Jump to content
asperity

We're all guilty!!

Recommended Posts

Apparently we're all guity of being paedophiles unless and until we can prove otherwise according to the latest madness from this mad government.

 

http://tinyurl.com/kpsya3

 

I try to keep away from ankle biters anyway, but this will further persuade me not to have any dealings with anyone under 25 :shock::shock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope I'm erring on the side of safety saying 25 :shock::shock:

 

Not so sure Asperity, as it also includes vulnerable adults. Might be safer not to have anything to do with anybody.

 

Another daft money wasting scheme from a daft and pointless Government, anyway less than nine months to go until we are rid of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so shop keepers and shop assistants will have to register.

bus drivers,anybody who has a child as a neighbour?

window cleaners,fairground workers.

 

it will get sillier. imagine walking the dog some morning across sankey valley only to be surrounded by police and asked to prove that i am "safe" because i happen to pass a childrens play area or have walked next to the school playing fields. :shock::shock::shock::twisted:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so shop keepers and shop assistants will have to register.

bus drivers,anybody who has a child as a neighbour?

window cleaners,fairground workers.

 

it will get sillier. imagine walking the dog some morning across sankey valley only to be surrounded by police and asked to prove that i am "safe" because i happen to pass a childrens play area or have walked next to the school playing fields. :shock::shock::shock::twisted:

 

It sure will, as most things do.

 

It seems that this database will be the biggest of its kind in the world. Rather sad that that will be Great Britain's claim to fame....how has it all gone so wrong. :?

 

Interestingly the biggest abusers of children are parents and close relatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because of course, there's no need to check that someone does not in fact have three convictions for drunk driving before you hand them the keys to the minibus and let them drive fifteen kids to an away match?

 

Because of course, nobody needs to check for paedophiles, because we all know they wear t-shirts saying "I like em young" and carry large bags of jelly babies?

 

Yeah, why waste the time and money.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LP paedophiles don't necessarily have any sort of record that could be picked up by these checks. Conversely having a big bag of jelly babies doesn't necessarily mean that you are a paedophile. It is all arrant nonsense and plays on unfounded fears. There is no evidence that paedophilia is more common now than in the past. :roll::roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh please!

 

If you are right, then we waste some money and we waste some time and a lot of perfectly decent people fill out a simple form and wait a couple of weeks for the official nod. Been there, done it myself - trust me, there's no home invasion, no cavity search, no loss of civil liberty. It only applies to FORMAL agreements to carry kids on a REGULAR basis to and from SPORTS and SOCIAL CLUBS. In other words, it means that amateur bus and taxi drivers have the same check as professional ones. Shouldn't they?

 

If you're wrong, then somewhere down the line, this database will stop someone's child from coming to harm in some way. Maybe because it picks up a record; maybe because an incident occurs and it allows Police to alert people faster; and maybe because the idea of registering frightens off someone whose only intention in volunteering was regular access to the kids.

 

So sneer as you please - I'm not betting one single child's wellbeing on your opinion. I'd rather waste the money. No contest. Not because I think there are perverts on every corner, but because there's no harm in checking!

 

Do you know how many convicted sex offenders are living in Cheshire today? 632 last time I looked up the figures. Do you know how many of them are paedophiles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh please!

 

You don't think there's perverts (what constitutes a pervert by the way) on every corner, but you keep tabs on how many there are! There have always been dangers facing children but we have gone far beyond whats necessary here, and making out that every adult male is a pervert until he can prove otherwise is not the answer. I'm now retiring to my remote island in the middle of a remote lake until all you strange people come to your senses. I may be gone for some considerable time!!!!!!! :roll::roll::roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I keep ruddy tabs - I have kids! I don't believe every adult male is a pervert, and I don't believe all perverts are blokes, either. Unfortunately, I know that the risk to my kids is small but real, and I know the long-term statistics for self-harm, drug abuse and suicide amongst victims too. What I'm saying is that when an initiative that does no harm is suggested, then it should be adopted, not ridiculed.

 

And can I point out that the idea comes from the case where a school caretaker killed two girls and an extra checking system might just have found his previous record? If it had emerged at the time that this sort of registration had been suggested and dismissed on cost grounds, then you would have been hurling the first rock!!

 

I suppose if you have a private island and are convinced that you are never going to be a victim of crime, you can afford to dismiss everyone else's views as hysteria.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And can I point out that the idea comes from the case where a school caretaker killed two girls and an extra checking system might just have found his previous record? If it had emerged at the time that this sort of registration had been suggested and dismissed on cost grounds, then you would have been hurling the first rock!!

...

 

Slight difference between being a caretaker with direct access, to a volunteer who just wants to help out in their spare time.

I know of quite a few who are put off by the form filling and they are females.

 

The word overkill springs to mind. :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course I keep ruddy tabs

 

How exactly, is there currently a formal process.

 

PS I repeat the comment I made early that most child abuse is committed by their parents or relatives. Maybe this new authority should issue permits to would be parents before they are allowed to concieve....or maybe they only become abusers when they have their own children.

 

I am thinking the solution to the problem is very harsh penalties and sentencing, not the setting up of a quango in a Labour marginal. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest that the Sex offenders list is a nonsense because people get put on it, for the most trivial of things, therefore confusing something that had merit.

 

I would also suggest that:

 

1. the police either know who the paeds are and have the info. available to employers.

2. the police don't know and therefore the person gets the ok.

3. the paeds are NOT going to put on their application form what their tastes are.

and 4. until they get caught, no-one except the victim knows what they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow - over here thats a standard practice for any adult working with children or vulnerable adults. I think its a good practice. I do not see why you guys are concerned about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mary, we already have checks on people working with children. What we're talking about here is parents volunteering to take a group of kids to a football match for example being expected to undergo this check. If the guy doesn't get checked he is liable to be fined ?5000! As Peter says, the checks are useless if the paedophile is unknown to the police, yet everyone is being treated as a potential pervert. I take that as an insult. Do parents in the states have to undergo these checks if all they are doing is volunteering their services to take a gang of kids to little league matches? :?:?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is because of the extremes that it might go to. You see citizens of the UK are now becoming the world's most spied upon by the state in all of its guises. Indeed I refuse to go to Conservative party conferences because of all of the nonsense required on the application form. I am a Conservative Councillor, a Conservative Constituency Agent and was instrumental in saving and rebuilding Warrington South Conservative Association....those things should be enough, they don't need my NI number, passport details and car registration, and if as I suspect those details are required by the police service, then the Conservative party should just say NO, NO, NO. And to make matters worse, the conference organisers are called "Fingerprint Events"...and on that I shall say no more.

 

Rant over. :wink::)

 

Just a thought that I had whilst shopping this morning. As grand parents and other close relatives are now looking after children more frequently, will they now have to go through the vetting and barring process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because of course, there's no need to check that someone does not in fact have three convictions for drunk driving before you hand them the keys to the minibus and let them drive fifteen kids to an away match?

 

 

But I guess it is OK for Haringay Council to send a foster child to live with a bomb plot ringleader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting quote from a centre right website:

 

"I believe our society has developed a distinctly unhealthy collective obsession about child abuse, particularly in the form of paedophilia. Partly, that is a reflection of our appalling lack of disciplined sexual morality - we are almost all aware, instinctively, of how inadequate our own sexual morality is, so to comfort ourselves that we are not as bad as all that, we focus attention and hatred on those whose sexual conduct failings we are confident are worse than our own."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mary, we already have checks on people working with children. What we're talking about here is parents volunteering to take a group of kids to a football match for example being expected to undergo this check. If the guy doesn't get checked he is liable to be fined ?5000! As Peter says, the checks are useless if the paedophile is unknown to the police, yet everyone is being treated as a potential pervert. I take that as an insult. Do parents in the states have to undergo these checks if all they are doing is volunteering their services to take a gang of kids to little league matches? :?:?

 

Actually Asperity, this Labour Government and its bunch of deadbeat advisers wants to nationalise and control all activities of citizens and this new process is another step along that road. Anyway they will all be kicked out in less than nine months, guess it's just what damage that they can do in the meantime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Paul, there isn't a formal system for keeping tabs, because every time there's any move in that direction some twonk makes the matter of child safety into either a political hobby horse or a civil liberties issue.

 

There is no difference between the murderous caretaker who used his regular contact with children to gain the trust of two girls he wanted to abuse and someone who intends to use his or her role as team bus driver to do the same. And given the tightening of PNC checks to take up positions like caretaker, scoutmaster, dinnerlady, that nice unregulated little spot as parent-approved adult would attract your local pervert, if there was one, wouldn't it?

 

Parental abuse exists and unfortunately it is hard to prevent. Why that should be used as a rationale for not giving children another layer of protection from non-familial abuse is not clear to me at all. And I think you'll find that health visitor/doctor checks at stipulated intervals are already in place and include checking for signs of abuse. As do hospital admissions and school remits.

 

Why would your friends have the slightest problem with a police check and registration on a list of approved drivers? Frankly, if the new database weeds out those without any commitment to child safety, then that's just another bonus!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And can we PLEASE stick to the facts - only adults volunteering on a REGULAR and FORMAL basis to transport other people's children to and from SPORTS and SOCIAL activities are being asked to register on a list of approved drivers. This will involve the completion of the PNC form that is required BY LAW ALREADY for any adult employed to carry out such tasks or responsible for the care of children. Childminders, drivers, dinnerladies, school admin staff.....

 

Nobody has to register to take their grandchildren to the park, or swap lifts to school with a neighbour on an informal basis or walk past a beer garden. How many people do any of us know who will need to register? I know three. And I know three hundred who won't!

 

It's not obsession, it's not political - it's a good faith effort from parents who DID lose their daughters and who think that maybe there's a chance it'll save someone else's child. Maybe it will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LymmParent

 

Your post is to full of facts, you should know malicious gossip is preferred, sadly facts do you little good on here as they will only be dismissed by those who would rather moan and obsess :roll:

 

A good post though :!:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...