The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
At our local swimming pool, there is no a sign up which says "No cameras or mobile phones permitted".
This is, presumably, to stop paedophiles taking pictures of kids in the swimming pool. The thing is, so what if they did? In this particular example the child himself is not being harmed - he/she doesn't even know it's going on.
"But it's better to stop these evil people, however we can!" Scream some.
Even if it means being unable to do anything any normal parent would want to do?
Such as a friend of mine who took their 2 year old daughter down to said pool for her first swim. My mate had bought on of those disposable splash proof camera things to record the occasion, as any parent would want to do - learning to swim is a big thing after all.
Only, he was told that no pictures could be taken, and had to put the camera away. It was his own daughter. Surely if he'd wanted to take dodgy pictures of her, he could have done it any time at home.
We're getting closer to a Big Brother state, and no one seems to notice....
EDIT: I'm talking about taking the phones and camera's into the spectator gallery, not into the pool itself.
This is, presumably, to stop paedophiles taking pictures of kids in the swimming pool. The thing is, so what if they did? In this particular example the child himself is not being harmed - he/she doesn't even know it's going on.
"But it's better to stop these evil people, however we can!" Scream some.
Even if it means being unable to do anything any normal parent would want to do?
Such as a friend of mine who took their 2 year old daughter down to said pool for her first swim. My mate had bought on of those disposable splash proof camera things to record the occasion, as any parent would want to do - learning to swim is a big thing after all.
Only, he was told that no pictures could be taken, and had to put the camera away. It was his own daughter. Surely if he'd wanted to take dodgy pictures of her, he could have done it any time at home.
We're getting closer to a Big Brother state, and no one seems to notice....
EDIT: I'm talking about taking the phones and camera's into the spectator gallery, not into the pool itself.
Page:
I love you, saggy.
You confused me. Why did he buy a splash proof camera if he was going into the gallery to take the pictures?
Regardless, yes, it is getting to a ridiculous point when you cannot enjoy your children growing up because of paranoia from a few. The restriction of not being able to capture their childhood for future enjoyment and memories is beyond comprehension.
It is one of those things I will never have to contend with but stupidity is growing.
Regardless, yes, it is getting to a ridiculous point when you cannot enjoy your children growing up because of paranoia from a few. The restriction of not being able to capture their childhood for future enjoyment and memories is beyond comprehension.
It is one of those things I will never have to contend with but stupidity is growing.
I was talking to a lad about this on Sunday (well, Monday - it was 3 in the morning) and how you can't take photos of school plays and stuff. That's sad. If you're a parent, you should be allowed to take in camera equipment to record your own child. What next, no cameras at the beach?
"Sorry, you're not allowed to take photos of your kids having fun on their first holiday, you might upset the Daily Mail readers."
"Sorry, you're not allowed to take photos of your kids having fun on their first holiday, you might upset the Daily Mail readers."
Saggy rocks
Ineedsleep wrote:
> You confused me. Why did he buy a splash proof camera if he was going
> into the gallery to take the pictures?
Apologies.
The sign up says you can't take a camera or phone into the gallery. My friend was going into the pool with his daughter to take pictures.
> You confused me. Why did he buy a splash proof camera if he was going
> into the gallery to take the pictures?
Apologies.
The sign up says you can't take a camera or phone into the gallery. My friend was going into the pool with his daughter to take pictures.
Hmm, it does seem crazy, stopping parents taking pictures of their own kids...
but I don't like the 'let anyone take pictures' argument either.
Of course, it's a very unlikely occurance, but if you found out that someone had been filming, and spanking themselves, over your kid, you'd be fricking furious.
The argument that it doesn't harm the child just isn't acceptable. People have emotions too, and they can suffer damage just like the body can.
And the 'what they don't know won't hurt them' argument (assuming the offender is never discovered) draws alongside 'the innocent have nothing to fear' in the kind of bullsh*t arguments used to promote the big brother powers.
It's not an acceptable way to treat people.
I can see why the pool have done this, if the worst was to happen, and a paedophile was to use the viewing gallery to 'get at' children, the pool itself would be commerically bankrupt, if the daily mail mob allowed it to even try to remain open.
(And a 'parents only' camera policy would be impossible to police.)
I agree that the restrictions are going too far, there needs to be some sort of balance between allowing people a normal life and protecting them, but it's important not to swing too far the other way in correcting these problems.
but I don't like the 'let anyone take pictures' argument either.
Of course, it's a very unlikely occurance, but if you found out that someone had been filming, and spanking themselves, over your kid, you'd be fricking furious.
The argument that it doesn't harm the child just isn't acceptable. People have emotions too, and they can suffer damage just like the body can.
And the 'what they don't know won't hurt them' argument (assuming the offender is never discovered) draws alongside 'the innocent have nothing to fear' in the kind of bullsh*t arguments used to promote the big brother powers.
It's not an acceptable way to treat people.
I can see why the pool have done this, if the worst was to happen, and a paedophile was to use the viewing gallery to 'get at' children, the pool itself would be commerically bankrupt, if the daily mail mob allowed it to even try to remain open.
(And a 'parents only' camera policy would be impossible to police.)
I agree that the restrictions are going too far, there needs to be some sort of balance between allowing people a normal life and protecting them, but it's important not to swing too far the other way in correcting these problems.
Political correctness gone mad, anyone seriously worried about such a thing may as well not bother having children in the first place. Most town centres are covered by CCTV, how do you know who is on the end of those? There are tons more examples like that, what you gonna do, lock your kid in the house all day in a room with blacked out windows?
Why do you assume it's to do with paedophiles? Isnt that a judgement on your part?
It's probably more to do with people dropping the cameras/phones in or near the pool and breaking them and the fact they would get huffy and try and make the pool replace it, which they will not be able to do as it isnt covered on their insurance.
Thats what I reckon anyway.
It's probably more to do with people dropping the cameras/phones in or near the pool and breaking them and the fact they would get huffy and try and make the pool replace it, which they will not be able to do as it isnt covered on their insurance.
Thats what I reckon anyway.
In that case, surely they wouldn't specify "cameras and mobile phones"? Surely they'd make the sign state something more general?
Your Honour wrote:
> At our local swimming pool, there is no a sign up which says
> "No cameras or mobile phones permitted".
> This is, presumably, to stop paedophiles taking pictures of kids in
> the swimming pool. The thing is, so what if they did? In this
> particular example the child himself is not being harmed - he/she
> doesn't even know it's going on.
It's to stop pictures appearing anywhere, it's argued that some paedophiles start by looking on the net and progress, ask yourself this would you want your childs picture available to them.
> "But it's better to stop these evil people, however we
> can!" Scream some.
> Even if it means being unable to do anything any normal parent would
> want to do?
> Such as a friend of mine who took their 2 year old daughter down to
> said pool for her first swim. My mate had bought on of those
> disposable splash proof camera things to record the occasion, as any
> parent would want to do - learning to swim is a big thing after all.
> Only, he was told that no pictures could be taken, and had to put the
> camera away. It was his own daughter. Surely if he'd wanted to
> take dodgy pictures of her, he could have done it any time at home.
It's a simple argument he could take pictures of other kids.
> We're getting closer to a Big Brother state, and no one seems to
> notice....
On this occassion i dont mind by strictly policed, i know you're going on about this being blown out of all proportion but as the people on this forum who have kids will tell you, it's simply to protect their kids and god knows they should be protected.
> At our local swimming pool, there is no a sign up which says
> "No cameras or mobile phones permitted".
> This is, presumably, to stop paedophiles taking pictures of kids in
> the swimming pool. The thing is, so what if they did? In this
> particular example the child himself is not being harmed - he/she
> doesn't even know it's going on.
It's to stop pictures appearing anywhere, it's argued that some paedophiles start by looking on the net and progress, ask yourself this would you want your childs picture available to them.
> "But it's better to stop these evil people, however we
> can!" Scream some.
> Even if it means being unable to do anything any normal parent would
> want to do?
> Such as a friend of mine who took their 2 year old daughter down to
> said pool for her first swim. My mate had bought on of those
> disposable splash proof camera things to record the occasion, as any
> parent would want to do - learning to swim is a big thing after all.
> Only, he was told that no pictures could be taken, and had to put the
> camera away. It was his own daughter. Surely if he'd wanted to
> take dodgy pictures of her, he could have done it any time at home.
It's a simple argument he could take pictures of other kids.
> We're getting closer to a Big Brother state, and no one seems to
> notice....
On this occassion i dont mind by strictly policed, i know you're going on about this being blown out of all proportion but as the people on this forum who have kids will tell you, it's simply to protect their kids and god knows they should be protected.
Page: