Today I'm neither Angry nor Happy about....

[bobo the clown]

It's been going on for years Harry. My daughter's nativity was Policed like something from 1930's Berlin. A huge woman on the door physically looking in mum's bags and confiscating cameras. No video cameras or stills allowed. Seems to be the same in most schools these days.

This is one of those things which is bandied about .... yet someone , somewhere will claim it's an urban myth.

Recently the HSE & some Government Ministers confirmed there was no need to be doing this yet the schools, Churches etc., etc. are too afraid of the rumours to tell people to f'cough. Viscious circle really.

Those parents are wankers.

Bet they read the Guardian as well.

[Dujon]

It's been mentioned before somewhere on this site. My daughter and her husband were issued with a guide note, for a ballet school performance, in which cameras of any kind were proscribed. Their daughter was part of the 'troupe'. They disregarded it, borrowed a video camera, and recorded with gay abandon. Nevertheless I've occasionally wondered why the restriction. Political correctness gone mad or, possibly, the school had a professional doing that job and it hoped to reap some sort of profit from the sales of the results to parents and doting grandparents? I still don't know.

. . . Those parents are wankers. . .

I think that I have a tendency to agree with you. It would be interesting, though, to hear their reasons.

[thebish]

It's been mentioned before somewhere on this site. My daughter and her husband were issued with a guide note, for a ballet school performance, in which cameras of any kind were proscribed. Their daughter was part of the 'troupe'. They disregarded it, borrowed a video camera, and recorded with gay abandon. Nevertheless I've occasionally wondered why the restriction. Political correctness gone mad or, possibly, the school had a professional doing that job and it hoped to reap some sort of profit from the sales of the results to parents and doting grandparents? I still don't know.

I have long suspected this is a key motive in many schools under the cloak of child protection...

[Worthy4England]

It's been mentioned before somewhere on this site. My daughter and her husband were issued with a guide note, for a ballet school performance, in which cameras of any kind were proscribed. Their daughter was part of the 'troupe'. They disregarded it, borrowed a video camera, and recorded with gay abandon. Nevertheless I've occasionally wondered why the restriction. Political correctness gone mad or, possibly, the school had a professional doing that job and it hoped to reap some sort of profit from the sales of the results to parents and doting grandparents? I still don't know.

I have long suspected this is a key motive in many schools under the cloak of child protection...

Not entirely convinced - they spent a year or so saying no cameras at our school, and they didn't have any other bugger takeing photos anyhow. How can it be right for "approved" photos of something like a nativity play and yet there's something called "unapproved" - What would constitute the difference?

[thebish]

It's been mentioned before somewhere on this site. My daughter and her husband were issued with a guide note, for a ballet school performance, in which cameras of any kind were proscribed. Their daughter was part of the 'troupe'. They disregarded it, borrowed a video camera, and recorded with gay abandon. Nevertheless I've occasionally wondered why the restriction. Political correctness gone mad or, possibly, the school had a professional doing that job and it hoped to reap some sort of profit from the sales of the results to parents and doting grandparents? I still don't know.

I have long suspected this is a key motive in many schools under the cloak of child protection...

Not entirely convinced - they spent a year or so saying no cameras at our school, and they didn't have any other bugger takeing photos anyhow. How can it be right for "approved" photos of something like a nativity play and yet there's something called "unapproved" - What would constitute the difference?

none at all.. I only say it because at schools my kids have attended they have sold photos of nativity plays and such like after banning parents with cameras.

on the whole - I approve of the banning of parents with cameras anyway..

it's fecking irritating to sit watching whilst surrounded by precious parents bobbing up and down with cameras and video-cameras to capture every magic moment whilst blocking the view of those unfortunate enough to be sitting near them.. so desperate are they to capture the moment for posterity that they fail to enjoy the moment as it happens - and spoil it for everyone else too - not to mention making their child painfully aware that they are being filmed and thus self conscious and camera-aware for the whole performance...

bobo will be along in a moment to tell me how miserable I am!

[Bruce Rioja]

It's been mentioned before somewhere on this site. My daughter and her husband were issued with a guide note, for a ballet school performance, in which cameras of any kind were proscribed. Their daughter was part of the 'troupe'. They disregarded it, borrowed a video camera, and recorded with gay abandon. Nevertheless I've occasionally wondered why the restriction. Political correctness gone mad or, possibly, the school had a professional doing that job and it hoped to reap some sort of profit from the sales of the results to parents and doting grandparents? I still don't know.

I have long suspected this is a key motive in many schools under the cloak of child protection...

Indeed - like my nephews being told that it'll be a tenner apiece if they wanted to be pictured with the (an) Olympic torch.

[Prufrock]

I think there has been a shift away from that recently. We used to need all sorts of consent forms for photographs, now we've been told it's fine, just take them. The reason we were given then was there was a risk of estranged angry parents spotting their child on a website and knowing where to find them. Seemed unlikely to be a common occurrence.

[Worthy4England]

It's been mentioned before somewhere on this site. My daughter and her husband were issued with a guide note, for a ballet school performance, in which cameras of any kind were proscribed. Their daughter was part of the 'troupe'. They disregarded it, borrowed a video camera, and recorded with gay abandon. Nevertheless I've occasionally wondered why the restriction. Political correctness gone mad or, possibly, the school had a professional doing that job and it hoped to reap some sort of profit from the sales of the results to parents and doting grandparents? I still don't know.

I have long suspected this is a key motive in many schools under the cloak of child protection...

Not entirely convinced - they spent a year or so saying no cameras at our school, and they didn't have any other bugger takeing photos anyhow. How can it be right for "approved" photos of something like a nativity play and yet there's something called "unapproved" - What would constitute the difference?

none at all.. I only say it because at schools my kids have attended they have sold photos of nativity plays and such like after banning parents with cameras.

on the whole - I approve of the banning of parents with cameras anyway..

it's fecking irritating to sit watching whilst surrounded by precious parents bobbing up and down with cameras and video-cameras to capture every magic moment whilst blocking the view of those unfortunate enough to be sitting near them.. so desperate are they to capture the moment for posterity that they fail to enjoy the moment as it happens - and spoil it for everyone else too - not to mention making their child painfully aware that they are being filmed and thus self conscious and camera-aware for the whole performance...

bobo will be along in a moment to tell me how miserable I am!

He won't have to - miserable git!

In fairness, when they did get to allowing cameras back in, you could stand at the back and record - then you're disturbing no-one.

I recorded my rugrats, I'm not sure it disaffected my enjoyment of the moment - In fact with my wonky eyes, I could see it much better through the benefit of a zoom lense than through my normal gigs.

[bobo the clown]

er .... 'ello !!

In fact THOSE reasons make some sense.


You're still a miserable feck 'n all, but fair's fair.


Chwarae taeg. (ask the Mrs.)

[TANGODANCER]

What's it all coming to?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... pples.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Bruce Rioja]

What's it all coming to?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... pples.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't know. We can't access The Sun at work - Forbidden Category "Intimate Apparel/Swimsuit"

[Worthy4England]

What's it all coming to?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... pples.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't know. We can't access The Sun at work - Forbidden Category "Intimate Apparel/Swimsuit"

Surprised it didn't come up with - Forbidden Category "Prince's Knob".

[TANGODANCER]

What's it all coming to?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... pples.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't know. We can't access The Sun at work - Forbidden Category "Intimate Apparel/Swimsuit"

A MAN who locked a 14-year-old boy in his car boot for throwing apples at his grandparents’ home was spared jail yesterday.
A court heard that Robert McHugh, 23, was “provoked” by the attack by three teenagers — and the judge said the “red mist” that descended was “understandable”.

McHugh and pal Lee Cummins, 21, were playing computer games at his grandparents’ home when the three yobs struck. His 83-year-old grandad suffers from dementia and had been targeted by youths before.

The pair leapt into McHugh’s car to chase them to a local park. Prosecutor David Owen said they planned to get them to clean the mess — but “things got a little out of hand”.

McHugh “rugby tackled” the 14-year-old, asking him who threw the apples. He got no answer so told the lad to get in the boot of his Vauxhall Tigra, then drove after the other two — aged 14 and 15.

McHugh butted the 15-year-old and let out their pal — but when there was again no admission, the victim was made to get back in the boot. After a drive back to the house in Lowton near Wigan, Greater Manchester, he was let go.

McHugh admitted false imprisonment, assault and a breach of public order at Liverpool Crown Court.

Paul Treble, defending, said McHugh was his grandad’s prime carer and that he acted under “significant provocation”. He said: “He was very upset. He wanted to bring them to the house to see the mess they had made and how distressing it was for his grandparents.”

Judge John Roberts jailed him for eight months — suspended one year.

He said: “It does not justify what you did but one can understand in human terms how the red mist came down. You are very protective of your grandfather and he has been the target of petty vandalism.”

McHugh also got a community order and an 8pm to 8am curfew with an electronic tag. He was told to pay £500 to the boy in the boot and £100 to the 15-year-old.

Cummins, of Leigh, admitted assault and breach of public order.

He got a community order, a one-month tagged curfew and must pay £100 compensation.



Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... z24TS1Zkso" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bobo the clown]

The sctoes wouldn't have been able to identify the guys if they'd dropped them over the Thelwall Viaduct.

Shame on them.

[thebish]

not really sure what the issue is with this story...

1. some young scrotes do some bad stuff with apples
2. some other computer-game playing 21yr olds totally over-react and take law into own hands
3. the judge takes all things into consideration and handles it all quite reasonably

[BWFC_Insane]

not really sure what the issue is with this story...

1. some young scrotes do some bad stuff with apples
2. some other computer-game playing 21yr olds totally over-react and take law into own hands
3. the judge takes all things into consideration and handles it all quite reasonably

Sounds about right this.

Not sure what the issue is?

[Prufrock]

Aye, sensibly handled to me?

[Montreal Wanderer]

not really sure what the issue is with this story...

1. some young scrotes do some bad stuff with apples
2. some other computer-game playing 21yr olds totally over-react and take law into own hands
3. the judge takes all things into consideration and handles it all quite reasonably

Sounds about right this.

Not sure what the issue is?

I'm not sure the juvenile delinquents should have got a few hundred pounds compensation, tbh.

[Bijou Bob]

I've got a job interview tomorrow, 3.30pm, looks like I'm the last one on. Thing is, I'm really not that bothered if I get it or not. I wouldn't mind the job, it could be interesting and I'd get a small pay rise, but I wouldn't be dancing round the house if i got it.

I'm not angry, I'm not happy - I'm completely ambivalent

[Bruce Rioja]

I've got a job interview tomorrow, 3.30pm, looks like I'm the last one on. Thing is, I'm really not that bothered if I get it or not. I wouldn't mind the job, it could be interesting and I'd get a small pay rise, but I wouldn't be dancing round the house if i got it.

I'm not angry, I'm not happy - I'm completely ambivalent

I'll not bother wishing you luck one way or t'other then