. But the SNP are trying to be (except when supporting MPs accused of sexual misconduct).

But someone somewhere will fall foul of a badly written piece of legislation eventually. It is in the nature of bad legislation to cause this.

It is more likely to have a similar noticable effect as the one that prevents you from filming the school play your child is in. In that case, to prevent abusive images, all images of children become problematic. Although it wasnt intended that someone filming the school play might be considered to be acquiring paedophilic images, best be on the safe side now....

That was the sort of thing that I was thinking of, along with the more recent GDPR requirement for individual opt-in photo permission. Sooner or later, someone will see how far they can test the law's specifics.

Nothing wrong with that. I don't think schools should be publishing photos of any kids, but if other parents are happy to consent, so be it.

It's an interesting one. Try telling parents that they can't take a snap of their child in the angel costume in the nativity play.

And try taking photos of a stadium concert without showing audience faces.

As ever, somewhere in the middle, between outright ban and complete freedom, there's a woolly happy medium. Writing that into enforcible statute is hard. And enforcing it is even harder.

I don't have a problem with other parents taking pictures. I have a problem with a school doing it and publishing the photos.

we had a consent form so it was our choice if the school published pics of our kids

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Curious.
Is displaying a cleavage now flashing?

Not if you don't look at it.

It is well meaning simpleton wokey politics. A bit like the clusterfcuk they are making about male/female spaces.

Fancy hanging out in women's toilets or changing rooms at the gym? Well then, identify as a woman for a day.

Not sure equating people in the background of photographs of other things with some bloke perving on a crowded train is that useful. Criminal law seems to be able to distinguish intentional harm from accident in plenty of other complex areas so not sure you need to worry so much.

Also, they are proposing to extend existing legislation in E&W, too. Are you saying Patel is woke?

Oh well if Priti Patel is doing it, it must be good.

Read what I wrote. The idea is fine - basically to stop revenge porn, but if the consequences is to inadvertently capture lots of things that are perfectly reasonable, it might be a problem.

No, but I don't think anyone would accuse her of being woke. I am suggesting the consequence is entirely imaginary. The law already exists: they are just proposing to tweak the definition. For a start the justice system has all but ground to a halt so amending the definition of one crime is not going to lead to a flood of wrongful prosecutions.

There's a whole debate there about overuse of secondary legislation.

And no, it's not terribly important in the grand scheme of things. And no, Priti Patel is not woke. But the SNP are trying to be (except when supporting MPs accused of sexual misconduct).

But someone somewhere will fall foul of a badly written piece of legislation eventually. It is in the nature of bad legislation to cause this.

It is more likely to have a similar noticable effect as the one that prevents you from filming the school play your child is in. In that case, to prevent abusive images, all images of children become problematic. Although it wasnt intended that someone filming the school play might be considered to be acquiring paedophilic images, best be on the safe side now....

That was the sort of thing that I was thinking of, along with the more recent GDPR requirement for individual opt-in photo permission. Sooner or later, someone will see how far they can test the law's specifics.

Nothing wrong with that. I don't think schools should be publishing photos of any kids, but if other parents are happy to consent, so be it.

It's an interesting one. Try telling parents that they can't take a snap of their child in the angel costume in the nativity play.

And try taking photos of a stadium concert without showing audience faces.

As ever, somewhere in the middle, between outright ban and complete freedom, there's a woolly happy medium. Writing that into enforcible statute is hard. And enforcing it is even harder.

I don't have a problem with other parents taking pictures. I have a problem with a school doing it and publishing the photos.

we had a consent form so it was our choice if the school published pics of our kids

So do we, but they don't seem to have a fool proof mechanism in place to ensure compliance as it relies on the teachers remembering who is on the no photo list.

Apparently, the reason they are so keen to publish photos of kids is because it forms part of OFSTED's assessment. Sadly, I don't get to argue with OFSTED about this.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Curious.
Is displaying a cleavage now flashing?

Not if you don't look at it.

It is well meaning simpleton wokey politics. A bit like the clusterfcuk they are making about male/female spaces.

Fancy hanging out in women's toilets or changing rooms at the gym? Well then, identify as a woman for a day.

Not sure equating people in the background of photographs of other things with some bloke perving on a crowded train is that useful. Criminal law seems to be able to distinguish intentional harm from accident in plenty of other complex areas so not sure you need to worry so much.

Also, they are proposing to extend existing legislation in E&W, too. Are you saying Patel is woke?

Oh well if Priti Patel is doing it, it must be good.

Read what I wrote. The idea is fine - basically to stop revenge porn, but if the consequences is to inadvertently capture lots of things that are perfectly reasonable, it might be a problem.

No, but I don't think anyone would accuse her of being woke. I am suggesting the consequence is entirely imaginary. The law already exists: they are just proposing to tweak the definition. For a start the justice system has all but ground to a halt so amending the definition of one crime is not going to lead to a flood of wrongful prosecutions.

There's a whole debate there about overuse of secondary legislation.

And no, it's not terribly important in the grand scheme of things. And no, Priti Patel is not woke. But the SNP are trying to be (except when supporting MPs accused of sexual misconduct).

But someone somewhere will fall foul of a badly written piece of legislation eventually. It is in the nature of bad legislation to cause this.

It is more likely to have a similar noticable effect as the one that prevents you from filming the school play your child is in. In that case, to prevent abusive images, all images of children become problematic. Although it wasnt intended that someone filming the school play might be considered to be acquiring paedophilic images, best be on the safe side now....

That was the sort of thing that I was thinking of, along with the more recent GDPR requirement for individual opt-in photo permission. Sooner or later, someone will see how far they can test the law's specifics.

Nothing wrong with that. I don't think schools should be publishing photos of any kids, but if other parents are happy to consent, so be it.

It's an interesting one. Try telling parents that they can't take a snap of their child in the angel costume in the nativity play.

And try taking photos of a stadium concert without showing audience faces.

As ever, somewhere in the middle, between outright ban and complete freedom, there's a woolly happy medium. Writing that into enforcible statute is hard. And enforcing it is even harder.

I don't have a problem with other parents taking pictures. I have a problem with a school doing it and publishing the photos.

we had a consent form so it was our choice if the school published pics of our kids

So do we, but they don't seem to have a fool proof mechanism in place to ensure compliance as it relies on the teachers remembering who is on the no photo list.

Apparently, the reason they are so keen to publish photos of kids is because it forms part of OFSTED's assessment. Sadly, I don't get to argue with OFSTED about this.

in one class we must have been in a tiny minority to approve as she was in nearly every photo