Prev
Next

When should images of children be put on the net?

James Ricketson

by James Ricketson

01 Apr 05:47am

Must Reads

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it - this is a caption

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

180

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment - this is a caption

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

27

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest - this is a caption

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

3

Filed under: Censorship, Children, Earthhour, Internet, Rights, Youtube

36 comments

The boys and girls I was filming on the beach were mostly pre-teens.

We've no idea who these cute kids are, just found their picture on the net

Where are you going to show it? a girl asked. ” On You Tube” I replied.  The kids screamed so loudly with delight the sound on my camera distorted.

I didnt have permission from these kids parents to film them but it was not until the following day that it occurred to me that this might be a problem.

Rewind. Earth Hour. Festivities are held on Whale Beach, close to where I live in Sydney. It is a family affair - picnic, music and a procession along the beach with each of several dozen kids carrying a small lantern they have made themselves. Im a filmmaker so I turn up with my camera.

The procession is led by drummers, followed by a large white translucent paper whale lit from inside then the kids with their lanterns. Beautiful. The kids have a ball. Many perform for my camera silly home movie stuff.

As I edit the footage I wonder: Can I put this on the internet without asking the permission of the parents? There were hundreds of people on the beach. There is no way I could have got permission from the parents of all the kids I filmed. Was I making a mountain out of a mole hill in even considering that there was an ethical question to be dealt with here? After all, it was a community event in a public place. On the other hand there may be some parents who do not want images of their children available on the internet for all to see. I imagined being confronted in the street by an angry parent asking me why I had posted an image of their child on the interent.

I decided to ask some friends what they thought I should do post or not post. (I’d already made up my mind but I was interested to find out what others thought.)

I just did a quick survey mum friends and they all thought if filmed from a distance and kids indistinguishable fine but if you can see faces they would beshocked to find their child on You Tube. A video record of a community event shot from a distance with indistinguishable faces? That’d be exciting.

One 28 year old expressed a view that seems common of his generation: “Why would parents objects to footage of their children appearing on You Tube? It is the modern digital age and this stuff is just common place. The kids can sit around, film each other on their mobile phones, then instantly upload it to You Tube themselves anyway. There are literally millions of videos on You Tube uploaded by random people which contain footage of other random people that they don’t know, so what, who cares, that is the world now, the only time it would ever be a problem is if the footage is damaging, or offensive in some way, otherwise, I think people are just going to be excited to see themselves on the internet.”

Another Gen Xer was more blunt: “God, I don’t see why those kids shouldn’t get to enjoy seeing themselves on ‘TV” just cause someone might jack off to it…. what has the world come to? Stupid. I wish the pedophile police would GO GET F****... instead of ruining everyone’s normal lives with their paranoid bullshit.”

And this from the father of teenage kids. “It is necessary to have the parent’s permission before you film such an event. Parents should have the right of control over images taken of their children. ” It would have been impossible for anyone on that beach NOT to have seen me filming as I used a small sun gun to illuminate all that I filmed. If any parent had a problem with me filming their children they could have let me know quick fast.

One parent said she would refuse point blank under any circumstances allowing her children to be filmed on the beach because, as she says, video it is a re-usable commodity that can be
re-sold to anyone.

This was countered by: “If everyone was that precious about reproductions of their image, documentaries, news, community videos, etc would be impossible to make. That would be a
shame. A lot of valuable stuff would not exist.”

From an aging baby boomer: It seems to me that we are all suffering from “Jaws” syndrome. Since Jaws we can’t ever swim nonchalantly again. The same goes for “kids
pictures” being posted on the Internet. While it is likely that there is no wart-covered perv lurking ready to pounce on every child’s image on the net, we’ve been shown there might be. Fear is insidious and every new story is chilling.”

One respondent, perhaps suffering a dose of Jaws Syndrome wrote: “Even with parental approval, I believe some material should not be posted on the “net” because it might be
downloaded by pedophiles. Parents, even with the best of intentions, don’t always make wellinformed/wise decisions. I know, I’m a parent and a grandparent!”

