I read in another thread that the race numbers of juniors had been erased or blurred.
Is this really necessary? What can sicko's get from a race number or a photo of a kid orienteering, even if they get a name?
I have 4 kids and do not understand what harm could come from them having their photo's taken at an orienteering competition. Please enlighten me?
On the otherhand I support the Blomquist concerns when their daughters attributes and photo was on the banter forum. I'd be a little upset if it was my daughter.
Hiding Junior Race numbers
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
28 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Hiding Junior Race numbers
"If A is success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut" Abraham Lincoln
-
LostAgain - diehard
- Posts: 774
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 2:32 pm
- Location: If only I knew
I think the theory is - ooh I like the look of that little boy/girl - look up their number, look up their name and club then track them down...
Horrible thoughts but I think perhaps far fetched. The biggest problem is you can't print a photo of little Jonny with his trophy with his name underneath, thus robbing the children of their moment of glory. Nanny state?
When's the age cut-off? 16? Seeing as Stef's old enough (17/18?) to accept male advances I'm sure she can look after herself with compliments from Nope members of a similar age. Not being a parent myself I perhaps can't comment though.
Horrible thoughts but I think perhaps far fetched. The biggest problem is you can't print a photo of little Jonny with his trophy with his name underneath, thus robbing the children of their moment of glory. Nanny state?
When's the age cut-off? 16? Seeing as Stef's old enough (17/18?) to accept male advances I'm sure she can look after herself with compliments from Nope members of a similar age. Not being a parent myself I perhaps can't comment though.
-
FatBoy - addict
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:46 pm
FatBoy wrote:Horrible thoughts but I think perhaps far fetched. The biggest problem is you can't print a photo of little Jonny with his trophy with his name underneath, thus robbing the children of their moment of glory. Nanny state?
Athletics Weekly regularly covers junior age group competitions with captioned photos, detailed results (including club info) and often quotes from the winning athletes. I doubt that they go around getting parental permission for every picture they print, especially for a cross country race where there might be dozens of kids in the photo. Presumably they take the view that giving the youngsters the credit for their performances outweighs the risk (which I suspect is negligible) of any resulting unpleasantness, and presumably the English Schools Athletic Association (or whatever body it is) supports them in this. Perhaps BOF - and others - should take note.
Patrick
- Patrick
- light green
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:01 pm
- Location: Glesca toon
I take it then that what we're doing in orienteering is a voluntary code of conduct?
It does seem a shame that we feel we cannot show our juniors orienteering and collecting prizes without some form of censorship or attempt to disguise their identity.
It does seem a shame that we feel we cannot show our juniors orienteering and collecting prizes without some form of censorship or attempt to disguise their identity.
"If A is success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut" Abraham Lincoln
-
LostAgain - diehard
- Posts: 774
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 2:32 pm
- Location: If only I knew
The BOF Protection Policy for Young and Vulnerable People can be found at http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/documents/cdoc_sl.pdf
The relevant bit to this discussion says (paraphrased slightly):
Some sports (swimming/gymnaastics) have found in necessary to restrict photography of young participants to those with a valid reason ie parents/coaches. It is not felt BOF needs to make such a stance.
The identities of young people should be protected where information/photographs are published whether in print or on the web. Photographs should not normally be published with full names or any other means of identifying them.
I guess race numbers are a means of indentity. However, IMHO, if someone is going to go to the extent of tracking down race numbers and travelling across the country to try and find little Johnny, they will just find another way. Do we vet everyone who joins the club and ask for CRB disclosure before providing them with a club address list with all the contact details for everybody, including children? That's a bigger risk in my eyes than printing the race numbers from an event in a remote part of the UK.
Those clubs who have been accredited with, or are working towards, Clubmark are aware they must have a Child Protection Policy consistent with BOF policy before they can be accredited.
The relevant bit to this discussion says (paraphrased slightly):
Some sports (swimming/gymnaastics) have found in necessary to restrict photography of young participants to those with a valid reason ie parents/coaches. It is not felt BOF needs to make such a stance.
The identities of young people should be protected where information/photographs are published whether in print or on the web. Photographs should not normally be published with full names or any other means of identifying them.
I guess race numbers are a means of indentity. However, IMHO, if someone is going to go to the extent of tracking down race numbers and travelling across the country to try and find little Johnny, they will just find another way. Do we vet everyone who joins the club and ask for CRB disclosure before providing them with a club address list with all the contact details for everybody, including children? That's a bigger risk in my eyes than printing the race numbers from an event in a remote part of the UK.
Those clubs who have been accredited with, or are working towards, Clubmark are aware they must have a Child Protection Policy consistent with BOF policy before they can be accredited.
Make the most of life - you're a long time dead.
