Day a shadow was cast over the innocence of the nativity; Story of the week; Edinburgh City Council banned parents from photographing children's nativity plays for fear of paedophile intrusion. It retreated amid howls of protest. Cate Devine examines the issues at the heart of the row

The childish renactment of the story of Christmas has been playedout in Scottish primary schools for generations. Typicallycharacterised by stammers, blushes and giggles, the nativity play isalso acknowledged as a surefire trigger for tears. Even the burliestfather standing at the back of the school hall has been known toweep at the sight of his child's head swathed in a dishtowel. Whatexactly he weeps for is as inarticulate as it is timeless. Whetherfor the poignancy of a moment gone, for the simple beauty of thestory, or the vision of his six-year-old daughter's futureadulthood, such an experience is the private privilege of everyinvolved father, and mother, and is something that can probablynever be put into words. Usually, it's committed to a photo in thefamily album.

This year, however, the shadow of the hand of evil momentarilydimmed the fairy lighting, dulled the tin-foil wings and tarnishedthe tinsel halos huddled together on school stages all overScotland. News had emerged that Edinburgh City Council had taken itupon itself to ban parents from filming or photographing theirchildren's nativity plays without the express written consent ofevery parent, in case paedophiles got hold of the films or photosand posted them on the internet.

Thus, in one swift movement, the serpent of self-awareness hadslithered among the ordinary people, and they saw themselves not forwhat they are but for what they might be. Guilty parental handsmetaphorically wiped the lipstick off their cherubs' cheeks, andtugged the hems of their skirts. All because the Rev Ewan Aitken, acouncillor, had stood up and declared: "I want to make sure weimplement the legislation of the Data Protection and Human RightsActs of 1998, which allows parents to have control over images oftheir children in a reasonable way."

Howls of protest from horrified parents, teachers and specialistsall over Scotland culminated in one mother threatening to take thecouncil to court unless the ban was lifted. Councillor Aitken,education convener for the council, acted quickly, and apologised toparents and relatives for spoiling their children's "nativityexperience".

It may all appear to be a storm in a manger now, but for manypeople the lasting effects of this short ban have been profound. Forthe first time, an official link had been made between a children'sreligious festival and the potential for paedophile activity. Was ita bureaucratic over-reaction motivated by a fear of litigation? WasAitken wrong to bring up this specific issue of child protection inschools in the countdown to Christmas?

After all, this was also the week that parents had to face theawful news that some of our most prominent protectors of childrenare paedophiles. There were 50 police officers, including aconstable from Paisley and one from Aberdeen, among the 1300 peopleso far arrested under Operation Ore on suspicion of accessing ordownloading indecent images of children. In the worldwide USinvestigation, the credit card details of some 7000 Britons whosubscribe to pay-as-you-view child porn websites were revealed. Oneof these was a 45-year-old police officer with New Scotland Yard andfather of two young girls, who was found in possession of stillimages and short movies showing acts of sadism, bondage, andbestiality, with one film featuring a child of about 10.

This was also the week that a Glasgow man who boasted he was an"expert" in abusing children was jailed for life, and a Fife man wasjailed for two years for various acts of indecent behaviour towardslittle girls. It was also the week that the murderer of 15-year-oldDanielle Jones was found to be her uncle, a man with convictions forassaulting teenage girls.

According to Peter Kearney, spokesman for the Catholic Church inScotland, the Rev Ewan Aitken's pronouncements were an "appallingover-reaction", and that he was absolutely wrong to impose the banas it tainted the message of Christmas for innocent people. "Apaedophile who wants to get his hands on images of children can doso in a myriad of other ways, and much more easily than bygatecrashing a school nativity play," he said. "Nativity playsassert the primacy of the Christmas message, the birth of Christ andthe beginning of Christianity. Among all the arguments about thecommercialism of Christmas, the concept of nativity is still very,very important to children and to parents, and we welcome that."

Similarly, a spokesman for Scotland Yard said: "Child porn isabout real children doing real things. Child porn is real childrenbeing coerced into total invovement in a sexual act, and beingfilmed doing it. With due respect, there is no connection betweenthat and a picture of a child performing on stage."

He went on to point out that paedophiles don't need to be in theplaces children are in order to get pictures of them. "WhatEdinburgh tried to do is playing totally into the hands of all thatis bad. If you decide to accept that there is evil everywhere, thenyou feed that evil. This is the silly action of some person inpower, who is taking the view that you shouldn't trust anybody."

For its part Edinburgh City Council insists that Ewan Aitken'sban simply coincided with the reports of paedophile arrests, andthat he was motivated not by them but by a "well-intentionedattempt" to follow council's guidelines on the Photography andVideoing of Children and Young People in Educational Establishments,which had been drawn up in August and implemented in November. Theguidelines took into account the fact that "serious concerns wereraised following the incident at Dunblane where Mr Thomas Hamiltonwas found to be in possession of photographs and videos of childrenwhere no consents had been obtained".

The guidelines weren't designed specifically for schoolnativities, but to cover all school activities throughout the schoolyear, said a spokeswoman. "Apart from the paeodophile angle, thereare other child-protection issues that have to be considered." Theseinclude the wish for privacy, acrimonious family disputes - where achild's photograph might be used by an abusive husband to identifythe whereabouts of his wife - and giving an opt-out to those whosereligious beliefs prevent their child from appearing in a particularschool activity.

Teachers and parents, however, feel the ban was completelyunnecessary because there are systems already in place to gainparental permission for photography of their children while atschool. In many cases, the school invites parents who have a problemwith their child's photograph being taken to let the school know.This is treated as blanket permission, which is "topped up" with aletter to parents requesting their permission for special occasions,for example photography by an outside agency, to remove any doubt.

Photographs taken and displayed on the classroom walls of mostschools are given back to individual pupils or, in the case of groupphotographs, shredded.

Most headteachers seek blanket parental consent, becauseconstantly filling in forms for every event - school trip, sportsday, prom or play - is yet another layer of bureaucracy their staffhave to face. It can be nitpicking and trivial and if just one childforgets to bring in the signed form, or the dog eats it, then thesystem collapses.

"However, imposing a blanket ban on photography because therewasn't time to consult all parents is going to the opppositeextreme," said one teacher.

Sarah Shiels is the mother who forced Edinburgh City Council tosuspend the guidelines after she threatened legal action undersection eight of the European Convention on Human Rights. Herdaughter is a P3 pupil in the Gaelic unit at Tollcross PrimarySchool, and played Mary in her school nativity play last Thursday.She told The Herald: "There is clearly an issue about what happensto pictures taken by teachers and others in schools. My experiencehas been that whenever there is an event in school where peopleother than parents will be taking pictures, then a consent form isbrought home. But this is a separate issue.

"The guidelines were about parents filming and taking pictures oftheir own children. There's always the option to say no, but I thinkcommon sense is enough in situations where parents are involved."

Of all the child-protection issues in schools, it is paedophiliathat is the most recent newcomer with everyone "learning as they goalong", according to one teacher from Renfrew District Council.

Paedophiles have always been around, and they probably alwayswill be. Yet actively thwarting them is a relatively new challengefor schools, and it's very difficult to get the balance right -especially when litigation is constantly hovering. Some legal firmsplace advertisements near schools, inviting parents to go to them iftheir child falls down in the playground - although no case has yetemerged of a Scots parent whose child's image is found in apaedophile's bedroom.

There has been no systematic risk assessment about the dangerspaedophiles pose, yet protection policies like Edinburgh's are beingintroduced randomly. Expert opinion estimates that the risk is stillvery small.

Gavin, a father of four from Edinburgh, is philosophical. "I feelvery conscious that the world is shifting. Inadvertently or not, theRev Ewan Aitken has brought the whole debate about protecting ourchildren onto a different level. He's made people think just alittle bit harder, made us more aware. But I just wish he hadn'tfelt the need to do it."