A note of caution from a photographer friend: “Beware of self censorship and fear. When philistines and fearful people control the boundaries - all our creative freedoms are in
danger.”


From the father of a pre-teen girl: “This crazy modern world of permissions and legislation, Legalities and libel! What a drag! Just put it up and see what happens.”


And finally, from a friend viewing it from a legal perspective: “I wouldn’t publish the shots for fear of liability issues if any parent takes issue.”

Having decided not to post the video I’m still not sure if it was the right decision to make.

ricketsonjames@hotmail.com

Most commented

431Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
336Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
266Who murdered the Arts degree?
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
223The world puzzles over Australia's Prime Minister

36 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • BTS says:

      06:15am | 01/04/10

      As you can see here, the problem is there are too many opinions.  There needs to be some sort of education on what people can and can’t do and what is acceptable to the community.

      I bet though, that most of the kids are already on the net either in their own or someone else’s footage.

      Reply

    • Sarah says:

      07:47am | 01/04/10

      It’s sad when we have to constantly live in fear…. we’re paranoid, litigous, and bloody sad.
      Banning all sorts of things “just in case” a non-specific person “might” use them for some sort of “bad purposes,” is not IMHO a good enough reason.
      I put photos of my kids on the net. I share them with friends via Flickr. Others might be able to see them. So what? There are a billion photos and videos and TV shows and movies and news reports and Rock Eisteddford programs etc etc where you can see pictures and videos of kids. SO WHAT? Do we deny their existence, or celebrate it?

      Reply

    • Adam Diver says:

      08:09am | 01/04/10

      How to respond… I think it was a good idea to not post the video to protect the children from peadophiles. But it needs to go further, no news reorts should ever show images of children. Kids should be covered in veils whenever they go out in public and should only leave the house if it is absolutely neccesary. Childrens births and special events should never be recorded and of course childrens sports should be cancelled around the country.

      Reply

    • Von says:

      08:34am | 01/04/10

      Good decision.If there were no paedophiles there would be no problem, the emphasis is in the wrong place.Paedophiles are pschyopaths who prey on children, why wouldn’t parents be worried?

      Reply

    • cweg says:

      11:40am | 02/04/10

      I’m sorry…. this is exactly the kind of statement that sets off hysteria.

    • Jack says:

      09:00am | 01/04/10

      I, too, would be scared of the pedophiles coming through the internet to steal my kids.

      It’s actually amazing how many people think that you need a parent’s permission to take a photo of a kid or upload it to the interbirds. Otherwise intelligent people pick grab the nearest pitchfork and torch whenever children are involved.

      I am just waiting for a law that all males between the ages of 16 and 65 have to close their eyes whenever a child might be within 800m.

      Reply

    • Eric says:

      10:50am | 01/04/10

      That’s not so far-fetched, Jack. Some major airlines already have a policy of not allowing men to be seated next to unaccompanied children, for example.

      Personally I’d be delighted to avoid having to sit next to a child, but this is still a sexist and discriminatory policy created by paedo-paranoia.

      Imagine the reaction if there was a policy of not allowing black people to sit next to unaccompanied children? Yet it’s acceptable to discriminate against all men in this way.

    • sam says:

      12:33pm | 01/04/10

      Eric, do you mean that the policy is sexist because now more women will be forced to put up with those unaccompanied brats?

    • Eric says:

      12:51pm | 01/04/10

      Hehe Sam, perhaps that is another aspect of the unfairness. Poor women.

    • Peter says:

      12:55pm | 02/04/10

      This is funny. Men might get asked to move from an airline seat because they are next to an unaccompanied child, yet it’s the women who would feel discriminated against.. I wonder how Pru Goward will handle that one?

    • Scott Glennon says:

      09:02am | 01/04/10

      If you don’t want your kids filmed or to end up in distributable media while bieng entertained by public venues.. Then don’t take them there.