-
Stodgetta - brown
- Posts: 569
- Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 2:55 pm
- Location: north of brum, south of manchester
In order to comply with the general restrictions that BOF were placing on publication of juniors in newsletters and website we took the trouble of contacting the parents of relevant juniors in our club. Without exception all the parents saw no reason not to publish with names and were quite happy for us to do so.
The real reason for the restrictions.... the 'buck stops here' people at BOF are scared that they will be held responsible if there is any case of a junior becoming a target for a paedophile. They propably want to be able to say...... it's a pity it happened, but we did everything we could to prevent it... and are not responsible!
One can see the case for swimming where the juniors are in batheing costumes, but in O gear as full body cover!! Just educate the juniors... tell them what to look for... don't talk to strangers etc.
We are losing such a great opportunity to celebrate success and winning, and to enhance the ethos of winning!
Our local primary schools are divided on their strategy. Some allow first names, others none, and the rest have no restrictions. At our recent schools' orienteering final the local press photographer turned up. Before he took any pictures he had to ask the child which school they went to. The paper refuse to publish a photo without full names.
The real reason for the restrictions.... the 'buck stops here' people at BOF are scared that they will be held responsible if there is any case of a junior becoming a target for a paedophile. They propably want to be able to say...... it's a pity it happened, but we did everything we could to prevent it... and are not responsible!
One can see the case for swimming where the juniors are in batheing costumes, but in O gear as full body cover!! Just educate the juniors... tell them what to look for... don't talk to strangers etc.
We are losing such a great opportunity to celebrate success and winning, and to enhance the ethos of winning!
Our local primary schools are divided on their strategy. Some allow first names, others none, and the rest have no restrictions. At our recent schools' orienteering final the local press photographer turned up. Before he took any pictures he had to ask the child which school they went to. The paper refuse to publish a photo without full names.
- RJ
If you win at either the JK or British you are actively encouraged to seek exposure for the sport by contacting your local rag. We did this and secured a full page article along with photo's etc. Of course we had given permission but does this sit comfortably with a policy of then obscuring race numbers, names etc for internal marketing uses?
If we believe the risk is there then it should apply to all aspects. After all, local publicity in the local rag is more likely to bring the attention of the local perverts than photo's on an obscure forum or circular associated with orienteering?
If we believe the risk is there then it should apply to all aspects. After all, local publicity in the local rag is more likely to bring the attention of the local perverts than photo's on an obscure forum or circular associated with orienteering?
"If A is success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut" Abraham Lincoln
-
LostAgain - diehard
- Posts: 774
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 2:32 pm
- Location: If only I knew
Child protection is like all elements of child rearing - you start with the "cotton wool" approach for new born babies, and aim for the fully independent adult equipped with all neccessary life skills at the other end. And surely orienteering sits firmly at the "standing on your own two feet" end of the spectrum? After all, we send 14 year olds out into the forest, at night, armed only with a map, compass and head torch.
Of course there is a risk that some sick person will identify a child from their picture, name or race number as displayed on the internet or printed in a club magazine, and then try to do them frightful harm. There is also a risk that depriving a child of their little bit of glory will turn them away from orienteering and back to watching TV while stuffing their face with crisps.
That's the sort of "risk assessment" parents make every day, and I really rather resent having that choice taken away from me (in full consultation with the "children", of course!)
Of course there is a risk that some sick person will identify a child from their picture, name or race number as displayed on the internet or printed in a club magazine, and then try to do them frightful harm. There is also a risk that depriving a child of their little bit of glory will turn them away from orienteering and back to watching TV while stuffing their face with crisps.
That's the sort of "risk assessment" parents make every day, and I really rather resent having that choice taken away from me (in full consultation with the "children", of course!)
-
Lumpy Lycra - orange
- Posts: 111
- Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2004 11:25 pm
- Location: Brum
That's the point where I parted company with BOF's child protection policy. Basically, there appears to be no allowance, method or effort to give parents a say.
I positively object to the "we know better than you" nanny type approach adopted by BOF. The excuse/reason as I understand it is that it is in line with the NSPCC guidance that sports are encouraged (meant?) to follow. The irony is that no other sport I've seen has gone down the draconian route BOF seems to have adopted. It's one of the reasons why I've been in no hurry to promote clubmark within my club - I don't wish to sign up to a child protection policy that conforms with BOF guidelines, as I think it is badly flawed.
One sad outcome of this is that Route Choice 5 raises absolutely no interest anymore in this household: the serried rows of uncaptioned photos are meaningless to everybody.
I may be wrong on this, but that's the perception. If I am, I'm sure someone more knowledgeable than me will post a correction.
