UK: Parents' fury...school's PC online newsletter covers up pupils' faces with 'cartoon smileys'

The Daily Mail (U.K.) ^ | March 5, 2008

[Stoat]

That’s just strange looking.

One would have thought that such a radical decision using such garish imagery might have been subjected to two minutes' discussion and consideration by the faculty.....but apparently not.  Or, perhaps it was thoroughly discussed and vetted, and this was honestly the absolute best decision that the staff could come up with.

[nicmarlo]

lol!!

[nicmarlo]

haaaaaaaaaaa

[Stoat]

If it were done to be silly, I’d say whatever. But for PC reasons... I don’t know. Kind of a strange way to go about it.

According to the quotes in the article, this was done in absolute stern seriousness and it is being defended as being the very best solution that they could have possibly come up with.

Apparently, leaving out photos featuring children was either not considered or they honestly didn't see anything wrong with covering up the students' faces in such a garish manner that has served to put this school on the international map for all the wrong reasons.

[Stoat]

To more accurately reflect Britian 2008, they should have put Pete Doherty faces on the boys, and Amy Winehouse faces on the girls...

As well as adding hideous, prison-quality tattoos to all areas of exposed skin.....

[Stoat]

So, that means they have to have smiley faces with burkas. How do you know they’re smiling?

I think that they should assume that anyone wearing a huge cloth bag over themselves would probably 'not' be smiling.....and most pics of muzzies typically feature angry, unsmiling faces anyway (I suppose it's tough to smile when you're shouting "death to America!")

[Stoat]

It could have been worse, they could have all had bill clinton’s face on them.

Although such a decision would likely have been enthusiastically embraced by the vast majority of the faculty at the school, the (hopefully) sane and rational parents would (hopefully) have rioted in the streets, burning the Headmistress in effigy.

[knews_hound]

Well, since you asked...





Cheers,

knewshound

http://www.knewshound.blogspot.com/

[dschapin]

I don’t see why anyone would be outraged by this. It may be a little bit silly but they are doing it to protect the kids from online predators which are a real threat and this approach doesn’t really harm anyone. I am sure that if a parent really wanted to be able to see the pictures of an event they could probably request one so why would any parent be upset about this?

[Stoat]

I don’t see why anyone would be outraged by this. It may be a little bit silly but they are doing it to protect the kids from online predators which are a real threat and this approach doesn’t really harm anyone. I am sure that if a parent really wanted to be able to see the pictures of an event they could probably request one so why would any parent be upset about this?

It's probably because this particular approach serves mainly to highlight the school's policy as well as the rampant scourge of pedophilia, and in so doing detracts from the students' achievements which the pictures 'should' have been there to promote and celebrate.  Instead of being able to proudly point to the newsletter and their achievements, the students' garishly-altered photos are instead mainly a reminder that they are under scrutiny by sick perverts and are led by a faculty that is apparently unable to come up with a more dignified and thoughtful solution, such as adding password protection to the site (as suggested by dead in post #14) or simply not including any photos at all featuring children.

 

[dead]

Well said. They addressed a real enough problem with just about the most idiotic solution imaginable.

Did they really believe parents wanted to view those pictures in that state? Besides, online weirdos can still check out all those exposed kid-knees for their jollies.

And what are we going to do about kids who traipse around town without their smiley masks on, in full view of a whole world of predators?

Hiding the faces of innocent children because of the threat of molestors is akin to the burkha solution to lust for women. It's a bit overkill, to say the least.

[JerseyHighlander]

Guardians of child A can’t see government published photos of non-relative child B in the state of NJ unless the Guardians of child B sign a privacy waiver.

[JerseyHighlander]

I’m in complete agreement with you about it better to not post any photos under this policy for the reasons you stated, I was otherwise just relating it to my schooling experiences here in NJ last decade.

[JerseyHighlander]

There is a reason that schools do not sell yearbooks to the general public, as well a a reason that schools don’t allow yearbooks to be checked out of public libraries.

Predators depend on social engineering to gain false sense of trust, a name matched to a face, and background info on a child’s schooling experiences is something that should be protected.

Regards,

p.s. Do you have new satire writing projects in the works?

[Redcloak]

At a place where I once worked, an issue of the company’s employee newsletter featured pictures of employees involved in our training programs. This issue was pinned to the employee bulletin board in the lunchroom. One day, I noticed that none of the people in the pictures worked there anymore, nor had they for some time. As a gag, I placed tiny pieces of black tape over their eyes. I realized the company was in trouble when I saw our Senior VP’s reaction to my alteration. He began to remove one of the pieces of tape and then said “Oh well, what the heck...” and put the tape back.