School's bizarre ploy to beat internet perverts - masking pupils with Acid House smileys

[Scottish Mag 3]

 

A primary school has been accused of being alarmist for covering up the faces of pupils on its website – apparently to protect them from paedophiles.

 

Bizarrely, the images have been altered with the type of smiley faces popular during the Acid House dance craze of the 1980s.

 

The decision was taken at Cann Hall Primary School in Clacton, Essex.

 

Smiles all round: Cann Hall Primary decided to cover pupils' faces online with 'smileys'

 

Headmistress Clare Reece said yesterday: "The public nature of the internet is an issue we feel strongly about.

 

"Not all parents want their children's picture on there.

 

"You can't say what is going to happen with any of those pictures."

 

She said that the photographs were printed unaltered in the school newsletter which was sent to parents.

 

But on the primary's website, the children's faces are obscured.

 

The school guarantees the content of the site is "child friendly", adding: "In order to protect our children, we have made the decision not to include any photos of our pupils on this website."

 

Not so proud: The football team have their faces covered to stop people recognising them

 

Previously, faces were simply blurred, but newer pictures, including action shots of the athletics tournament, use the smiley faces.

 

However, one child in a line-up of medal winners has been singled out – he alone has been given a sad face.

 

Children's charity NCH yesterday said that schools were right to be cautious about putting children's pictures on the internet if they were vulnerable or in care.

 

However, spokesman Shaun Kelly added: "The images shocked me, actually. What message is it giving?

 

"It looks very, very odd. If you want to obscure children's faces you can obscure them with pixels.

 

"We need to be cautious about taking images of children out of the media."

 

Sports day: Originally these pictures were published uncensored in a paper newsletter

 

Frank Furedi, a sociology professor at the University of Kent, said the school was being alarmist.

 

"Every time a school takes silly measures, it says we see the world through the eyes of a paedophile.

 

"They think that any innocent picture of school children will somehow be subverted and manipulated.

 

"These pictures serve a very important purpose of giving children clear images of their experiences, something they can remember later in life.

 

"Depriving ourselves of these experiences is not only irrational but serves no purpose whatsoever."

 

Outrage: Parents have mixed feelings about the school's 'irrational' decision

 

However, some parents at the school said they supported the decision.

 

One said: "I wouldn't want my child's face on a disgusting site.'

 

But Michaela Day, 35, whose eight-year-old son, Connor, attends the school, said: "If they are covering the children's faces, what is the point of using the photographs? It's a waste of time."

 

A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said that it advises schools to get permission from parents or carers in writing before publishing photographs of pupils on a website or in a prospectus. However, this is not a legal requirement.

 

The school took down the controversial pictures from its website at around 3pm yesterday.

 

A message on the website said: "Our newsletter section is undergoing maintenance. Back soon!"

 

 

[Meenzer 15877]

But Michaela Day, 35, whose eight-year-old son, Connor, attends the school, said: "If they are covering the children's faces, what is the point of using the photographs? It's a waste of time."

This.

 

The people who spout their irrational concerns about the PEODOPHILS to every passing journo are probably all inbred and ugly as fuck anyway, their bairns included, so no worries.

[Fop 1]

But Michaela Day, 35, whose eight-year-old son, Connor, attends the school, said: "If they are covering the children's faces, what is the point of using the photographs? It's a waste of time."

This.

 

The people who spout their irrational concerns about the PEODOPHILS to every passing journo are probably all inbred and ugly as fuck anyway, their bairns included, so no worries.

 

I don't really understand the logic of it, even the insane PC "logic" of it.

 

 

So a paedophile sees a picture of a kid........ the paedophile then what? Some how hunts down that kid using their MI6 contacts (as opposed to I dunno, maybe going to the nearest school or something equally unlikely and ridiculous).

[luckyluke 2]

But Michaela Day, 35, whose eight-year-old son, Connor, attends the school, said: "If they are covering the children's faces, what is the point of using the photographs? It's a waste of time."

This.

 

The people who spout their irrational concerns about the PEODOPHILS to every passing journo are probably all inbred and ugly as fuck anyway, their bairns included, so no worries.

 

 

"Look, here's my son. You probably want to have sex with him"

 

"No I don't."

 

"Why not?"

 

"I don't fancy him"

 

"what's wrong with him?!"

[Meenzer 15877]

 

Still absolutely fucking unbeatable, that episode. And sadly still completely relevant and necessary.

[Happy Face 29]

 

 

Comic genius.

Edited March 11, 2008 by Happy Face

[Guest alex]

Like Meenzer says, just don't put any photos up if you're that concerned. Obviously it's ridiculous like.

[JawD 99]

 

 

Comic genius.

 

"This is me at school winning our medal in the football team"

 

"No it isnt, looks fuck all like you!"

[Happy Face 29]

 

 

Comic genius.

 

"This is me at school winning our medal in the football team"

 

"I'm guessing you're the miserable sod!"