I positively object to the "we know better than you" nanny type approach adopted by BOF. The excuse/reason as I understand it is that it is in line with the NSPCC guidance that sports are encouraged (meant?) to follow. The irony is that no other sport I've seen has gone down the draconian route BOF seems to have adopted. It's one of the reasons why I've been in no hurry to promote clubmark within my club - I don't wish to sign up to a child protection policy that conforms with BOF guidelines, as I think it is badly flawed.
One sad outcome of this is that Route Choice 5 raises absolutely no interest anymore in this household: the serried rows of uncaptioned photos are meaningless to everybody.
I may be wrong on this, but that's the perception. If I am, I'm sure someone more knowledgeable than me will post a correction.
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
The way I understand it with regard to club publicity of any type is that so long as you have the permission (in writing!) of the responsible adult you are OK to publish. We have gone along this track and are fairly certain that the parent has asked the child involved as well, so that everyone is involved and happy.
I think part of the perception and worry in the past is that editors have used photos with names but haven't asked any permission for their use, because the copyright is with the photographer. Someone takes a photo of a club member at an event and offers it to the newsletter editor for publicity. In the past we have all had to put up with unflattering photos!
But so long as the child and parent are involved in a positive decision making process then I think it is fine to publish. I don't think the restrictions extend any further than that. But ut is a pain and a half to make sure you have the permissions.
One of the things we do at renewal time is ask everyone to opt in to that positive decison and allow reproduction of photos with names.
I think part of the perception and worry in the past is that editors have used photos with names but haven't asked any permission for their use, because the copyright is with the photographer. Someone takes a photo of a club member at an event and offers it to the newsletter editor for publicity. In the past we have all had to put up with unflattering photos!
But so long as the child and parent are involved in a positive decision making process then I think it is fine to publish. I don't think the restrictions extend any further than that. But ut is a pain and a half to make sure you have the permissions.
One of the things we do at renewal time is ask everyone to opt in to that positive decison and allow reproduction of photos with names.
- RJ
[quote="awk"] The irony is that no other sport I've seen has gone down the draconian route BOF seems to have adopted. It's one of the reasons why I've been in no hurry to promote clubmark within my club - I don't wish to sign up to a child protection policy that conforms with BOF guidelines, as I think it is badly flawed.
Awk your club in fact has a photographic policy on its website. See club>club matters. As far as I can see it conforms with the general thrust of the debate on this thread i.e.that we want to see photographs of young people striving and succeeding, and that as long as their parents agree, which in my experience has always been the case, their names should be in the caption.
It also seeks to conform to BOF guidance. Whether it conforms with BOF policy depends on how generously one wishes to interpret the word 'normally', which does appear to allow for some unspecified circumstances where identification
may occur.
Writing as a child protection professional it's worth stating that the abuse of children is most likely to be committed by people who already know their identity, e.g. family members and volunteers who regularly engage with children and young people.
The abuse of children by strangers remains, as it has always been, a very rare phenomen, albeit very distressing when it does occur.
I agree the wording of the BOF policy on photography is unnecessarily restrictively worded. Permission for the revelation of identity should be a matter for the young person and their parents.
Awk your club in fact has a photographic policy on its website. See club>club matters. As far as I can see it conforms with the general thrust of the debate on this thread i.e.that we want to see photographs of young people striving and succeeding, and that as long as their parents agree, which in my experience has always been the case, their names should be in the caption.
It also seeks to conform to BOF guidance. Whether it conforms with BOF policy depends on how generously one wishes to interpret the word 'normally', which does appear to allow for some unspecified circumstances where identification
may occur.
Writing as a child protection professional it's worth stating that the abuse of children is most likely to be committed by people who already know their identity, e.g. family members and volunteers who regularly engage with children and young people.
The abuse of children by strangers remains, as it has always been, a very rare phenomen, albeit very distressing when it does occur.
I agree the wording of the BOF policy on photography is unnecessarily restrictively worded. Permission for the revelation of identity should be a matter for the young person and their parents.
- Guest
Hi guest
Couldn't agree more with everything you say. I didn't say don't have a policy, just that I find the BOF one too restrictive, and that I don't wish to promote it within the club. I am perfectly happy with the club's policy which I think shows a sensible approach, but it does not conform to BOF policy as I read it.
It may seem a small point, it is after all just one paragraph in a 12 page document (most of the rest of which I'm completely happy with), but it is one that that to my mind is important, and has already had a negative effect where implemented.
Couldn't agree more with everything you say. I didn't say don't have a policy, just that I find the BOF one too restrictive, and that I don't wish to promote it within the club. I am perfectly happy with the club's policy which I think shows a sensible approach, but it does not conform to BOF policy as I read it.
It may seem a small point, it is after all just one paragraph in a 12 page document (most of the rest of which I'm completely happy with), but it is one that that to my mind is important, and has already had a negative effect where implemented.
- Guest
28 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 175 guests