      I was recently asked by a life gaurd to stop filimg the beach. My family of 6 were learning to surf for the first time together. Fortunately I disregarded the request. Later I was asked by a parent,. to provide him with the device I was using, as he intended to view and/or delete what I’d filmed, I refused to and suggested he call the police.Kinda glad they didn’t turn up, but would have been interesting to see what resolve was formulated. I don’t, nor does the rest of my family consider kids running around on a beach in swimsuits, indecent.. we grew up there.

      If a Dennis Fredo were filming your kids. I doubt he/she would be running around the beach with a hand held video camera. It’s likely they’d have a more subtle version, perhaps like Homer J Simpsons cam hat.

      In my opinion if it were illegal to film or photograph children in public, Google Street View would have been banned by now. So go film all you want, just avoid indecent shots like kids changing on the beach.

      Reply

    • acker says:

      09:58am | 01/04/10

      So kids have to live a cave like existance because us adults in society cant protect them from kiddy porn scum ? Why do you want to distribute their pictures on the media anyway ?
      Sad life

    • Jimmy says:

      11:51am | 01/04/10

      @Scott: The problem with Google Street View is that Google just released the service more or less without asking anyone. All you need to do is to do some research on it and you will find it is not popoular with everyone. You will even find a few cases where the Street View cars have been attacked.

      Thiss is Google for you though. They release something based on how they think it should be and change it later when people start complaining about it. They have this disgusting ‘shoot first ask later’ attitude towards a lot of things.

    • Mackellar says:

      11:55am | 01/04/10

      What’s the difference between the perv in the bushes and the perv behind a modem? And what are the chances parents will ever see these images on the web by random? And how are we ever going to stop pervs misapproapriating innocent images on the net or other media. Should we ban televised Wiggles concerts or school photos? What were you saying about living in caves?

    • Scott Glennon says:

      01:30pm | 01/04/10

      @acker,
      Releasing special moments like a surfing lesson, privately for other family members living interstate and internationally should be priority over protecting some strangers overfed kids from having their photo inadvertently taken in public because they happened to be blocking the way of mine.

      @Jimmy,
      I agree with Google, I am confident Google ensured they weren’t breaking Australian law before releasing Street View.

      Finally, In my opinion it is indecent that an obese, hairy and unattractive 60 year old male wear DT’s at the beach would approach a stranger to criticise the filming of his own family event.
      The onus should lay in the hands of the parents, to ensure that their child is not naked or able to be taken advantage of in public.

    • acker says:

      02:40pm | 01/04/10

      @scott glen….take your pictures at a less crowded beach so no other kids steal your bloated rugrats glory…you get what you pay for champ

    • Jimmy says:

      04:58pm | 01/04/10

      @Scott: Your confidence has no meaning to me unless you can provide facts. I suggest you look at the history of Google Street View. In the beginning they had no blurring of faces etc. You will also find out that they have to redo all of Japan because their photos are too high to what is acceptable in Japan and they are actually infringing on privacy their.

      As I said, I suggest you look it up and you will find out what I mean when I say that Google has a ‘shoot first ask later’ attitude.
      Just look at the whole Google Buzz mess where they, again, said they released a feature/product a bit too early.

      Thiis is why most things stay beta and still are beta with Google, because if something goes wrong etc they can just say ‘oh, it’s beta you know, what else can you expect’?

    • Peter says:

      01:27pm | 02/04/10

      Im not happy Google has put my house on street view, neither is my work mate who got his photo taken while taking out the garbage..

    • Caitlin says:

      09:28am | 01/04/10

      Firstly, check the law.

      If it’s illegal, then don’t do it - but I don’t agree with the law.

      If it’s legal, then do it. Don’t cave into paranoia.

      Reply

    • Joe says:

      09:46am | 01/04/10

      Its a difficult decision to make, as the video is not intended to be used commercially, although theoretically one could argue uploading a video to youtube, which is a commercial website, means that it is being used for commercial purposes.

      There is no general right to privacy in Australia when images are not to be used commercially and permission usually is not required in most cases.  However, if a video was to be used commercially, a video/film crew would need releases from everyone who appears in each shot, as well as property owner and/or the local council, although varies from council to council.

      For example in the city of Sydney, even if taking video/film on private property, there are guidelines which must be followed and you must lodge a management plan to council, notify the police and all surrounding residents, as well as having public liability insurance. 

      Although in NSW still photography, video/film of private events such as weddings to be distributed to the guest, as well as for use by the news media, does not require these permissions. However, there are then numerous other laws, that make taking photographs or videos, even in a public place, possibly a criminal offense, regardless if children are involved or not.  The Arts Law Centre (http://www.artslaw.com.au/default.asp) does recommend always getting permission first, whenever children are to be filmed or photographed.

      Meeting all of these guidelines/requirements is usually taught to photography and video or film students and followed when producing material.  However I would expect many members of the public are not aware of them and the explosion in the number of video cameras in use by the general public, as well as video sharing websites such as youtube,  probably means its an area of the law that needs to catch up.

      Reply

    • Bec says:

      09:55am | 01/04/10

      I’m a school teacher, not a parent, so I can understand that I DON’T know what it’s like to have my own child. However, this incident from our school’s recent swimming carnival disturbed me. Went into the bathrooms to find about 5 of our 15 year old students taking photos and videoing themselves in the changerooms. THEY had not taken into consideration the fact that there were older people in there that had no idea their images could have been recorded by these students. I think if you are going to stop people filming children in public places, we need to educate CHILDREN about these privacy issues as well. As teachers (I discussed this with my colleagues immediately following the incident) we didn’t think we would need to tell the students something as straight forward as filming in a public changeroom would be a major moral and ethical issue - we assumed that parents would teach their kids this simple rule. But apparently they are not. So again - more education needed on both ends here.

      For what it’s worth - if I saw someone filming and thought I would be caught in it and didn’t wish to be - I would simply go and tell them that I did not wish to be captured on film - for example, when I flew Tiger and they had the signs up stating that you may be filmed by the crew of Airport, I went and told a staff member I didn’t want to be filmed, as I was heading to a funeral, and really didn’t want to be captured on film while making that horrible journey - didn’t want a reminder on tv about how bad I felt that day. I have friends who have kids - when they’ve seen people filming in the past near their kids, if they didn’t want it to happen, they would tell the individual to cease filming. That just seems logical to me. Take control of the situation yourself. But again - disclaimer, I don’t have kids, so I probably don’t have as much to stress about in terms of public footage.

      Reply

    • Neets says:

      09:57am | 01/04/10

      We legislate for the criminal and the stupid. We make laws to protect/prosecute the minority and ‘for the good’ of the rest of us. Which is OK. But when people are made to feel like paedophiles for photographing their children or for filming a public event it’s all gone a bit far hasn’t it? You don’t think for one second that this is stopping a single paedophile from going about their evil business? It seems like punishing the innocent to me. I’m getting a bit sick of it.

      Reply

    • Bon says:

      10:24am | 01/04/10

      I put photos of my own children on FB, for family to view.  But I wouldn’t put up photos of anyone else’s kids unless their parents said it was ok.  It is sad though that the whole world has become so paranoid about it - I even feel wierd when I take photos or video of my kids at school, but I am not going to stop doing it.  If we start treating everybody like they are potential criminals, where is it going to end?

      Reply

    • JJJ says:

      10:44am | 01/04/10

      It’s not just about pedophiles. I recently visited a school and requested permission from parents to use images of their students working for an associated Uni assignment. One of the parents discussed the matter with me and expressed reluctance at me using the photos even for Uni, as she was having issues with her partner over her child. These things need to be considered and I would always err on the side of caution with children and releasing images.

