Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Nickbat on 11 September 2009, 11:27:43
-
Parents who regularly drive children for sports or social clubs will have to undergo criminal record checks or face fines of up to £5,000 under new rules.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8249020.stm
Nanny state rears her ugly face again >:( >:(
-
Yes, and I already have CRB checks from helping with the scout group and volunteering at the heritage centre......and now I will need another one!
-
Me too, but I'm already cleared at work :y
-
Me too, but I'm already cleared at work :y
Dont count on it....CRB's are not carried between roles >:(
you need separate ones for each thing you do, its rediculous!
-
If it stops even one child from being harmed, molested or worse then it has to be a good call.
-
Me too, but I'm already cleared at work :y
Dont count on it....CRB's are not carried between roles >:(
you need separate ones for each thing you do, its rediculous!
It's all at one place, connected to my one job so mine is ok as is ;)
-
If it stops even one child from being harmed, molested or worse then it has to be a good call.
I agree wholeheartedly, it's the £50 each time that gets to me.
-
If it stops even one child from being harmed, molested or worse then it has to be a good call.
It wont, all it will do is result in volunteer based setups going to the wall and kids having even less to do. Plus, it will cost you and me yet more money for yet another quango.
Lets be quite realistic here, if you wanted to harm a child, then you wouldn't register. You would already be running the risk of a long term jail sentance so a few gran fine is neither here nor there!
Plus, hows it gonna be policed!
Pathetic, whoever has put this in place needs deporting to the moon....or even better, put on the plinth in Trafalgar square for a good old fashioned public stoning!
-
I see your point and respect it, but I also stick by what I said, even if just one child was kept safe because of this...
-
ive had to have an Enhanced CRB and the local police have put everything on there.... S59A Anti Social use of a vehicle order and failing to stop for a police patrol they put all this under the Other information heading!
still my employer still employed me :D
-
We often do Radio club events with scouts, guides, etc. several of us have already had to pull out of a couple of events due to CRB checks required.
I'm sorry, but whilst I'm happy to give my time to entertain other people's kids I'm not prepared to pay for the privilege. It'd be different if I had kids who would benefit themselves, I'm sure, but as it stands there are plenty of other things I can do with my time.
My Mum used to run a Cub pack until recently and it was virtually impossible to get any volunteers to help her. Parents saw it as a free child minding service while they went shopping, out for a meal, etc. This is only going to make matters worse. :(
As usual, the innocent have to jump through hoops thanks to a couple of bad eggs.
Kevin
-
I need a CRB for the coastguard, to rescue the stupid little sods from cliffs and so on,
If you ask me its just another way to make money at the cost of children
-
If it stops even one child from being harmed, molested or worse then it has to be a good call.
It wont, all it will do is result in volunteer based setups going to the wall and kids having even less to do. Plus, it will cost you and me yet more money for yet another quango.
Lets be quite realistic here, if you wanted to harm a child, then you wouldn't register. You would already be running the risk of a long term jail sentance so a few gran fine is neither here nor there!
Plus, hows it gonna be policed!
Pathetic, whoever has put this in place needs deporting to the moon....or even better, put on the plinth in Trafalgar square for a good old fashioned public stoning!
Yes, Marks' right. And of course, it's highly illogical.
A CRB check does NOT confer any degree of safety with regard to a child's welfare. All it does is to check whether a person has had a previous conviction. As a parent I would be more concerned about those who have not been caught, or those have yet to offend. Close tabs are kept on those who have been convicted, have served their sentence and are currently back in society.
Given that the number of persons who have been convicted of child molestation in the UK is, I think (I have been unable to find the data) statistically small by comaprison to other offence categories, it would be much cheaper for each police force to employ Child Protection Officers whose job it would be to keep an ongoing check on the employment of those with convictions.
Then again, it wouldn't provide £60+ (times millions) of income for the government. It's all smoke and mirrors. It doesn't do much to enhance child safety, but it does reduce the number of opportunities for kids to go on organised activities. A possible consequence is that some of those kids who are denied the activities because of the red tape, may instead resort to roaming the streets unsupervised... in danger of being picked up by molesters, I suppose.
Doesn't make an ounce of sense to me. :(
-
....... from helping with the scout group and volunteering at the heritage centre...... ......
I don't know how you find the time .......work, here, playing trains & scouts too? ;) ;) ;)
-
I thought CRB checks were due to be combined so you only had to be cleared once - or is that wishful thinking and a long, long way off?
They're presumably only actually any use at the moment of print anyway?
Cue the demise of voluntary clubs around the country. The people I feel sorry for are the kids who will miss out on all the things that no doubt you and me were exposed to as we grew up. I made countless canoe trips with a local canoe club (some of them overnight on deserted islands up in Scottish lochs, or off the west coast). The sheer expense and paperwork to do something like that now makes it almost prohibitive - CRB's, qualifications for the instructors (who cares they've got 20 years experience and plainly know exactly what they're doing), risk assessments (yes you'd have to visit the island personally as an organiser to make sure it was safe to camp there), etc etc
It's all a bit sad really...
-
If it stops even one child from being harmed, molested or worse then it has to be a good call.
Isn't it the case that more kids are abused by a family member/friend than leaders of scouts/sea cadet/etc.
CRB checks for all potential parents then! :-?
-
....... from helping with the scout group and volunteering at the heritage centre...... ......
I don't know how you find the time .......work, here, playing trains & scouts too? ;) ;) ;)
I dont help with the scouts any more, it was getting silly once it got to the point where you needed a written risk assesment for showing them how to put a tent up or cook on an open fire. Knives were banned for anything, you needed a 2 day training course to do axe and saw work and the badges all changed from traditional scouting stuff to the sort of thing you did at the local sunday school!
-
I see your point and respect it, but I also stick by what I said, even if just one child was kept safe because of this...
Reality will probably mean that it will result in more......children will have to walk un-attended to places, more will be on the street and as a result more open to the real 'nasties' in this world.
Its the typical knee jerk reaction from some over paid judges report on a one off incident!
The even more crazy thing is that this is being linked to the Soham murders.....where 2 unaccompanied children were lured into Huntleys house.....totaly un-related to the proposed legislation!
-
Another example of a sledge to crack a nut and also how Britain is going down the pan.
Whilst it is important to protect our kids surely there has got to be a more effective method than this. I say this as someone whose nephew stopped going to the scouts because of the scout leaders advances to him.
There wasn't public outrage over scout halls, church halls etc now having to pay "water rates" and probably go out of business.
When will Joe Public stand up and be counted!
Varche
-
If it stops even one child from being harmed, molested or worse then it has to be a good call.
You can't be that naive as to think that someone who has the intention to harm a child will be CRB checked surely? :-?
It's just a money making game, easy money to be made from honest people. >:(
I've currently got 2 checks and object to paying for the same thing each time! >:(
-
Another example of a sledge to crack a nut and also how Britain is going down the pan.
Whilst it is important to protect our kids surely there has got to be a more effective method than this. I say this as someone whose nephew stopped going to the scouts because of the scout leaders advances to him.
There wasn't public outrage over scout halls, church halls etc now having to pay "water rates" and probably go out of business.
When will Joe Public stand up and be counted!
Varche
Sage words indeed Varche :y :y
-
I see your point and respect it, but I also stick by what I said, even if just one child was kept safe because of this...
Reality will probably mean that it will result in more......children will have to walk un-attended to places, more will be on the street and as a result more open to the real 'nasties' in this world.
Its the typical knee jerk reaction from some over paid judges report on a one off incident!
The even more crazy thing is that this is being linked to the Soham murders.....where 2 unaccompanied children were lured into Huntleys house.....totaly un-related to the proposed legislation!
The practical result of this ass-covering culture that has been allowed to flourish in this country.
We're finished, thanks to a group of faceless, spineless, gutless and ball-less officials.
-
As Nick so rightly pointed out --- all the checks reveal is (if you pass) you haven't been CAUGHT !!! B. all with what you actually DO !
They do nothing at all to enhance child safety.
-
The more I read this thread, the more I realise my original thoughts were flawed. naive? no, I just think that the idea is a good one but as the majority of posts on here say it does appear to be a money making one rather than one of safety.
Trust me, my first involvement in a debate on here and I get flamed :'( ;D ;D ;D
-
The more I read this thread, the more I realise my original thoughts were flawed. naive? no, I just think that the idea is a good one but as the majority of posts on here say it does appear to be a money making one rather than one of safety.
Trust me, my first involvement in a debate on here and I get flamed :'( ;D ;D ;D
Fair play for coming back and reviewing your thoughts! :y
-
hey everyone this is not about the nanny state.
its about protecting children.
yes most abuse is familiar. that is people who are known by the child or its family.
people who abuse children come in all shapes sizes, classes,proffessions. they do not all wear long macs.
if you have a crb then it has a unique number and can be used for numerous purposes.
what the new changes are about is bringing all the information held by different agencies together, from the soham enquiry.
list 99, schedual 1 list etc along with intelligence.
yes its sad that in our society this is neccessary but about 1 million kids have been abused and this includes by vicars scout masters,police judges etc
-
Parents who regularly drive children for sports or social clubs will have to undergo criminal record checks or face fines of up to £5,000 under new rules.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8249020.stm
Nanny state rears her ugly face again >:( >:(
totally agree Nickbat - it's getting to be everyones guilty until proven innocent nowadays - wasn't it meant to be the other way round?
-
no parent who regularly drive kids to clubs will not be affected unless its a formal process arranged through the club.
if its a group of parents who agree amongst them selves to take it in turns to transport the kids then they are not included in these arrangements
-
I(n my younger years...(yeah yeah) our colletive Fathers took turns to drive us to & from swimming lessons, Sea Scouts etc on a regular basis. Not sure if this qualifies.
It's a hard one to call. The majority are well intended folk with no desire to interfere with children but there's always the chance of one bad apple. :-/
-
no if was just a group of dads agreeing to share the work load it would not apply.
if however it had been organised by the swimming club or sea scouts then it would.
i have been following the debate for sometime. to my amazement a group of childrens authors who visit schools were outraged and refusing to have checks. these are people who make thier living from children. how much troble is it really.
child abuse is not new. its that we as adults are more aware and prepared to listen to and belive children. and the systems do work.
we can never prevent all abuse or stop cases like baby p but that does not mean we should stop trying
-
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/everyone-now-assuming-you're-a-kiddie%11fiddler-200909112050/
-
if it wasnt about mainly making money but protection for children the government would be doing these checks for nothing surely >:(
-
The real reason for this intoduction is "this Government (cough cough) are short of cash & this is a another way of milking some more money"
-
hey everyone this is not about the nanny state.
its about protecting children.
yes most abuse is familiar. that is people who are known by the child or its family.
people who abuse children come in all shapes sizes, classes,proffessions. they do not all wear long macs.
if you have a crb then it has a unique number and can be used for numerous purposes.what the new changes are about is bringing all the information held by different agencies together, from the soham enquiry.
list 99, schedual 1 list etc along with intelligence.
yes its sad that in our society this is neccessary but about 1 million kids have been abused and this includes by vicars scout masters,police judges etc
Therein is the potential for even greater state procurement of our personal details.
The more dependent we become on technology to assess these criteria the more potential there is for misjudgements to be made.
The farcical nature of this proposal is obvious whenever one considers the fact that it will not be immediately effective and will require some years - in their own words - to iron out the many flaws contained in it.
When is good sense making its return in the way we conduct our day to day business?
Do you really wish to live in a nation where the people are subject to an ever increasing level of state monitoring because - with such proposals - that's where we're heading?
-
no if was just a group of dads agreeing to share the work load it would not apply.
if however it had been organised by the swimming club or sea scouts then it would.
i have been following the debate for sometime. to my amazement a group of childrens authors who visit schools were outraged and refusing to have checks. these are people who make thier living from children. how much troble is it really.
child abuse is not new. its that we as adults are more aware and prepared to listen to and belive children. systems do work.and the
we can never prevent all abuse or stop cases like baby p but that does not mean we should stop trying
Can you give us a link to the source of your information?
I'm not confident with your assertion that 'systems work' - there is no unified structure for such examination and this present effort is rather akin to employing the shotgun approach so beloved of the institutions readily spawned from the loins of this grossly discredited and incompetent New Labour administration.
Policy made up on the trot sums it up, in my view!!
-
...... how much troble is it really. .......
Presumabaly not a lot, but more the principle of being deemed guilty first.
-
sources of information are 35 years in this area of work.
serious case reviews on young people
every inquiry into child deaths
whilst i agree with your assertions on the state gathering to much information and the potential for abuse ie ID cards we can not hold back technology or progress.
1984 is here we are the most surveilled country in the world.
however when it come to protecting children and vulnerable adults then we should embrace technology.
i feel your labling a particular political party misses the point. if the tories or LD's were in power they would be doing the same.
-
the principle i understand. but so do paedophiles and they are masters of using and avoiding checks and balances. quite often it is the people we most trust that abuse that trust.
clergy, teachers,police officers and even judges
-
Disclosure requirements have been the norm up here for a number of years - 5 or 6??
http://www.disclosurescotland.co.uk/
Was some hullaballoo when first incepted but now an accepted norm.
Some groups do not pay - Scouts are one I know of for sure.
Some daft things though.
My daughter is a primary school teacher. She has been at or attached to the same school throughout Uni, her proby year, when she got temp (one year) contract with the council and now, luckily, her permanent contract. She is also a Scouter. She had to get seperate disclosure checks for each and every seperate step or stage which seems a bit of a pointless exercise to me but, hey ho....
I tend to agree with the 'if it saves one child.... etc' argument as, once identified, it would not thereafter be technically possible for such a person to be allowed access to vulnerable persons, provided those in charge of such institutions/concerns stand by the requirements of the legislation.
-
there in lies the problem. people not technology.
-
sources of information are 35 years in this area of work.
serious case reviews on young people
every inquiry into child deaths
whilst i agree with your assertions on the state gathering to much information and the potential for abuse ie ID cards we can not hold back technology or progress.
1984 is here we are the most surveilled country in the world.
however when it come to protecting children and vulnerable adults then we should embrace technology.
i feel your labling a particular political party misses the point. if the tories or LD's were in power they would be doing the same.
My assertion (again) is that this does little to increase the protection of children, since no CRB check could indentify a molester who has not appeared on the radar.
By your own admission, there is potential for the state to have too much information and for data to be abused. That is just not good, for whatever reason. Furthermore, I do not see how technology, per se, protects children or vulnerable adults. At the end of the day the CRB is a record-keeping organisation, that's all. If they were writing their records with quills on parchment, it would amount to the same function.
My beef is that this measure:
1. gives a sense of guaranteed security, when there is none.
2. discourages people from volunteering to help, thus reducing the activities available to children locally.
3. is excessively costly for many citizens.
4. provides large revenues for the government. state's coffers.
Even though I am the parent of two young children whose welfare is paramount, I still consider this to be an ill-thought measure. >:(
-
Disclosure requirements have been the norm up here for a number of years - 5 or 6??
http://www.disclosurescotland.co.uk/
Was some hullaballoo when first incepted but now an accepted norm.
Some groups do not pay - Scouts are one I know of for sure.
Some daft things though.
My daughter is a primary school teacher. She has been at or attached to the same school throughout Uni, her proby year, when she got temp (one year) contract with the council and now, luckily, her permanent contract. She is also a Scouter. She had to get seperate disclosure checks for each and every seperate step or stage which seems a bit of a pointless exercise to me but, hey ho....
I tend to agree with the 'if it saves one child.... etc' argument as, once identified, it would not thereafter be technically possible for such a person to be allowed access to vulnerable persons, provided those in charge of such institutions/concerns stand by the requirements of the legislation.
Most people involved in working with Children will already have undergone a CRB check.
If, as a parent I assist in helping transport my daughter and her brownie friends, as part of the pack meeting, as I sometimes do, then I should have a CRB through the Brownies, though I already have an 'enhanced CRB one for work. ::)
I used to run Cub's for many years, and often relied upon parents to help with transport, it is this type of help that groups need that will suffer. :(
As said, you have to have a CRB for every single situation, this is where it get's silly.
-
sources of information are 35 years in this area of work.
serious case reviews on young people
every inquiry into child deaths
whilst i agree with your assertions on the state gathering to much information and the potential for abuse ie ID cards we can not hold back technology or progress.
1984 is here we are the most surveilled country in the world.
however when it come to protecting children and vulnerable adults then we should embrace technology.
i feel your labling a particular political party misses the point. if the tories or LD's were in power they would be doing the same.
I'm speaking of your sources concerning these current proposals.
My reference to the current disjointed and ill-thought out way in which such legislation is being considered to be the definitive answer by the numerous ‘expert bodies’ created by the current administration is valid, as it has been in office for some considerable time so must take responsibility for it.
With all the past reviews into these matters and the subsequent hand-wringing witnessed, these incidents still occur. We don’t need this involved overly bureaucratic approach; we need a system operated by sensible well trained and grounded people who can think outside the confines of a data bank.
It should be less about policy and directive meetings and more about local knowledge and direct experience of the vulnerable individuals concerned by people who will accept responsibility for any decisions they make.
-
the principle i understand. but so do paedophiles and they are masters of using and avoiding checks and balances. quite often it is the people we most trust that abuse that trust.
clergy, teachers,police officers and even judges
Surely that statement devalues the implied benefit of these proposals?
-
Well said Zulu (and Nick).......its about data/information/power and control,nothing more nothing less. ;)
I would never trust this administration or its many agencies to have good intentions or basic competence in any way shape or form.
-
your absolutely right that technology can not replace good and sensible parenting.
however a national data base that stops people moving areas when they were caught and starting grooming again is not a bad thing. provided it is used and checked regularly.
i have an enhanced crb that is accepted in the numerous places i visit.
what surprises me is that quite often i have to remind organisations they they should look at it
-
Personally I would just gas peado,s when they are caught and save all the hassle. ;)
-
your absolutely right that technology can not replace good and sensible parenting.
however a national data base that stops people moving areas when they were caught and starting grooming again is not a bad thing. provided it is used and checked regularly.
i have an enhanced crb that is accepted in the numerous places i visit.what surprises me is that quite often i have to remind organisations they they should look at it
Me to but even sure where mine is, put somewhere safe though ::) :-[ ::)
-
there in lies the problem. people not technology.
The day we start depending wholly on technology in this field is the day when the basic control of the system of enforcement will be lost and rendered secondary to what appears on a screen.
-
Just like they have done with roads policing. t hey catch plenty of people exceeding the posted speed limit but they aint catching dangerous drivers,drunken/drugged drivers etc, but they can use the figures to manipulate the stats to tell us they are doing a great job.
-
your absolutely right that technology can not replace good and sensible parenting.however a national data base that stops people moving areas when they were caught and starting grooming again is not a bad thing. provided it is used and checked regularly.
i have an enhanced crb that is accepted in the numerous places i visit.
what surprises me is that quite often i have to remind organisations they they should look at it
...and good practice by those charged with examining such matters.
This country will be held hostage to the ever increasing desire of the state to hold as much information on its citizens as it can get away with.
I am of the state and believe me you don't want to encourage this particular kind of information gathering, or some others would say, fishing.
-
zulu u are right.
but a combination of the 2 is our best chance
-
we are the state and its our duty to hold those we elect to account.
u only have to look at the data already held and how often it goes missing or is lost
-
we are the state and its our duty to hold those we elect to account.
u (as YOU is too hard to spell for me)(as YOU is too hard to spell for me)only have to look at the data already held and how often it goes missing or is lost[/quote]
.......is it reasonable to assume therefore that the amount of information required to be surrendered under these proposals will be likely, in some part, to face the same fate?
-
we are the state and its our duty to hold those we elect to account.
u only have to look at the data already held and how often it goes missing or is lost
To a certain extent, fair comment.
The more marbles you have, the more chance of the bag bursting and loosing some.
Answer - get a stronger bag!
-
we are the state and its our duty to hold those we elect to account.
u only have to look at the data already held and how often it goes missing or is lost
To a certain extent, fair comment.
The more marbles you have, the more chance of the bag bursting and loosing some.
Answer - get a stronger bag!
........those days may have gone H - there's too much arse-covering now, safety in the numbers of a committee and so on.
-
cheers all for a reasoned debate.
the reality is there is no easy answer to this complex issues.
if there was we would be using it.
but remember abuse happened before we had any systems. no system will ever stop those who wish to abuse.
what we can all do is be vigilant and aware
-
cheers all for a reasoned debate.
the reality is there is no easy answer to this complex issues.
if there was we would be using it.
but remember abuse happened before we had any systems. no system will ever stop those who wish to abuse.
what we can all do is be vigilant and aware
Exactly :y
-
cheers zulu :y :y
-
cheers zulu :y :y
Thanks X, look forward to more input from you :) :y :y
-
hey everyone this is not about the nanny state.
its about protecting children.
yes most abuse is familiar. that is people who are known by the child or its family.
people who abuse children come in all shapes sizes, classes,proffessions. they do not all wear long macs.
if you have a crb then it has a unique number and can be used for numerous purposes.
what the new changes are about is bringing all the information held by different agencies together, from the soham enquiry.
list 99, schedual 1 list etc along with intelligence.
yes its sad that in our society this is neccessary but about 1 million kids have been abused and this includes by vicars scout masters,police judges etc
Would the soham deaths been stopped by this big brother approach?
NO - Huntley, would not have been vetted as his girlfriend was the link to the two girls
This stupid requirement was a reflex action to soham, and is a sinister progression of labour's monitoring of people.
If a complaint has been made about you, even if proved to be totally unfounded the report will still brand you as an "undesirable"
-
hey everyone this is not about the nanny state.
its about protecting children.
yes most abuse is familiar. that is people who are known by the child or its family.
people who abuse children come in all shapes sizes, classes,proffessions. they do not all wear long macs.
if you have a crb then it has a unique number and can be used for numerous purposes.
what the new changes are about is bringing all the information held by different agencies together, from the soham enquiry.
list 99, schedual 1 list etc along with intelligence.
yes its sad that in our society this is neccessary but about 1 million kids have been abused and this includes by vicars scout masters,police judges etc
Would the soham deaths been stopped by this big brother approach?
NO - Huntley, would not have been vetted as his girlfriend was the link to the two girls
This stupid requirement was a reflex action to soham, and is a sinister progression of labour's monitoring of people.
If a complaint has been made about you, even if proved to be totally unfounded the report will still brand you as an "undesirable"
In essence, no different to the banning of handguns after the Dunblane incident. The chap who was the baddy held the handguns legally....
-
hey everyone this is not about the nanny state.
its about protecting children.
yes most abuse is familiar. that is people who are known by the child or its family.
people who abuse children come in all shapes sizes, classes,proffessions. they do not all wear long macs.
if you have a crb then it has a unique number and can be used for numerous purposes.
what the new changes are about is bringing all the information held by different agencies together, from the soham enquiry.
list 99, schedual 1 list etc along with intelligence.
yes its sad that in our society this is neccessary but about 1 million kids have been abused and this includes by vicars scout masters,police judges etc
Would the soham deaths been stopped by this big brother approach?
NO - Huntley, would not have been vetted as his girlfriend was the link to the two girls
This stupid requirement was a reflex action to soham, and is a sinister progression of labour's monitoring of people.
If a complaint has been made about you, even if proved to be totally unfounded the report will still brand you as an "undesirable"
In essence, no different to the banning of handguns after the Dunblane incident. The chap who was the baddy held the handguns legally....
sorry, you've lost me - if both laws had been applied a year before the relevant incidents :-
the bloke with the guns would have then illegally held guns,
but nothing would have happened to Huntley
-
hey everyone this is not about the nanny state.
its about protecting children.
yes most abuse is familiar. that is people who are known by the child or its family.
people who abuse children come in all shapes sizes, classes,proffessions. they do not all wear long macs.
if you have a crb then it has a unique number and can be used for numerous purposes.
what the new changes are about is bringing all the information held by different agencies together, from the soham enquiry.
list 99, schedual 1 list etc along with intelligence.
yes its sad that in our society this is neccessary but about 1 million kids have been abused and this includes by vicars scout masters,police judges etc
Would the soham deaths been stopped by this big brother approach?
NO - Huntley, would not have been vetted as his girlfriend was the link to the two girls
This stupid requirement was a reflex action to soham, and is a sinister progression of labour's monitoring of people.
If a complaint has been made about you, even if proved to be totally unfounded the report will still brand you as an "undesirable"
In essence, no different to the banning of handguns after the Dunblane incident. The chap who was the baddy held the handguns legally....
sorry, you've lost me - if both laws had been applied a year before the relevant incidents :-
the bloke with the guns would have then illegally held guns,
but nothing would have happened to Huntley
Its the stable door after the horse has bolted analogy.
After the horse has made its bid for freedom across the far horizon do you think about fitting a bolt to the door to stop it....
If the horse is happy to look out the open door and stay in place - well, thats quite another thing entirely.... :y