[Closed] NeverSeconds blogger Martha Payne 'banned' from taking school dinner photos

I heard this on Radio 4 this morning and apparently nothing to do with the school, it was the Coucil who said photos weren't allowed.

[i]Personally I think its a overreaction by the school[/i]

did you read what they'd written? It's the council that have done this.

twitter's going ape.

Few voices saying 'Err, why don't we wait and see what the council says?' but mostly out for blood.

Daily Record stooged it up for her then. No surprise there, what an awful headline!

Looking at the blog, with the exception of a couple of the meals, the majority are really not bad and get positive ratings from her.

Totally put in the shade by some of the overseas lunches sent in though!

Her dad actually praised the school.

I was expecting a series of dire looking meals, all deep fried 😉 but it didn't look too bad.

Can't imagine this going away as there are plenty of comments asking under what authority/law the council have banned her blog.

Council aren't exactly a shining beacon of free speech either

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-16991417

its very sad that the council find the need to censor (and it is censorship) this young girl from doing something as harmless as this.
I get the impression she didn't have an agenda e.g. trying to highlight poor food standards etc, she was just trying to share her experiences with everone else which is what being a child is all about!

Sad, Very sad. Shame on the Council

I smell a Streisand Effect brewing...

Can they actually stop her?

Is there actually laws, regulations or rules in place that can prevent a 9 year old girl from photographing her lunch and blogging about it?

If there is, those worried about the UK becoming a police state are too late, it's already happened.

They haven't banned her blog - just taking photographs in school, which most schools do anyhow.

tbh, most schools ban mobile phones/cameras on school premises quoting 'child protection issues' so they coudl use that to stop her taking pictures.

I think she shoudl just do an arists impression (a la Court hearings) of her dinners from now on.

MSP - are the police involved then?

The council have the right to ban photography on their premises

[i]The council have the right to ban photography on their premises[/i]

I think the question really is "Was it appropriate to do so in this particular case?"

The council have the right to ban photography on their premises

Do they? I think they would have to show some kind of illegal intent to actually ban photography, from what I understand it is a frequently abused position that is rarely challenged.

MSP - schools can have whatever rules they like - parents 'accept' them by sendign kids there (uniform, hair colour & mobiles/cameras are all normally covered).

School is not a public place so they can legally stop photo's being taken

most schools ban mobile phones/cameras on school premises quoting 'child protection issues'

Look those school dinners have a right to privacy y'know. Who knows what despicable perverts might be fisting one off to a perfectly innocent candid shot of sticky toffee pudding with custard.

School is not a public place so they can legally stop photo's being taken

Could you point me to the legislation which supports that.

[i]sticky toffee pudding with custard.[/i]

I think it's some teenagers spotted dick being photographed that they're concerned about 😉

MSP;

[url= http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/taking_photos.pdf ]http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/taking_photos.pdf[/url]

Parents can take photo's but kids can be banned from taking electronic goods to school which, effectively, bans photo's.

Interesting blog on the whole thing;

[url= http://paulclarke.com/photography/blog/food-for-thought/ ]http://paulclarke.com/photography/blog/food-for-thought/[/url]

Food for thought
A simple photo.

Such a powerful thing. It can demonstrate bare, unpalatable truths. It can lead to a swift journey to the courtroom. It can certainly frighten the hell out of people, especially those in authority. And even more so when there are children involved.

You might have seen the storm erupt last night and this morning. Martha Payne, 9 year old blogger, had a regular audience for her blog reviewing school dinners. But after being taken aside by the school head, the will of the local council was brought to bear and she was told that she “could not take any more photos of my school dinners because of a headline in a newspaper today.”

Cue instant outrage. Without doubt, the local authority should have known how the internet reacts to things like this. “Censorship”, “stifling of creativity” and “fear of being held to account” are some of the kinder things being thrown at Argyll & Bute today. Inevitably of course Martha’s blog is now one of the hottest properties online. This one is certainly not going to go away quietly.

But we haven’t seen the council’s side of things yet. That they were unprepared is a massive PR fail – completely inexcusable – and my heart goes out to the poor staff up there right now who are trying to ram a trillion gallons of shit back into the silo using their shoes as scoops.

Is there any defence for this sort of behaviour? For the communications cock-up, well no. Not really. (Unless we take into account the fact that all has not been well in the PR department at Argyll & Bute for some time. Remember this? Do they actually have any comms people at the moment?)