      Reply

    • Alyssa KT says:

      11:04am | 01/04/10

      Did they have clothes on? Is my only question.
      If there are people out there who are going to do anything unsavory with images of clothed children then they have a wealth of opportunities to do so with everyday media. No different to yours.
      If the children at the beach were just wearing swimmers then that’s another thing. Who’s to say who you are? And even if you’re above board, the next guy might not be, let alone all of the freaks on the Internet. I wouldn’t be particularly worried about them “coming to get” my child, I just wouldn’t want my child being a part of any of their sick fantasies.

      Reply

    • Jimmy says:

      11:44am | 01/04/10

      I find it sad that not wanting to have your picture posted without consent online is seen as being paranoid. Why is it paranoid to not want to be published?

      It seems that people forget that even in public places there is an expectant of privacy. Being able to do what you want without having the world see it is not everyone’s cup of tea. Yes, what is publically published online will most of the time stay on their until the Internet breaks down and everyone in the world will be able to access it.

      I feel it has to do with respect, but it has to go both ways. If you respect someones privacy they might not go all bonkers about you taking pictures of something near them.
      Most of the time when I take pictures I try to either be discreet, but not hiding it; or I mostly wait until their is no one in my frame.

      We also have to look at it from a cultural viewpoint. Before the Internet if someone snapped a picture of you the most publicity it would get would be from the local paper. Now one picture can be seen by the whole world.

      Of course, we can argue that we are already surveilled so much, so why complain about some simple photos. Well, that might be the drop that makes the glass flood over. We barely have any privacy left. More or less, the only place we can find privacy now is probably a sound-proofed room with no windows and with a Faraday cage wrapt around it.

      Also I read a very interesting article this other day (it is in Swedish, but I’ll post it by request of course) about people going all crazy about not wanting their pictures taken and published (in EU you need consent to publish images online), but they gladly publish heaps of photos of their children online. Kind of ironic, grownups demanding privacy for themselves, but not for their children?

      I think we need to give it some thought before we start labeling people paranoid. Who knows, the one you call paranoid might call you an exhibitionist?
      It is like most things in society, when we manage to work together, we generally get along; but when we start stepping on each other toes it can easily end up with push that becomes a shove.

      And also ask yourself, why is it so important to show the world what you have taken a picture of?

      Reply

    • JJJ says:

      02:09pm | 01/04/10

      I completely agree, Jimmy. People should not be assuming that they can take and post your picture without your concent, regardless of age, or how many clothes you are wearing.

    • Michellemac says:

      12:08pm | 01/04/10

      Because I’m, not a famous muscian ‘researching’ on the interrnet, I’ve thankfully never stumbled across pornographic images of children when online. But having seen ‘regular’ porn,  I would imagine a few key words and a will to find them would at least get you some pretty saucy images with a few clicks of a button, if you were that way inclined.

      Call me niave, but I just can’t see that pictures of my kids on a beach in their bathers/watching a concert/in the classroon at school hold the same allure to a paedophile and as such it really doesn’t bother me if someone films or photographs my kids if they are out and about doing normal kids things. I’ve given permission for filming at school and day care and I often take pictures of my kids at the beach and on family holidays and often get other random kids in the shot, it’s just what happens when you take pictures or video!

      It’s all a big load of hysteria if you ask me. Sadly, I think there are some fairly hardcore images out there that would hold far more allure to a paedophile and are easily obtainable, why would they bother trawling through hours and hours of youtube material when they can presumaby type a few keywords and get exactly what they want?

      Reply

    • Scott Glennon says:

      02:21pm | 01/04/10

      @ichellemac,
      I love that there is some Australian parents with your views about still! It is crazy for every stranger with a camera to be suspected of being a pedo. And I’ve personally taken offence to the accusation twice now.

    • Lorraine says:

      01:59pm | 01/04/10

      I have information that tells me that there are paedophiles who cut out pictures of small children from Target and Kmart advertising brochures if they fancy them.
      So where do we go from there?
      No photos of any child by anyone ever?
      The crime is horrific…. but lack of public photography will not stop it.

