Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[albitz]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/everyone-now-assuming-you're-a-kiddie%11fiddler-200909112050/

[unlucky alf]

if it wasnt about mainly making money but protection for children the government would be doing these checks for nothing surely

[waspy]

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"

[Dishevelled Den]

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?

[Dishevelled Den]

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!!

[Andy B]

...... how much troble is it really. .......

Presumabaly not a lot, but more the principle of being deemed guilty first.

[x.ray]

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.

[x.ray]

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

[hotel21]

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.

[x.ray]

there in lies the problem. people not technology.

[Nickbat]

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.     

[Vamps]

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.

[Dishevelled Den]

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.

[Dishevelled Den]

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?

[albitz]

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.