Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Limited spaces available! Sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

World's Largest anti-paedophile Database - upto £64 to register

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
fail to register and have your background checked then you face a fine of up to £5,000 and a criminal record.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6169054/Parents-who-ferry-children-must-have-anti-paedophile-checks.html

over 11 million people set to need to register??

Even Dinner Ladies would have to register? This country just gets worse and worse.
«13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Don't get me started.........

    (Well, I'll come back later)

    Hands up anyone, absolutely anyone who can see how this is a good thing?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The new service is based in Darlington and a typical caseworker there earns around £15,000 a year. Given the fact that Darlington is full of retards and that if you pay peanuts you get monkeys (just look at Student Finance England next door), I am expecting carnage.

    If they fuck up, there is no right of appeal. They don't need to make a decision based on criminal records, but can use other evidence too, even if it is completely unsubstantiated.

    The fee of £64 is not paid by an employer, but has to be paid by the employee. That's fantastic if you're a dinner lady or school cleaner on minimum wage, or if you just want to do some volunteering, isn't it?

    Words absolutely fail me on this one. I'm going to probably need this at some point and I am absolutely livid.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I hadn't got too far into the details, but no right of appeal?!

    The data on CRB forms is notorious for being inaccurate and taking months to get corrected.

    That basically does away with the whole 'innocent until proven guilty thing'.

    Anyone fancy making up some spurious reports and wrecking a few lives?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They collect information from "employers, police and other agencies" and can make decisions based on "soft intelligence". You can ask for the review board to review it, but there's no external Ombudsman and you can guess how often the review board will decide the review board was wrong. You don't even get to see the information they use to make a decision, as it's "confidential". You can bet your mortgage that political convictions- such as protesting in London- will be used against applicants.

    People's lives are going to be ruined because of this- by rejecting a claim the review board are as good as saying that you're a scumbag who'll rape a kiddy or rob a granny. It'll then take, ooh, ten seconds, before you have a mob smashing your windows and your face in.

    Yet again, I'm with Philip Pullman on this: the assumption is that everyone's a nonce, he finds it insulting and simply won't read his books to English schoolkids ever again.

    If you have ever voted for ZanuLabour YOU VOTED FOR THIS. I hope you're proud of yourselves.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Funny, if you take John Humphries' spiel on 'Today' this morning (starting at 7:09) at face value, no-one who volunteers to work with children should ever face background checks, As a parent myself (and yes, I'm not invalidating the opinions of the childless), I can't say I entirely go along with that...

    The crux of this, taking the 'lift to a football match' analogy, is that if the school asks you to give a lift to some other child/ren, you get whacked with the £64 charge for a CRB check, but if another parent asks you instead, you don't. Clearly, from now on, schools will be asking parents to make these kind of arrangements with each other. Parents & teachers associations will be split asunder, and eventually parents' associations will be subjected to the checks as well.

    Still, it protects parents' inalienable right to exclusively abuse their own children, so that's fine.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    does this mean i dont have to help out on school trips anymore?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    does this mean i dont have to help out on school trips anymore?
    Yep.

    You and everyone else.

    Bye bye school trips.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So does that mean the London Transport Bus Driver that ferries hundred of school kids in his Double Decker needs to pay his £64 as well because the 7 cameras already installed on each bus isn't enough?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Uncle Joe wrote: »
    Still, it protects parents' inalienable right to exclusively abuse their own children, so that's fine.

    Exactly.

    If the Government really wanted to cut down on child sexual abuse, you'd have to be vetted before becoming a father, grandfather or uncle, or when you start dating a woman with kids.

    Scrap that, I can imagine this set of cunts would actually do that.

    Still, they get lots of £64 fees, and someone has to pay for the £1.3 trillion national debt.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    no such luck actually
    Registration will cost £64 in England and Wales, but unpaid volunteers will be exempt from the charge.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    The fee of £64 is not paid by an employer, but has to be paid by the employee.

    How are they planning on enforcing that one? I know it'll be part of my wage demands when I go for jobs teaching abroad. Along with all of the administration involved.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Your employer will say "we're not paying for it" and you'll either have to stump up the cash or find another job.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree entirely with the consensus opinion here, but want to take issue with this piece of hyperbole:
    Kermit wrote: »

    If you have ever voted for ZanuLabour YOU VOTED FOR THIS. I hope you're proud of yourselves.

    Er, how's that then?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What don't you understand jamelia? ZanuLabour are behind this, ZanuLabour have been steadily eroding all our privacy and rights for the last 12 years, everyone who voted ZanuLabour knew that this is what they're about.

    Therefore, if you voted ZanuLabour you voted for this piece of illiberal shite. If anyone didn't know ZanuLabour were about this then they're too thick to be allowed to vote.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That's hardly a useful, true or worthwhile comment is it Kermit, I think we can have a discussion without sounding like we're ranting on the street corner screaming at everyone walking past.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    On the main point of the discussion though - obviously it's something that as an organisation working with young and vulnerable people we're right in the middle of.

    I can see both sides - there's currently no regulation at all for many people working providing support, advice and services to young and vulnerable people - especially online. providing a service that checks against previous abusive behaviour does seem to have a strong arguement behind it.

    On the other hand, the actual system that's being suggested seems strange, it seems poorly explained and does contain many issues that don't seem to be being addressed. In the end it feels like bad execution as opposed to a bad idea.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i thought people working unsupervised with children needed to be checked anyway. I dont think its such a bad idea
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's a wider catchment than it used to be - if I understand correctly, and I may be wrong - previously the contact with children requiring a CRB check had to be specific, that it was a central part of the work being done. It also had to be face to face (for example it was never possible to run a CRB check on a mod on a board - you can't just run them because you might want to).

    Here the scope seems to have been broadly expanded to include anytime people have regular contact, even when that may be supervised or not traditionally seen as significant enough to warrant a CRB check.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    What don't you understand jamelia? ZanuLabour are behind this, ZanuLabour have been steadily eroding all our privacy and rights for the last 12 years, everyone who voted ZanuLabour knew that this is what they're about.

    Therefore, if you voted ZanuLabour you voted for this piece of illiberal shite. If anyone didn't know ZanuLabour were about this then they're too thick to be allowed to vote.

    Ah ok, so hyperbole is just your MO, right? I'm new round here so I don't quite know how things go around here, but I'm picking things up now. We both know the reasons why this is a fallacious argument - just because I have in the past voted for Labour, doesn't mean I am even broadly in favour of all their laws and policies, let alone anything like responsible for them. But of course you know that too.

    Anyway, on topic. The principles and intentions behind this might be reasonable enough. But the way they propose to implement it is diabolical.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote: »
    That's hardly a useful, true or worthwhile comment is it Kermit

    What's false about it?

    Labour have always been illiberal and anti-freedom and were freely hawking the ID cards, CRB and vetting schemes long before the general election in 2005. If people voted Labour knowing about this then they have sanctioned this, given it a mandate and they have got what they voted for.

    If people voted Labour without knowing this then they've not been paying attention and I think that a basic knowledge of policy should be a pre-requisite of voting.

    If people voted Labour "holding their nose" to prevent the Tories getting in, then they're absolute tools and deserve everything they get.

    It's just a shame we all have to live with this illiberal bollocks because of the votes of others. Democracy, my arse.

    Edited to add:
    jamelia wrote:
    We both know the reasons why this is a fallacious argument - just because I have in the past voted for Labour, doesn't mean I am even broadly in favour of all their laws and policies, let alone anything like responsible for them.

    Yes, you are responsible for the policy and laws presented by the Government you voted in. The only exception to this is in states where you will be tortured and/or shot for failing to vote 'correctly'.

    You carefully studied the policy statements and past policy history of the different parties and made a decision based on those policies. Therefore, if you vote for Labour you agree with the policies of Labour. That means you agree with the war in Iraq, ID cards and the vetting process and, even more to the point, gave Labour a mandate to implement those policies. You can't pick and choose what you like and then turn around and say "oh I don't like that"- you voted for all of it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ah well there's the first hole in your argument right there. You said if you've EVER voted for Labour then you're responsible for this. I voted for them in 1997 and 2001, not 2005 ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You endorsed the Iraq war and Blairite corruption by voting for it in 2001, as well as the ID scheme.

    I can forgive people voting for these scumbags in 1997, perhaps in 2001 but certainly not in 2005.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Edited to add:



    Yes, you are responsible for the policy and laws presented by the Government you voted in. The only exception to this is in states where you will be tortured and/or shot for failing to vote 'correctly'.

    You carefully studied the policy statements and past policy history of the different parties and made a decision based on those policies. Therefore, if you vote for Labour you agree with the policies of Labour. That means you agree with the war in Iraq, ID cards and the vetting process and, even more to the point, gave Labour a mandate to implement those policies. You can't pick and choose what you like and then turn around and say "oh I don't like that"- you voted for all of it.

    Bullshit, to be honest. If I only voted for a party just so long as I agreed with EVERY SINGLE ONE of their proposals and policies, I would never be able to vote at all. And what kind of a responsible democratic citizen would that make me? You have to choose the package that's closest to your views and opinions. That doesn't make me responsible for every single thing they do, how could it? That's why it's called representative democracy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Yes, you are responsible for the policy and laws presented by the Government you voted in. The only exception to this is in states where you will be tortured and/or shot for failing to vote 'correctly'.

    You carefully studied the policy statements and past policy history of the different parties and made a decision based on those policies. Therefore, if you vote for Labour you agree with the policies of Labour. That means you agree with the war in Iraq, ID cards and the vetting process and, even more to the point, gave Labour a mandate to implement those policies. You can't pick and choose what you like and then turn around and say "oh I don't like that"- you voted for all of it.

    Okay, that's as close to trolling as I'm going to allow here. Please get back on topic on this issue, and if you don't have anything to add please don't fill the gap with abuse.

    That statement above is appalling and you have to know it. Being angry at the Labour government doesn't give you the right to decide how every other voter felt at the time - and it isn't the discussion under debate here.

    I'd suggest you take a break from, at the very least, this thread Kermit. You're hardly painting a very pleasant picture of yourself right now.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I honestly believe that the vetting system is a) more about creating an ID database through the back door and b) fund-raising. They're asking nearly 2 million people to pay a non-refundable £64 fee to get a piece of paper saying that they're not going to sexually abuse children. Of those 2 million people, they expect 40,000 to be rejected.

    You would expect a company diligently using references to root out most of those 40,000 people anyway. People who've changed names ten times wouldn't get picked up with the new vetting system either. So I'm forced to conclude that this is very sinister and that they're hiding behind "someone think of the children!" to force it through.

    On the subject of voter preferences, I agree that it's off-topic. But all politicians talk of having a 'mandate' due to the votes cast for them, and they then use this 'mandate' as justification for pushing through all their policies. By voting for the policies you agree with you're also voting for the policies you detest. You can't choose because politicians don't allow this: vote for them, even as the lesser of two evils, and you're taken to have mandated the whole lot. Labour are especially bad at this, but all politicians do it to a lesser or greater extent. I don't use 'you' to attack anyone in particular, but rather because I prefer 'you' to 'one' for stylistic reasons. Sorry if that wasn't made clear.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Okay man, let's put it down to a misunderstanding of style and focus on this scheme instead - the criticisms you bring up seem more than valid - so do people think it's a back-door id scheme or old fashioned money making?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote: »
    Okay man, let's put it down to a misunderstanding of style and focus on this scheme instead - the criticisms you bring up seem more than valid - so do people think it's a back-door id scheme or old fashioned money making?



    Firstly, to Kermit. What the hell does Zanulabour actually mean.....?

    Secondly, why exactly is knowing for sure that the person looking after your kids isn't a paedophile, or a 1st schedule offender a bad thing exactly? If I were a parent I'd like to know that the person I'm entrusting with the welfare of my children hasn't got a criminal record or intelligence indicating that they have an unhealthy infatuation with children.

    These laws have been brought in because over the years the public have demanded them in one form or another, or because they are the result of crimes that have ocurred.

    If the school employing Ian Huntly for example had been required to conduct an enhanced criminal records check (remember he was only a caretaker, not involved in the day to day looking after of kids so didn't require one at the time) Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman may still have been alive today.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Firstly, to Kermit. What the hell does Zanulabour actually mean.....?

    Secondly, why exactly is knowing for sure that the person looking after your kids isn't a paedophile, or a 1st schedule offender a bad thing exactly? If I were a parent I'd like to know that the person I'm entrusting with the welfare of my children hasn't got a criminal record or intelligence indicating that they have an unhealthy infatuation with children.

    Mainly, because as you've just demonstrated, this system leads people to think that as long as someone has one of these things that they are perfectly suitable to look after children.

    A background check does not make you a suitable person to work with children and definitely does not protect youngsters from harm. If anything this obsession with checking will put children at greater risk.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm like... what the fook? So now, parents have got to pay £64 to drive their offspring's friends, or have them playing in their house or stopping overnight. When I was 12, I stopped at my mate's house once every few weeks. My mate's parents shouldn't pay a yearly £64 for the privilege of having me, should they? As already mentioned, the clearance isn't going to stamp out on paedophiles. It doesn't stop them from striking in the future nor will it stop the sickos from downloading the porn off the net either. Will it? Will it? What about if I'm walking down the street with my under-aged cousin and then I get challenged by a law-enforcement officer?

    BOLLOCKS TO THIS F**KING COUNTRY.

    I will move to Germany or Hawaii. Germany's got the fairs while Hawaii's got the culture. Tough choice for me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    no, thats not what it means.
    It means if you have a FORMAL arrangement to drive children around, you will have to be vetted.
    Informal arrangements between friends are exempt.

    If you do it on a voluntary basis then you are exempt from the charge to be vetted
Sign In or Register to comment.