      Reply

    • Gavin says:

      04:28pm | 01/04/10

      Because if public photography is banned, these scum can still walk the beach or the playgrounds taking mental images anyway.

    • stephen says:

      02:16pm | 01/04/10

      If the pictures are of children, and they want to see them up there, then put them up. Do everything for their sake, and don’t even consider the perverts. (Such people need to be isolated by thought and deed.)
      To forbid the exposure of a photo, anyway, under such circumstances is really a negative response.

      Reply

    • paul green says:

      02:59pm | 01/04/10

      Hi James, I think if you are filming or photographing a public event in a public place you should be able to upload the resulting images or footage into the public domain. As a photographer I take great care in avoiding making images of children although there have been a number of occasions when I have seen the potential to make truly great images of or containing children and just let the opportunity go. It’s a legal & moral minefield. we saw this with Bill Henson a couple of years ago. 2 weeks ago a friend and fellow photographer had his bag and camera searched at nth Bondi after he took a wide angle photo containing some nippers in the foreground. He was 100% innocent but was still banned from the beach by police for 24hrs. I france they have laws now which allow photography in public just as long as the image contains more than 50 people. I don’t think this problem will be resolved quickly.
      James if you were filming my kids i would be happy for the footage to be published on youtube if the footage was not to be used commercially.

      Reply

    • Notacarrot says:

      04:32am | 02/04/10

      It’s only the hysterical few who think their kids will be paedophile fodder. Usually the kind who watch TT and ACA and believe it’s all true.

      Your lawyer friend wasn’t saying it was illegal, just some parents might sue, which would cause you a headache.

      Last I knew it was perfectly legal to film, in a public place.

      You could also ask, would these people prefer that paedophiles were out cruising for real kids rather than getting sitting at home behind their computer? Not to mention the fact that most kids are molested by someone they know.

      Reply

    • Carlos says:

      05:51pm | 02/04/10

      The point of this subject is to resolve that we’re creating fear. Constantly we’re putting fear on people’s mind, on child’s mind. We have to educate ourselves first.
      Pedophiles are human beings, they were sexually abused by priests or a family member. Some of them became pedophiles as a consequence of those actions. We need to focus on the root of the problem and what we can help to solve that. How can we help pedophiles to heal their minds? If we help those people then we wouldn’t have to talk about how to prevent children from them.
      The answer is not to put rules and regulations on the society as it creates fear, guilty and insecurity. What kind of world do we want to live in? And what kind of world do we want to leave for our new generations? A bit of consciousness and awareness is missing in the world these days.
      Everybody speaks superficially about problems but they don’t talk about the root of the problem. It’s much easier to put a rule to everybody than educate people.
      We pay taxes to our governments and they are responsible to educate everyone so we can pass the knowledge to others. We can’t live in fear, I refuse to pass that to others. Already most of the planet is fucked up because of religions beliefs which has created guiltiness for many centuries. It’s time to bring positive messages and act with real compassion. Most people loves to say one thing but inside they are the opposite. We’re here to enjoy life and bring the best of each other.

      Reply

    • Clem Gorman says:

      01:02pm | 03/04/10

      Recently, in Paris, filming kids randomly - from a distance - in a playground, an angry kid came up and abused us. So we stopped. I feel that if the image is suggestive, or is made for porn reasons, it should be an offence to show it on the net, but if it’s a bunch of nameless kids having fun on the beach, no probs. How to tell the difference is not easy: but there are many areas in life where moral decisions are not “easy”. That’s the whole point of having moral values.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 28 May 12 12:01AM

#markwebber just wasted petrol faster than everyone else in monaco #f1

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 27 May 12 10:49PM

In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 27 May 12 10:12PM

The Logies could learn a lot from Eurovision #lamethings#sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 27 May 12 10:03PM

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #sbseurovision

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

by David Penberthy

180

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

by Paul Toohey

27

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

by Angela Mollard

3

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed