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

2

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ahhh soz Suzy. In 'formal', do you mean student-teacher outings for example?

    Then if it's kids as friends or the friends of offspring, then it's OK?

    It doesn't affect me much except that I have under-aged relatives (we all do lol), and I've got a couple of under-aged on my Deviantart buddy list. Then I play World of Warcraft and about half of the people I talk to on there are underaged!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Monserrat wrote: »
    Ahhh soz Suzy. In 'formal', do you mean student-teacher outings for example?

    Then if it's kids as friends or the friends of offspring, then it's OK?

    :yes:

    In a way, I don't get this:
    I imagine there are many people who abuse others who haven't been caught, so basically they're going to have to register on this database and still be able to work with children.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    yeah but at least the ones whove already got previous for abusing children, wont be able to do it
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Firstly, to Kermit. What the hell does Zanulabour actually mean.....?

    I think he is drawing parallels between Labour and Zanu PF, Robert Mugabe's despotic regime.
  • 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

    No, that's no what it means either.

    People working with children even on a voluntary basis WILL need to be vetted, the exemption is for casual, social arrangements, so parents asking other parents to give lifts, kids going round to play at each others houses etc.

    What really really worries me is the attitude that this system will make everything ok and perfectly safe. What keeps children safe is best practise, an open sharing atmosphere when neglect and abuse has a chance to be identified and children have someone they can talk to about any concerns.

    Not an attitude that distrusts any adult without a vetting certificate and thinks all those who do must be saints.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A few years back, the PC brigade decided to cut all smoking scenes from the Tom & Jerry cartoons. Keeping in line with this topic, I'll dread to think of the day when the PC brigade bans pictures of children on the TV screen, the computer screen, birthday cards, magazines and posters. Then the ban will extend to cartoons (I'm a big fan of "Lilo" the hula girl from Lilo & Stitch), then they will ban WoW players from having gnome characters (as they're like little kids). I know what I've just written here sounds far-fetched, but I bet it will happen in this fascist country :-(
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru

    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.



    Maybe not, but it doesn't hurt. If an enhanced CRB check had been done on Huntley for instance, it would have revealed that the police force where he had come from had grave concerns about him being around women and children.
    It wasn't though because at the time it wasn't a requirement as he was only a caretaker, so he went through the standard check, which doesn't include intelligence held about a person.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I dunno. It wouldnt make me feel my child was completely safe from predators, but id feel better knowing that strangers that were spending unsupervised time with my kids hadnt already got a previous history in that department.

    If its for people who arent alone with children then I think is OTT. Im not sure who it covers
  • 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.

    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.

    it's just building up a databse really, that's what it's there for - i work in a school and have an enhanced CRB check done regulary anyway so this don't affect me really - this is just a stupid money maker which will collect people's information

    and it's well known legally that hard cases make bad law anyway, ian huntly got a chance to do it because the police never really followed up on the multiple complaints about him i believe, correct me if you want

    tbh if they cared that much about the kids they'd just make the checking system free
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It can't be long before this actually becomes reality in this country...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaUkt59vY1Q

    Won't be long before they start banning having photographs of children in clothes catalogues either, if they ever catch someone masturbating to one.

    There have already been too many instances of perfectly innocent men being hounded out of parks- or attacked- for simply being near children and having the 'wrong' look about them. Things can only get worse in the current climate.

    Never mind that a child is hundreds of times more likely to be killed by a car than he is to be molested by a paedo. Let the hysteria continue.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Never mind that a child is hundreds of times more likely to be killed by a car than he is to be molested by a paedo. Let the hysteria continue.

    Generally when someone is killed by a car it's an accident. Unless you're suggesting there are thousands of car drivers out there just itching for the chance to run a kid over.......

    It would make a good Daily Fail story anyway.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Generally when someone is killed by a car it's an accident. Unless you're suggesting there are thousands of car drivers out there just itching for the chance to run a kid over.......

    It would make a good Daily Fail story anyway.
    Yes but the issue is prevention (or over-prevention, as the case might be).

    Seeing as many more children die from car accidents, we should really be doing something drastic to stop that, like make them wear crash helmets and kevlar protection at all times. If not children could dieeeeeeeee!

    No sane person would advocate that. Because there has to be a balance between safety and common sense. With the issue of paedophilia, that balance has shifted to nonsensical hysteria in this country. Time we redressed it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Your employer will say "we're not paying for it" and you'll either have to stump up the cash or find another job.

    Maybe that's the relationship you have with your employers, but it's not one I'm planning on replicating. If I'm qualified to do a job that not enough people are, then I think I'm in a position to negotiate whatever terms I feel are fair, as are any private company. That generally includes any administrative costs that are involved in working for them (which they already routinely pay), which this would clearly come under. And if they say "we are paying it" what the hell can the government do to stop them?

    Having said that, in this particular industry, a common response would be "yeah, we'll sort it out" followed by no action whatsoever, and people working with children with absolutely no checks because they make it such a nightmare to carry them out.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And yet again, the focus comes back to checking. Which is my major concern on this. What keeps children safe is good practise, not paperwork.

    My other issue with this is the number of adults it's going to put off working with children, or having anything to do with helping out with kids activities, which starts to follow on with there being less stuff for kids to do, and parents not taking their kids along because they get asked to help occasionally, which means they have to get checked, which they find too daunting and it's just easier for them to drift away.

    Tell me how that's good for children?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    If an enhanced CRB check had been done on Huntley for instance, it would have revealed that the police force where he had come from had grave concerns about him being around women and children.

    Huntley met the two primary school children through his partner, not through work. The vetting procedure might have prevented him getting the job as a caretaker but he was exposed to those two children well away from any formal or informal care process. His partner wouldn't have been picked up by the vetting procedure because she was guilty of nothing other than naivete.

    You should also remember that Huntley used a false name in Soham and the police lost track of him because of this. Cambridgeshire police didn't know him from Adam. What makes you think that some bureaucrat on peanuts is going to do a better job of joining the dots together?
    It wouldnt make me feel my child was completely safe from predators, but id feel better knowing that strangers that were spending unsupervised time with my kids hadnt already got a previous history in that department.

    I agree in principle, but I don't have any faith that this is the way to solve it. I have no faith in some badly-paid monkey in Darlington to do their jobs properly- both searching and maintaining anonymity- when better-qualified staff in the police and social services can't get their heads around the difficulties either.

    Given that the Child Support Agency was getting 40% of claims wrong when it was set up, and Student Finance England (also in Darlington) are doing the same, I think this will be a disaster. I can see this lot giving Gary Glitter a clean bill of health yet some innocent kind old man will be labelled a predatory paedophile and have his face kicked in by the local retards.

    The vetting process also conveniently ignores the fact that a lot of attackers are not known to the authorities anyway- look at the paedophile ring operating in that nursery in Plymouth.

    The other concern I have is that it completely targets the wrong people. People will insist on this vetting for school or charity staff- who rarely have unsupervised contact with kids- and then go and introduce a new partner to their kids without any background checks at all. The simple fact is that the person most likely to abuse a child is its father or grandfather, or its mother's partner.
    Maybe that's the relationship you have with your employers, but it's not one I'm planning on replicating.

    Most charitable sector employers are saying the same thing. They don't get the funding to pay £64 per employee for this check so they can't pay £64 per employee for this check.
    My other issue with this is the number of adults it's going to put off working with children, or having anything to do with helping out with kids activities

    Exactly.

    My in-laws (one of whom's a solicitor) have had German exchange students staying with them for years. Excellent references have always been passed to the company and so they keep getting exchange students. Because of these checks they now refuse to have anything to do with the system. The company is now struggling to find enough families to place the exchange students with.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Most charitable sector employers are saying the same thing. They don't get the funding to pay £64 per employee for this check so they can't pay £64 per employee for this check.
    And that's why I'm not planning on working in the charitable sector any time soon. But that's not really the point. If they did have the money (as most private companies do), no-one can dictate whether or not they choose to pay their employees' fees. Hell, they can't even stop some employers paying employees' parking fines. But like I said, whether you get these things depends on how many people are similarly qualified and ready to take the job if you don't.

    Anyway, just a quick question. If you have more than one job, do you need more than one check? Because under the old system, I believe that each employer had to carry out a check every time they hired someone.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    My in-laws (one of whom's a solicitor) have had German exchange students staying with them for years. Excellent references have always been passed to the company and so they keep getting exchange students. Because of these checks they now refuse to have anything to do with the system.

    well I think thats weird. Why be so worried about getting checked, when youve already gone out of your way to get references.
    Im actually surprised that there wasnt proper vetting of exchange hosts before
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Suzy, what makes you think that some monkey in a suit issuing a certificate is 'proper vetting' and that a company diligently taking up references and conducting CRB checks is not 'proper vetting'?

    It's like everything in this country- at first sight its fair and reasonable, but when you dig beneath the surface its very sinister. The vetting bureau can take into account 'intelligence' from 'other sources', including anonymous tip-offs from members of the public. They're already advertising for people to send in their tip-offs.

    The Pedo Stasi can decide that you are 'unsuitable'- thus making you unemployable- without supplying details of the evidence against you. Without any knowledge of what they're basing their decisions on, you can't challenge their decisions. Given the track record of Government bureaucracy (the CSA had a 40% fuck up rate at one point) I can see a lot of innocent people being destroyed and a lot of guilty people being given a passport to abuse.

    I suppose the Pedo Stasi will be useful if someone fancies fucking up someone else's life for good, but I can't think of any other use for it.

    IWS, my point went right over your head didn't it? Employers can choose to pay it if they so wish, but most employers won't because the law says registration and payment rests with the employee. I can't see anyone in the charitable sector paying it (no money) and private nurseries and care homes are notorious for providing abject terms and conditions to their employees. You only need to register once, unlike with CRB, but you can have your status revoked at any time and without warning.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i dont like the idea of being able to use any old tip off against you. But then again, the conviction rate for abuse and rape etc, being so low. Its probably to counteract that.
    I can see good and bad sides to it. it obviously still needs some tweaking, and of course its of absolutely no use if people think that it means there is no risk of abuse.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8255553.stm
    The government is to look again at how a new vetting system for those working with children will operate.

    England's Children's Secretary, Ed Balls, said it was "tremendously important" to define "frequent or intensive" contact correctly.

    He has asked the chair of the new Independent Safeguarding Authority to review this and report by December.

    Critics including the NSPCC have said the scheme could stop normal behaviour such as giving lifts to sports clubs.

    Mr Balls stressed that it would not apply where, for example, parents agreed to give friends' children "a lift to school or to Cubs".

    "Nor will it cover instances where parents work with children at school or a youth club on 'an occasional or one-off basis'."

    He announced the reappraisal in a letter to the chair of the Commons children, schools and families committee, Barry Sheerman.

    Mr Balls said the scheme had been introduced via legislation in parliament, following the Bichard inquiry into the murders of two schoolgirls.

    It requires those working with children or with vulnerable adults, either on a paid or voluntary basis, to be on a register of suitability which employers can check.

    The system will be phased in from next month and will operate in England, Wales and Northern Ireland from next year. A different scheme is being introduced in Scotland.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I can see good and bad sides to it.

    I can see the positives, definitely, but I don't think for one second that the positives outweigh the costs and negatives.

    A company or charity checking references properly will pick up all the same things that the ISA will pick up. The same problems- name changes, absconding sex offenders, etc- that cause problems with diligent referencing will not be picked up by the ISA either. The ISA simply holds all the police and social services information in one place, with a good helping of public tipoffs to keep everyone on their toes, and they arer only as good as the information that goes in.

    And given that Huntley did what he did because of incompetent police officers in the Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire forces, I don't see how the ISA can be any different.

    I suppose what really gets my goat, though, is having to pay £64 to get some monkey in a suit to tell me that I won't rape kids.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This New Labour has been bloody awful. They really have been a shower of crap. They are obsessesed with databases and getting everyone on them as soon as possible.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sorry to necro-post, but this was a subject matter that I hated with a passion. It doesn't affect me now but I hated the proposed database because of the principle of it being counter productive when I was a child. In my days, parents of friends were allowed to drive each other's children to places like Forest Glades and other treats. Hell, I even stayed at teachers' houses when I was a pre-teen and nobody batted an eyelid 20 years ago. Thankfully, our new gov't have pulled the plug on it. To hell with it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Forest Glades! I went there loads as a kid, we may have even crossed paths!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    Forest Glades! I went there loads as a kid, we may have even crossed paths!

    I know it's now called Glade Arena, but us kids will always remember it as Forest Glades! Good times.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Even after being kicked out at the election, my old MP, Parmjit Dhanda, can't shut up about it. I thought he must be angling for a position on some government body, but he may just want a media slot. Anything but a real job.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Monserrat wrote: »
    I know it's now called Glade Arena, but us kids will always remember it as Forest Glades! Good times.

    Different Forest Glades? My daughter went a few weeks ago and it was still forest glades then.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ahh! Okies, Forest Glades was a swimming pool complex in Kidderminster with flume-slides. Their largest pool had waves too, lasting for a few minutes every hour IIRC. The place changed its name to Glade Arena in 1995. The last time I went was before 1995, while it was called Forest Glades.

    Meh.

    I just googled it Katralla, and it looks like it has changed its name back to Forest Glades, so I think we are talking about the same place. Here.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    same place
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    btw for those interested here's an overview of what the changes may mean from Volunteer Centre Camden -
    So, the new scheme is “on-hold” and organisations will now work under an amalgamation of the original CRB checking regime and the legislation linked to the new ISA that was passed during the previous parliament.

    This legislation created several new criminal offences which will still continue to apply, including:

    - Allowing someone you know to be barred to volunteer/work in a Regulated
    Activity.
    - Someone who is barred applying for or doing Regulated Activity.
    - An obligation to pass on information to the ISA about someone you
    suspect of causing harm to vulnerable groups, whether they are dismissed
    them or they leave before investigation is complete.

    *Barring decisions:*

    The Vetting & Barring Panel, set up as part of the new ISA will continue to operate and make the decision on barring people for past criminal activity or a pattern of suspicious activity.

    The ISA will continue to maintain the lists of barred people, which were formed from the previously kept List 99, the Protection of Children Act (
    PoCA) list and the Protection of Vulnerable Adults (PoVA) list.

    *So where does this leave us now?*

    Using CRB checks organisations risk being sued for “over-checking” – groups weren’t committing Breach of Trust by over-checking ISA Registration, but they will be if they incorrectly ask someone to complete a CRB check as it discloses spent convictions, which they’re entitled to keep private unless they’re doing a genuine Regulated Activity.

    The new ISA Registration included “constant monitoring” so groups would be notified if someone committed an offence which barred them from working with vulnerable groups. The CRB checks only show recorded information so regular checks will be necessary to ensure new offences are disclosed. The frequency of these checks (and associated cost and admin) appears to be up to your organisation to decide on.

    Before the creation of the ISA an organisation could fulfil its safeguarding responsibilities by ensuring un-checked people didn’t do *unsupervised* work with vulnerable groups. Under ISA rules supervision was not relevant; everyone doing Regulated Activity needed registration whether supervised or not.

    It’s not clear if a CRB check (and its results) will now be needed prior to carrying out Regulated Activity, or if people waiting for results can start while being supervised.

    The ISA Registration was guaranteed to be complete within a couple of weeks, CRB checks have been known to take 6 months.

    *So what’s a sensible way forward?*

    We’ll all need to study how the new regime will work and take action accordingly to ensure we comply with the law, but we still have our obligations, which have never changed, to apply a sensible recruitment process, not discriminate unduly against ex-offenders who want to turn their fortunes around, and design roles responsibly to minimise the risk of harm to anyone.

    Overall, it’s essential that organisations ensure that the management of their volunteer team creates an open and mutually beneficial environment, where situations in which abuse is possible are minimised, and properly training, supervision and support is given.

    Equally vital is good communication with the "clients" (those receiving the volunteers' support) so that an atmosphere is created that ensures they’re confident that they can pass on any concerns, worries or indeed gratitude that they feel regarding the volunteers.

    This will provide far greater safeguards against exploitative behaviour than ISA Registration or Criminal Record checks.

    http://www.volunteercentrecamden.org.uk/pages/isa-update.html
Sign In or Register to comment.