back to article 'Get cameraphones out of nurseries' plea

A Plymouth-based group is campaigning for an end to mobile phone cameras in nurseries - or their "better control and management". It all depends on your point of view. The campaign was started by Devon mother Cheryl Higgs, whose children attended Little Ted’s, the nursery which is now the focus of a police investigation into …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. AJ 5
    FAIL

    As usual...

    As usual, this won't actually protect anybody - it will simply inconvenience the law-abiding nursery staff/visitors/etc. who have no malicious intent at all. It is ALREADY ILLEGAL to take and distribute indecent photos of children. Making new laws doesn't make it any MORE illegal. The paedophiles and their associates (the small number that actually exist, let's be clear) will not be deterred any more by this proposed new law than any other...

  2. Anonymous Coward
    WTF?

    How ..

    ... does banning camera phones safeguard children exactly?

    Enquiring minds want to know.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Grenade

    I know...

    Can't we just ban paedophiles instead?

  4. JohnG

    I can't see the point.

    If there are people employed in childcare who are prepared to take indecent photographs of children, I don't think they would worry at all over breaking a rule banning camera phones at work.

    It is rather worrying to think that anyone employed in childcare is in contact with one or more paedophiles.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    Oh Come On!

    Bloody stupid if you ask me.

    What makes that woman think that a law against having cameraphones in a childcare setting is going to make any difference? Isn't it already illegal to fiddle with children or takes indecent photos of them? So if one law won't stop them, why would another?

    Unless of course they start putting metal detectors in all nurseries and schools, similar to some US schools, which if course works wonderfully......

    Grumble.

  6. POPE Mad Mitch
    Troll

    kneejerk

    They should be careful with kneejerk reactions like that, could have someones eye out. ooh quick ban kneejerk reactions, they are an obvious danger to public health.

  7. Sekundra
    Unhappy

    Hard Cases make Bad Law

    A cliche, but as true here as anywhere.... My sympathy does not extend to agreement.

  8. Stephen Gray

    I must be out of touch

    Surely the best way to ensure that your kids are safe is to actually bother to look after them yourself? Just a thought.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Pint

    Get a grip, grow up and fuck off.

    These idiots are ruining my Friday; why do I read this stuff?

  10. Martin Lyne

    So..

    so when something happens and a camera might be useful, like a kid gets bitten by a spider and they person takes a picture of said arachnid so that a correct antivenom can be chosen - there are no cameras to hand.

    Cameras are in most phones, if the landlines fail they'll need one.

    How about "don't let people likely to take inappropriate pictures of kids work in a place filled with kids"?

    You see what I did there? I addressed the issue at it's source. Or we coudl just all eat some bananas and it might quell the rampant kneejerking.

    http://www.ionchannels.org/showabstract.php?pmid=2264069&redirect=yes&terms=banana+twitch+potassium

  11. Sergie Kaponitovicz
    Stop

    Ban paper and crayons too!

    Any half-competent paedo artist could come up with a real stonker of a sketch, just as artists are forced to do when depicting English court scenes.

    Her proposals do not go far enough. Make the 'voluntary' national ID cards mandatory for all people coming into contact with pre-school age children (i.e. all of us), and ensure that the national DNA database be made truly national, by force, and log every email, web access, phone call ........

    ....Oh! I just remembered, someone has already thought of all that.

    Job done then. And the one and only single example of abuse by a carer is prevented from happening again by millions of pounds worth of additional legislation. Not.

  12. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    How many phone without a camera are available?

    I have the same issue. Not with Nurseries but many companies (and government sites) ban visitors from taking camera phones into their premises whilst letting their staff freely walk around with them. Then for the duration of my visit, I'm almost uncontactable by other customers. PErhaps there was something to be said for the ciggy break outside.

    Remember that recent NuLab laws make it an offence to take a picture of ANY Military personnel. Not having a camer on your phone is a real boon here.

    When I recenty tried to replace my decrepit Nokia 3310 with a newer phone. It was really hard to gat any 'deals' with a non contract phone.

    IMHO, pressure should be put on the likes of Nokia to make more phones available without cameras. I eventually got one but it is certainly not in the same class as something like an iPhone etc.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    And another knee-jerk...

    Luckily I live in a sane country, where my son goes to a nursery. They recently gave us a DVD of footage of him and his classmates doing their stuff over the last few months. We were delighted to receive it. (And they never asked us or told us that they would be doing this). I suppose that this just couldn't happen in the UK any more.

  14. storng.bare.durid
    Stop

    Some things are just not practical

    I am completely for the protection of minors, but seriously, these days where most mobile phones have cameras in them whether you want them or not, this harebrained idea is a little impractical.

    I am not in the least interested in getting the latest greatest mobile phone. To me a phone is a phone is a phone, my phone is like 4 years old, replaced only because my prior one died, replaced in the cheapest possible fashion

    ...and guess what? It's got a camera built in. I didn't want it. It's shite, but it's there.

    So, if this gets passed, is the protagonist going to go get all these child-care related workers new mobile phones sans cameras?

    Will it extend to other child-related fields? Will paediatric health professionals have to junk their phones? School teachers?

    Don't be absurd. Deal with the fact mobiles are here and most have cameras built in. Employees probably need a bit more vetting and ultimately if you don't trust them, what sort of system have you got?

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Brilliant plan

    Now the peadophiles will have to get put in charge of cameraphones to get their naughty pictures.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    As the saying goes...

    ... if it is proving difficult to draw a line, then the wise person does not draw one.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    Got a better idea

    as soon as the little one is born, ship it off to a secure government facility where it can grow up safe and secure without any danger from parents or close relatives, or the other miniscule percentage of the population who have a desire to harm.

    Or this country can implement punishments which actually deter potential offenders.

    I know which option this government would choose. I wonder where they’re going to sight the UK baby facility?

  18. Richard Austin 1

    Ridiculous and misplaced reaction

    Whilst the issues surrounding this are valid, they are going overboard as usual. If the staff that are working in a nursery cannot be trusted not to take child pornography shots then carrying a camera phone is the least of their worries. I would be more concerned with the staff than what they carry in their pocket.

    I work in a couple of schools and rely on my phone to be contactable wherever I am. It happens to be a cameraphone - FFS get in the real world.

    Also are they then saying that if a paedo dirtbag is denied their cameraphone they then can't upload from the camera they CAN use?

  19. Matt 21

    Knee jerk reaction

    As the article points out this is already illegal so it would seem a little OTT to me.

    A friend in social services tells me that it's still far far more likely for a child to be abused by mums new boyfriend etc. than some unconnected pervert, although these cases don't make the news as often.

    Society also seems unsure what to do with paedophiles. Are they bound to re-offend, can they be cured? If the answer is know should they be kept in "care"?

    Lastly, in recent years it seems that thee definition of what a paedophile is has been blurred, which doesn't help the issue. There's a huge difference between an 18 year old sleeping with a 15 year old and a 40 year old abusing an 8 year old.

    Anyway, on that note have a good weekend!

  20. Number6
    Black Helicopters

    Permits and inspections for everything

    Freedom comes at a price. Sometimes this price is obvious, as with casualties during a war, other times it is hidden. Nelson Mandela paid a high price for what he achieved. Another aspect is the price paid for our individual freedoms. Every year, people are killed and injured on the

    roads, but there is no thought of taking away our freedom to drive, except in a few limited individual cases. The public accepts that in order for most of us to enjoy that freedom of movement, there is an acceptable casualty rate. We'd all like it to be lower but would all fight against any restrictions that would curtail our perceived right to drive.

    In the same way, some children will suffer because we're not all monitored 24/7. There have been some high-profile cases, but when you consider how many, compared to the number involved in road accidents, it is actually quite low. It is the price to be paid for allowing the vast

    majority of us to make our own decisions without government interference. We also know that no matter how draconian the rules, the casualty rate will never be zero, so, as in the road case, there's a rate considered acceptable for the freedom it grants. There are occasional adjustments - another example being airport security - as bad things come to light and then recede in the public memory, but on average we put up with it. The acceptability of the price also depends on whether you are the one unlucky enough to have to pay it on behalf of everyone else.

    The "if it saves even one child" argument is fallacious. Over-zealous government officials with too much power have the capacity to destroy families just as much as the parents, and there are plenty of cases of that on record too.

    From recent news it appears that you are free to choose the school your child will attend, provided it's the one the government wants, and then you'll have to agree to abide by all the school rules with the threat of legal action if you don't. You can't even escape by taking your child out of school, you'll soon need a licence to educate your children at home, and so on.

    Benjamin Franklin had it right:

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

  21. david bates

    I dont....

    ..have a problem with that.

    I can see lots of circumstances where a camera is undesirable - thats one of the reasons I have a second, cheapie mobile with no camera that I keep on standby.

  22. Rob 30
    Grenade

    wtf

    this doesn't even make sense:

    "There's a lot of guidelines protecting children from photos being taken on cameras in schools, nurseries and swimming pools"

    how can a photo be damaging to the child? it's light hitting a sensor ffs. from what they are saying the kids didnt even know they were being taken.

    i'd allways thought the issue was supposed to be about stopping the actual abuse of actual, real kids, although the law banning obscene drawings/anime is equally ludicrous

  23. Pete 2 Silver badge

    wouldn't it be better

    to keep paedophiles out of nurseries?

    This looks like a textbook kneejerk reaction to fixing the wrong problem. While I would hope that the individual who suggested this has does not have a hidden agenda (i.e. the banishment of anything capable of taking an image, of anything, from anywhere, all the time), it seems like one of the less well thought through schemes - particularly when some nurseries are actively promoting the idea of watching your child through their internet connected webcams.

    Maybe after the proposer has had a little lie down, she'll realise just how daft this whole idea is.

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    @And another knee-jerk...

    Yes, one of my sons spent his early years in a "sane" country (shockingly I'm describing the US as a sane country) so have loads of photos/videos of him at swimming lessons, mini-gym classes etc ... meanwhile his brother, who was 6 months old when we returned the the UK, is in a single photo of a swimming lesson which I took before being informed by a pool attendant that photos were not allowed (he then went on rather amusingly to attempt to justify this as being required by the data protection act!)

  25. Sean Foreman
    Thumb Up

    Camera phones..

    are already banned in some companies on the basis they can be used for spying (ie copying information, taking pictures of building layouts, etc) and or could have an adverse effect on other equipment (for example in hospital wards, planes, computer rooms, etc) or where security could be breached - eg prisons (although that's all cameras, not just camera phones)

    Where there's a clearly identified risk the precedent is already there to ban their use.

    In one company I worked for all mobile phones, regardless of whether they had a camera, were collected from staff visitng the site and handed back at the end of their visit - it does make life hard for the poor engineer who needs his phone for looking up call details, etc, but there are always workarounds in most situations.

  26. Martin Gregorie Silver badge
    Stop

    Names, misuse of

    This horse has long bolted, *BUT* why has the meeja spinelessly used paedophiles own somewhat misleading pet name for themselves?

    Kindly call the bastards what they are and what they always used to be correctly called:

    child molesters

  27. Toastan Buttar

    @strong.bare.druid

    "my phone is like 4 years old, replaced only because my prior one died"

    My apologies in advance, I read that as:

    "my phone is like a 4 year old, replaced only because my prior one died"

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    My wife runs a nursary

    and part of keeping track of childrens development, is to take photos/videos of them, it is expected by ofstead that you do this so my wife has several cameras that she and the other staff use to take photos. However as with well run nursaries, people are not left in sole charge, and doors are not shut when nappies etc are changed so that the childrens welfare is protected and the staff are not left in a situation where there actions are not monitored.

  29. bilston

    Brown paper bags

    Brown paper bags be worn by all children when out and about.

    All pianos should have there legs covered.

    Swimming pools, beaches, and TV channels should be segregated by sex.

    All cameras, oil paintings, sketches etc should have the faces obscured for all people and animals, especially sheep.

  30. Keith T
    FAIL

    This would obstruct justice

    Enacting any proposal to limit camera phones would obstruct justice by reducing the number of people with camera phones on the street and in workplaces.

    The camera phones are needed to record illegal events, such as police officers or others beating people, automobile accidents, etc.

  31. Pie Eater

    I've got a better idea

    Since it's people taking the pictures, keep them out of nurseries.

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    Coukld you suggest

    to the originator of this campaign that she puts her well-meaning effort into improving recruitment and selection processes so they don't employ paedophiles in the first place, and then into improving staff supervision so staff don't have the opportunities to molest children at work, which must take some time. It is the person, not the camera phone, which committed the offence. A perpetrator, deprved of a cameraphnoe, will offend using something else.

  33. Peter Stern

    Kneejerk reactionary legislation should be illegal

    I think that knee-jerk reactionary legislation should be banned.

  34. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    In other news.

    I occasionally work at a site in an Asian country, where if you have a phone on your camera, it is tapped over when you go on site, as are any CD/DVD writing drives. If the tape is not there when you leave then security get involved.

    Quite ironic given they are a major manufacture of, guess what, mobile phones with cameras.

    Works quite well, although their particular system is full of holes.

    Probably work OK in nurseries too.

    Although I agree with the above - a knee jerk reaction to a non-existent problem. (1 known case out of god knows how many nurseries in the UK over the whole history of nurseries)

  35. ratfox
    FAIL

    How come...

    It is STILL legal for lab assistants to take pictures of the fetus??

  36. Psymon
    Big Brother

    But hang on...

    At the end of the day, this person was caught?

    Obviously they are going to prison for a very long time, and the police are hunting down any online connections. Contrary to popular (tabloid) belief, the police are very keen on this, and have a pretty good success rate at removing the content, and catching those responsible

    Unless the parents sat their kids down, and traumatized them for life with an explicit description of what their minder was actually doing, then these children should be blissfully unaware of what went on.

    So, children unharmed, bad guys caught, and cleanup operation underway. Did I miss something, or did the legal infrastructure actually work for a change?

    What we have here is a mother feeling violated on behalf of her child. It's a perfectly natural human reaction, but completely innapropriate in legaslative procedure, and one we as a society have spent hundreds of years trying to safeguard our legal systems from.

    This is why we have a jury of 12, explicitly devoid of victims or relatives involved in the case.

  37. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    I just looked at there site

    Interesting they name the suspect (as yet untried) and people talk in open comments about the guilt and the actions etc.

    Given the publicity for this its going to make jury selection interesting and commenting on guilt in a public format could lead to a mistrial.

    I bet the rocket scientist who came up with this idea would feel a little miffed if her campaign actually derailed the trial!

    Paris - brighter and more useful than the average knee jerker

  38. Alan 6
    Unhappy

    CCTV

    What about all the nurseries that have installed CCTV systems with web access so "concerned" can check on their offspring from afar?

    Are these going to be banned as well?

    btw I've just sold a similar system to a cattery, so people can watch their little kitties whilst they're on holiday - sad fucks...

  39. EvilGav 1

    @ Matt 21

    The definition has been blurred by the press.

    The term paedophile (or pedophile, tho why you would be attracted to feet is beyond me) actually refers to the attraction towards pre-pubescent children, legally in the UK that means girls under 12 and boys under 14.

    When discussing anything to do with girls from 12-16/18 or boys from 14-16/18 the term is actually ephebophile, meaning someone attracted to adolescents, not children.

    It's also not helped by oddities in the law that mean a 15 year old couple having sex could lead to the male being charged with Statutary Rape.

    As for the article, as many have pointed out, this is an attempt to ban the means, not to make any difference to the problem. Much like banning knives has cut knife crime and banning hand guns has cut down on their number.

  40. SkippyBing

    How about

    Anyone who agrees with this idea goes and lives in a Taliban controlled area of Afghanistan, I believe they're opposed to all photos, graven images etc. which should solve the problem nicely.

    Although you do wonder how they justify those videos they put out...

  41. GavinL
    Thumb Down

    CRB

    I assume that the person at the centre of this had passed a CRB check which proves the governments obsession with anyone that works with children has one proves nothing.

    How long before the government uses this case to include all known associates n the CRB check as they do for some levels of security clearance.

    Also banning something twice does not make it any less likely to happen.

  42. Peter Revell
    Thumb Up

    A phone as only a phone

    If you want a phone which is free of all gimmicks and has superb charge stamina you need a Nokia 1200. This is available on the Web, Sim-free for £24.00 or less.

    This was designed for the micro finance market in Africa and Asia where poor female entrepreneurs can borrow $20 and set up a business in their village to sell call time to their neighbours. That is why it has multiple phone books and displays call and charge time and has a torch.

    I have seen criticism of this phone for being simple but the critics don't understand the market and the end user it is aimed at. I think it is a brilliant robust phone which has already created several rich women in Africa.

  43. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    Eh?!

    Having worked at a hospital, I know the hospital banned phones because of they had cameras, but even if a patient was that bored to take photos (of patients or dirty wards) then surely another patient would notice.

    But why surely we've had digital cameras and polariod cameras before that, ok they probably needed a flash to take a photo indoors, but nobody thought to ban those!

    My phone is dead old and even it has a camera - so if you want a pic of something that looks like a low-res thumbnail, it's great (!)

    I very much doubt this will ever take off the ground, admittely I have a pager as well (but i can never be ar$ed to change the battery for it every month) but there are just times when you need to be contacted in an emergency and I can't see me leaving my phone with a receptionist ... but on the plus side ... less stress :-)

    Surely the best thing you can do is make sure chidren are not in a vunerable situation, like going to the toilet, changing nappies etc, you could get a paedo who doesn't take pics!

  44. thomas newton

    ah yes, lets ban something tangientally involved

    because banning handguns has stopped all gun crime within the uk hasnt it?

  45. Leo Maxwell
    Alert

    Who allows staff to use mobile phones when they are at work anyway?

    Sorry, but in my company, the use of personal mobile phones during work hours is forbidden, and rightly so.

    When you are at work, you are being paid for your time, not to take personal phone calls.l

    We instigated this when we found staff spending time on their mobile phone and ignoring the ringing company phone on their desk.

    So I see no problem with insisting that mobile phones are kept in lockers, in the car, or left at home.

  46. Anonymous Coward
    Coffee/keyboard

    Knee-jerk reaction (aren't they ALWAYS!!)

    This woman needs to get things in perspective, we have had ONE incident in a SINGLE nursery school involving ONE member of staff and an associate.

    As mentioned above, we (I am a Nursery Manager), are REQUIRED by OFSTED to take photos recording the child's development; dragging a "normal" camera, either 35mm or digital is not possible all the time, so camera phones get used a lot by individual staff to take photos when a child does something noteworthy; going to get the "real" camera often takes too long and/or disrupts whatever it is the child is going.

    A far bigger scandal is the fact that OFSTED inspectors are using their positions to carry out vendettas against nurseries and staff they do not like, or who they had " issues with" when they themselves worked in childcare; with OFSTED being a QUANGO, there is very little that can be done to report these actions and only the bravest Owner/Operator is prepared to makes these complaints when OFSTED send the SAME PERSON out as part of the complaint investigation!!

  47. lukewarmdog

    Formative Years

    Email parents. Ask if they are ok with the event being ilmed / pictures taken

    We pussyfoor aroundf way too much.

  48. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    @everybody

    Let's stop agreeing with each other. Instead of posting here, let's post to the Daily Mail's message boards.

  49. Number6

    @Leo Maxwell

    Banning personal mobiles in places I've worked would decrease progress, I've noticed that many people get calls on their mobile from suppliers or customers or even other employees rather than get them on their company phone. This is often because they're not always at their desks and people have learned that the mobile is a better choice. The downside is that you might also get work-related calls outside of work hours, but that just compensates for the occasional personal call when at work.

    As with all things, sensible balance is called for. Bringing in overly-restrictive rules for the vast majority of sensible people to cope with the small minority of abusers may well end up costing more in lost goodwill and productivity.

  50. BristolBachelor Gold badge
    FAIL

    Was she dropped on her head as a child?

    So the facts are these:

    1. She wants camera phones banned or controlled in nurseries, lest a member of staff take a picture of a child there.

    2. She acknowledges that the staff already have (superior) digital cameras at said nurseries which they use and will continue to use to take pictures of the children there, and this will not change.

    Therefore if a dodgy member of staff IS prevented from taking pictures with a camera phone (and the chances are that they will just ignore this rule, like the others), they will just have to take better ones with a normal camera.

    The question is:

    Was she looked after properly as a child, or was she dropped on her head... Repeatedly.

  51. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    okay...

    If the worker can get away with taking indecent pictures of the children they'll be able to sneak in a camera phone. You can't compair this to anti-weapon laws, totally different situation. Does anyone think that some paedophile who works at a daycare would be stopped by a "no cameraphone" rule? Please.

    I'm not supposed to have my phone on me at work, but I do anyway. Just in case there's an emergency or something, otherwise it stays in my pocket.

    Of course if a public figure were to reveal this logic, they'd be scared of looking like they support paedophiles.

  52. Mark 65
    WTF?

    It's about trust

    Here in Oz our daughter goes to a daycare centre where the staff regularly take photos of the kids at play and learning on a compact camera. The results are compiled into a "what the kids did today" poster by the time they're collected. Copies also go into the child's folder to document their progress. To everyone's knowledge nothing bad has ever happened. They'd lose their license, their income, and their liberty if it did. This is all about trust on the part of parents and adequate screening and supervision of staff on behalf of the daycare.

    Don't quote me on this, but I think the stats for inappropriate behaviour by a friend/relative are pretty high - what does she intend doing in that case as this seems real horse/stable door action?

  53. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge
    Megaphone

    Call for Action...

    "Let's stop agreeing with each other. Instead of posting here, let's post to the Daily Mail's message boards."

    Seconded. In fact, we should be posting to the web site involved, the local newspaper, and the local MP.

    If you don't make your views known early, you will have an uphill battle to fight when they do kick off their knee-jerk reaction...

  54. Andus McCoatover

    @Leo Maxwell, and #6

    Disagree with Leo.

    Firstly, you're not paid for your time, you're paid for your WORK. I had an agreeable boss who set me projects to be completed in such-and-such a time. If I got it done early then I could have a couple of days off. Pop into work occasionally to check my post. Work-related emails I could check at home.

    But, natch, if it was running late, I'd be in the office most of the night, and maybe weekends. So, balance. Plus, my disabled missus might need some help with the nipper - hence the necessity of a phone.

    Tar, Brush, Same?

    Agree with number6

    Second, I had a real (unbelievable) argument with an American colleague (I worked in Finland). He couldn't understand the concept that Nokia Finland didn't have desk phones anymore - only mobiles. He failed to grasp the concept that I wanted to call HIM, not his bloody desk....

  55. Anonymous Coward
    WTF?

    Overreactive idiocy

    So, because something could be used in a criminal act, the only solution is to ban the object entirely?

    It's also a criminal offence to beat children over the head with a chair, so should schools remove all chairs?

    Ditto smacking kids - so should we ban anyone with limbs?

    This is sheer idiocy from the "something must be done" brigade. These folks just need to accept that you can't control all aspects of life without stifling it.

  56. Winkypop Silver badge
    Megaphone

    Ban everything

    Before it's too late!

  57. Winkypop Silver badge
    Badgers

    I like taking pics of young plants?

    I rather like taking photos at the nursery!

    (AKA: Garden Centre for Brit-tards)

  58. Mark .

    Oddities

    "It's also not helped by oddities in the law that mean a 15 year old couple having sex could lead to the male being charged with Statutary Rape."

    Or indeed, the oddity that a 17 year old couple who can legally have sex will be charged with child porn possession if they take a photo of their legal acts (or indeed, if a 17 year old takes a private photo of his or her own body). No doubt the press would refer to them as "pedophiles".

    With the Coroners and Justice Bill that will soon be made law, drawing a naughty picture that appears to depict a 17 year old in the scene will get you three years in prison, because the Government think that makes you a pedophile too.

  59. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    Cameras provide evidence

    It seems to me that this is a knee jerk reaction. If camera phones were banned before this incident would the police have the evidence they needed ? I think not, so in a perverse sort of way this change will only help the paedo types to evade detection.

  60. 2FishInATank
    Coat

    @Got a better idea - AC 14:29

    "as soon as the little one is born, ship it off to a secure government facility where it can grow up safe and secure...

    ...I wonder where they’re going to site the UK baby facility?"

    Kidderminster?

  61. Steve Roper
    Big Brother

    @AC (Eh?!)

    The reason people don't like cameras these days, and didn't mind the old Polaroid ones etc, is not the cameras themselves - it's the internet that's the problem. Nobody minded being publicly photographed in the old days because few if any of those photos would ever reach a wide audience. These days, however, people consider that the image will end up on some popular site, or be used in identity theft, or for somebody to fap to, or whatever. This is also why there's such a palaver about Google Earth - it's not the fact that Google are taking pictures, it that they are publishing them on the internet for all to see.

    Yes, this attitude amongst people angers me, as I used to enjoy photography as a hobby - but I gave it away (although I still do it in the countryside when nobody else is around) after being shouted at, abused, and falsely accused of all sorts of things too many times. While I value my privacy in my own place, people have got to learn that if you are in public you have no expectation of privacy.

  62. John70

    There is already guidelines

    [she said: "There's a lot of guidelines protecting children from photos being taken on cameras in schools, nurseries and swimming pools, but none to say staff can't take camera phones to work."]

    If there are already guidelines about cameras, doesn't cameras on mobile phones also fall under this rule?

  63. The Jase
    FAIL

    @Leo Maxwell

    "Sorry, but in my company, the use of personal mobile phones during work hours is forbidden, and rightly so.

    When you are at work, you are being paid for your time, not to take personal phone calls"

    Do they time your fag and toilet breaks too?

    Humans do not work a solid 8hrs, we are not built for that. In the time, we:

    have tea breaks

    chat to other staff

    piss around on the internet

    read the news

    etc.

    Anyone who does not understand this is an idiot with a demoralised and demotivated staff. People do not want to come to work, and are not will do anything extra, ever.

    Its a massive fail as a business.

    Not answering the company phone because of personal calls... well, people should be told off, just ditch the personal call.

  64. Paul Stockwell
    Stop

    How do you not get a Cameraphone/

    This is another example of Political Correctness going Mad.

    Cameraphones make up such a big chunk of the available market that NOT getting one is difficult. i had to work on some defence sites a few years ago and the only phone that had bluetooth (and could work my handsfrree) but did not have a camera was the Nokia 6021. Fortunately the MoD seemed pretty relaxed about them so i went and got a cybershot.

    There is only one example of a nursery worker abusing their position this way so why inconvenience the rest? If somebody is intent on taking pictures of this sort they can surely smuggle in a decent digital camera and do a better photographic job?

    maybe it is a market for stripped out & obselete phones?

  65. Anonymous Coward
    Coat

    Paedophile *ring*?

    Does that mean they abandoned ethernet and are using a token ring network?

    There's your IT angle.

  66. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    @Paul Stockwell

    What on Earth has any of this got to do with Political Correctness?

    No one is suggesting that cameraphones are politically incorrect. Far from it. It's the same crowd of people who bang about the place spouting "PC gone mad" who are usually the first to curtail our freedoms because of the children.

    So-called political correctness is an attempt to stop the verbal and physical abuse of people just because they're a wrongskin, wrongsex, wrongwhatever.

    In other words so-called political correctness is usually an attempt to curtail the political correctness of the right. Suck on that.

    Paris, because I happen to be admiring my Johnny Yeo print.

  67. Nev Silver badge

    Already "banned" in some industries

    I know plenty of places that restrict access to R&D sites of cameras, phones with cameras and even laptops with webcam. All have to be left at security/reception when going on site.

    No law changes required.

    Companies take IP protection very seriosly.

    Infact we just had to re-order a liad of laptops and specifucally ask tgat the supplier remove the webcams.

    I don't know why someone doesn't make a killing on tamperproof security stickers that could be applied on entry and checked when you leave.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021