But in terms of why they might do such a thing? Quite possibly.

We don’t yet know what their arguments will be, and I am very keen to see them published. Remember that the only actual evidence so far is a child’s reporting of a headteacher’s words, plus a father’s statement that the council have confirmed “it was their decision to ban Martha’s photography”. Does that mean this is primarily about photo issues, rather than blogging per se? Maybe.

So what are the photo issues here that might be troubling the council? If I may, I’ll just park the “obvious” one – that they don’t want to be criticised publicly. The evidence so far is that there’s been some minor improvement, perhaps attributable to the blog. As such a stance would be frankly indefensible, I won’t waste time opening it up at all.

No, the relevant issues to my mind are some old favourites in relation to images and technology: place, control, liability and of course precedent.

Let’s take the last of those first, as it’s quite easy to engage with. Meet Trixabell. Trixabell is eight, and a highly groomed pageant queen. With a teeny bit of help from mum and dad, she launches PlaygroundBeautyTrix.com – a vlog that each day features her giving fashion and make-up tips to girls from 6 to 9, all filmed, yes, in the school playground. It’s a massive hit. (Can’t think why.) Habbo-hell duly follows.

The slow progression from kids being allowed to bring mobiles into school at all, then from texting to MMS, from IM to Facebook, from photo-blogging to… And thus runs the escalation argument. If you don’t have some pretty blunt lines about user generated content that puts the school at its very heart, things will get really sticky down the line. What sort of guidelines would be nuanced enough to do a “some things are ok to blog, some things aren’t” job? I wouldn’t fancy writing them (and I’ve written a few).

But beyond the “capability to broadcast” argument lie some about the nature of a photo itself. Where it’s taken matters. Quite sensibly, many non-public locations carry with them restrictions on photography. I very much imagine that schools fall into this category (let’s do the full public/private/who-paid-for-it space analysis another day, hey?). If I, as a photographer – even one visiting my kids – walked in during a normal school day and started firing off shots, even if they weren’t of children, I’d be very likely to be hauled up for it.

And I think that’s ok. A general presumption that “everywhere is ok for a photo” might satisfy some people’s urges for blanket transparency, but there’s no doubt that it would change the character of some spaces that we’d previously thought of as “reserved” in some way. (School as a “child reserve” – there’s a thought.)

So if the photo ban makes sense for a visiting adult, is it that easy to waive it for an incumbent child? Again, I’d love to see those guidelines. (NB. Martha refers frequently to her “camera” so I’ll assume the food pics were not taken with a phone, and therefore there’s no easy subsuming of this into the school policy on phones.)

Then there’s the issue of scale. Practically speaking, a snap taken on a phone and sent as an MMS is going to be hard to forbid in practice (assuming you allow phones into school – a distinct matter). And anyway, does a one-to-one passing on of a pic have the same risk profile as a blog upload which has a regular readership in the thousands? Definitely not, I’d say. Martha’s pics were of food, not people. But that doesn’t mean to say they might never be.

And then, when a livid parent wonders why their child’s identifiable face now features in tech and lifestyle reports across the world, the authority with responsibility for what happens in schools will have a shitstorm of another type to deal with. Which could get expensive for them, and in turn, their ratepayers.

Martha is starting to get pics from around the world – again, this extends the risk of “child’s photo taken and distributed without consent” to a whole new range of jurisdictions and pitfalls.

We can say of course that Martha is responsible and wouldn’t do this. That she’d keep her ever-growing platform safe and on-topic. But that’s placing an increasing responsibility on a 9 year old. And we have a whole separate area of ethics and law dealing with age-related responsibility, for very good reasons. Is it ethical to give her that responsibility, or to turn a blind eye when she takes it?

So. PR balls-up for Argyll & Bute? Yes, certainly.

Instant simplification of many complex issues facing a society adjusting to new networks and technologies? Maybe not.

My interpretation of those guidelines would be that they would not apply to this scenario.

It's not covered by legislation, but it doesn't have to be. Attendance at the school is conditional on adherence to school policies, which can cover uniform, behaviour, use of mobile phones/cameras etc.

It's not a public place, so it can set its own rules, just like you can in your house. Sure, in theory she could challenge these legally, but in practical terms, that isn't going to happen. She's just a nice young girl with a thought-provoking blog, rather than some campaigning firebrand who'll fight to the bitter end to carry it on.

Shame though - as I said earlier, the Herald headline is the source of the bother, rather than the blog itself. The journos should be pretty ashamed of that one. It's a pity the council can't see past that to the honest intent of the blog.

A school is not a public place there for whatever the owners of that space decide to ban is banned.

the only anction for a breach of the ban is probably removal from the premises

A school is not a public place there for whatever the owners of that space decide to ban is banned.

The school is technically owned by the people, not the council as they are an elected set of twunts with nothing better to do than to ruin a young girl's fun.

The school is technically owned by the people

Just like the Houses of Parliament, Porton Down, and the engine room of a trident submarine, where we serfs can pretty much do what we like.

A school is not a public space, but it is a public building. The school is not at liberty to apply any rules it wishes on a whim, it has to comply with regulations and laws.

yes it has to comply with the law - but it can place more onerous restrictions on people on its premises.

where is the law that says yo have to wear school uniforms? Many schools insist on uniforms and the rights of schools to have policies like this enforced has been upheld in the courts.

A school is a publicly owned building - it is not open to the public

A school is not a public space, but it is a public building. The school is not at liberty to apply any rules it wishes on a whim, it has to comply with regulations and laws.

Your turn to point me at the UK legislation you have in mind which would restrict the school's ability to set its own policies on photography.

I'm with martinhutch - where's legislation that says any publicly owned building is a public place and cannot have it's own rules for people who work/visit it?

If a school needs to obey regulation and law how can they ever have a uniform policy that restricts what children wear?

I would like to ride my bike around the school playground - am I allowed?

Your turn to point me at the UK legislation you have in mind which would restrict the school's ability to set its own policies on photography.

Well there isn't legislation that lists everything we can do, it works the other way around.

I would like to ride my bike around the school playground - am I allowed?

Depends, the access laws are different in Scotland 😉

MSP - if you really want to know the minutae of law regarding either photography in schools or whether schools can restrict what electronic items pupils take onto the premises I think you can google it just as easily as any of us and I suggest you do.

Most 'reasonable' parents accept that

a) schools have rules that may differ from, say, the local shopping centre

and

b) that by sendign their child to the school they agree for their child to be bound by them.

now, there may not, as you say, be a law specifically banning photography of cooked food products in a school canteen by a pre-teen female in Scotland but it doesn't mean that the school or LA can't impose such a restriction as a condition of attending said school.

I think I'll bow out at this point.

but it doesn't mean that the school or LA can't impose such a restriction as a condition of attending said school.

It does if it restricts the pupils freedoms. There are many times when officials and organisations "get away" with applying rules that are actually nonsense, because they are seen as authoritative and knowledgeable about the situation, when in fact they are just making it up as they go along.

[i]It does if it restricts the pupils freedoms.[/i]

I'm not arguing this anymore - schools place all sorts of restrictions on childrens 'freedoms' you accept them by attending.

I'm not arguing this anymore

OK goodbye.

As Wwaswas says. Its not rocket science.

You can be removed from a school for not obeying its rules. So long as the rules are not discriminatory or breach other law thenthts it.

There have been numerous challenges to this in the courts and the courts uphold the school rules normally.

there was a recent case where a muslim girl wanted to wear a particular formof dress that did not comply with the rules. Went to court, school rules upheld because according to various Islamic scholars that particular form of dress was not mandatory - she was allowed to cover her head and legs which is all that is required.

her freedom was restricted by school rules. The law lords upheld this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2006/mar/22/schools.uk

Would it be ok if she drew pictures of the meals instead? Ideally using crayons.

So the school was "brilliant" in her dad's words and it was the council that ban it.

What if the head of the school had said no to the council and had let her carry on.

What could the coucil have done? Sacked the head, stopped funding?

Ro5ey - until the council gives a statement with reasons no one knows what their rationale was or why they overrode the schools decision.

I guess it's another argument for Academy's, though 😉

It does if it restricts the pupils freedoms

When I was at school (and over 16) I was legally allowed to smoke.

But the school decided to "restrict my freedom" And not even let me smoke when I was outside the buildings on the playing field.

Were they acting illegally ?

Statement from the Council (via bbc [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18454800 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18454800[/url])

[i]Argyll and Bute Council claimed media coverage of the blog had led catering staff to fear for their jobs.

It added: "The council has directly avoided any criticism of anyone involved in the 'never seconds' blog for obvious reasons despite a strongly-held view that the information presented in it misrepresented the options and choices available to pupils.

"However this escalation means we had to act to protect staff from the distress and harm it was causing.

"In particular, the photographic images uploaded appear to only represent a fraction of the choices available to pupils, so a decision has been made by the council to stop photos being taken in the school canteen.

"There have been discussions between senior council staff and Martha's father however, despite an acknowledgement that the media coverage has produced these unwarranted attacks, he intimated that he would continue with the blog.

"The council has had no complaints for the last two years about the quality of school meals other than one from the Payne family received on 6 June and there have been no changes to the service on offer since the introduction of the blog."[/i]

so basically, they felt she was showing them in a poor light.

[edit] why didn't they just start their own blog showing all the options pupils have?

MSP - it looks like you might be on to a winner - it seems the reasons they've given for banning the photography of school dinners by this pupil may not be lawful 🙂

"Leader of @ArgyllandBute council ends #neverseconds camera ban live"

on Radio 4 World at One.

Interesting footnote there,

"Thanks to this fantastic support, Martha has now raised enough money to build a kitchen in Malawi for children"

Clearly, the council need to stop this sort of behaviour immediately.

The ban has already been lifted, but it's not been for nothing...

Publicity caused by the ban helped her smash through her £7,000 target - with total pledges of more than £16,000 being made by Friday lunchtime.

The total stood at only about £2,000 on Thursday evening.

Would it be ok if she drew pictures of the meals instead? Ideally using crayons.

I'd thought this, too - probably easier to recognise the foodstuffs than the defendants in Court sketches - the one of Rebecca Brooks and co. at Leveson looked more like Carol Decker meets the Mitchell brothers. Anyway, moot point now that the Council has been introduced to the Streisand effect.

Interesting press release from the council leader.

http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/news/2012/jun/statement-school-meals-argyll-and-bute-council

Published Date:
15 Jun 2012 - 10:53

Updated: 14:19 - 15 June 2012

Statement from Cllr Roddy McCuish, Leader of Argyll and Bute Council

"There is no place for censorship in this Council and never will be whilst I am leader. I have advised senior officers that this Administration intends to clarify the Council's policy position in regard to taking photos in schools. I have therefore requested senior officials to consider immediately withdrawing the ban on pictures from the school dining hall until a report can be considered by Elected Members. This will allow the continuation of the "Neverseconds" blog written by an enterprising and imaginative pupil, Martha Payne which has also raised lots of money for charity.

But we all must also accept that there is absolutely no place for the type of inaccurate and abusive attack on our catering and dining hall staff, such as we saw in one newspaper yesterday which considerably inflamed the situation. That, of course, was not the fault of the blog, but of the paper.

We need to find a united way forward so I am going to bring together our catering staff, the pupils, councillors and council officials - to ensure that the council continues to provide healthy, nutrious and attractive school meals. That "School Meals Summit" will take place later this summer.

I will also meet Martha and her father as soon as I can, along with our lead councillor on Education, Michael Breslin to seek her continued engagement, along with lots of other pupils, in helping the council to get this issue right. By so doing Martha Payne and her friends will have had a strong and lasting influence not just on school meals, but on the whole of Argyll & Bute."

This statement supersedes all other council statements on the matter already issued.

Re: Cougar's post, 'council shows common sense' shocker!

Publicity caused by the ban helped her smash through her £7,000 target - with total pledges of more than £16,000 being made by Friday lunchtime.

The total stood at only about £2,000 on Thursday evening.

Worth reading this: always worth remembering there's more than one side to every story...

To give the DR their due I'm not sure their story is asking for dinner ladies' heads. My interpretation here is some over-sensitive canteen staff got upset about a story and the Council over-reacted...

[url= http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2012/06/15/council-ban-school-dinners-blogger-martha-payne-from-taking-pictures-then-do-a-u-turn-after-outcry-86908-23896283/ ]Daily Record current story[/url]

[url= http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2012/06/15/read-the-martha-payne-article-that-made-council-bosses-overreact-and-ban-her-blog-86908-23896447/ ]Background to the original story[/url]

Here's an interesting thing.

Before the press statement above, A&B issued another one. Which they then [i]overwrote.[/i]

Fortunately, due to the power of the Internets, you can read the original here.

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/hrom1r

One last comment here. Worth a read.

http://ashinyworld.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/communications-void.html