Jump to content
asperity

We're all guilty!!

Recommended Posts

Yeah, I know - and I love a bit of malice myself! Just not when it's about kids. It seems perfectly obvious to me that anyone driving a busload of kids should be vetted, and there shouldn't be a route to avoid that vetting simply by not taking money for doing the job.

 

But then, I can't remember the last time I was silly enough to believe that there's really the slightest difference between political parties..... :wink::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anybody know at what age this is upto ?

 

16 ? ...18 ?

 

or 14, so any national companies who take on a 16yr old do not have to fork out the 70 odd quid each for 5000+ employees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very good question and to which there is no obvious answer on this new body's website.

 

Interestingly in the UK there is no single law that defines the age of a child. Specific age limits are set out in the legislation relating to different areas of policy and there are also differences between the UK nations.

 

Quite often a child is defined as a person less than 14 years of age, and a minor as one less than 18.

 

So it is entirely possible that for the purposes of this Vetting & Barring scheme, a child could be defined as a person below the age of 18. Also worth noting that this scheme encompasses vulnerable adults as well.

 

I would stand to be corrected but I believe that WBC for example would have a youth worker, acting as a minder, with young people if any or all of them are under 18. So maybe in terms of V & B that might be an indication of the answer. Which is therefore relevant to Rifles last sentence, to which I do not know the answer. But it is entirely possible that V & B will become a requirement for all organisations employing anybody under the age of 18 and/or vulnerable adults. Time will tell I guess. History however seems to indicate that legislation introduced for the very best of reasons somehow gets used for other purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am no expert on this subject but I would hazard a guess that there is less than 50% offences committed now than in the unreported and un- highlighted past.

 

There is something wrong with a country which stops me helping out at a youth club without paying ?64? to be cleared; also why my wife, then aged 76, was stopped taking a photograph of our grand-son at a public baths.

 

Happy days

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give these control freaks 10 years and we'll all be micro-chipped anyway, with all our criminal history encoded on the chip (and we will all have a criminal record for something or other, e.g. not shutting the bin lid properly or looking at a policeman in the wrong tone of voice :roll: ) And of course we will have to pay for the privilege. :x:x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years ago, (6?), I drove a community bus, which took the elderly shopping or on days out. I didn't do it very often, only when the regular guys were un-available.

We all had to have police checks. And as I understand it, they were very cursory and unlikely to pick up any info. on the applicant.

If I had had to pay for it myself, I wouldn't have bothered.

I find it an insult to me as a person and a volunteer.

The whole issue has got a lot worse with all the hype that surrounds these issues.

I would like to know if LP can tell us just how many paeds that these checks have un-covered.

And also, HOW these checks will prevent paeds getting through the net?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw this new Quango that's been set up to amass this vast data base - will employ appointees - who obviously have an interest in keeping their jobs by hyping the risks. :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sunday Telegraph:

 

"In a major blow for the Government, Britain's largest children's charity, the NSPCC, criticised the regulations for parent helpers which it said threatened "perfectly safe and normal activities" and risked alienating the public."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
btw this new Quango that's been set up to amass this vast data base - will employ appointees - who obviously have an interest in keeping their jobs by hyping the risks. :roll:

 

Surely not Observer, surely not. :wink:

 

I understand that the Chief Executive is on over ?100,000 a year, and that the QUANGO will cost over ?40 million a year. One hopes that efficiency savings might be made eleswhere as there clearly will be duplication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many times, Peter? These checks are not "hunt the paedo" - they are a check that a person has, to date, not done anything that makes them an inappropriate choice for the job.

 

I am involved with a primary school, and a recent check on a lovely lady who wished to be a helper came back showing she had been banned from driving for a year as a result of a string of speeding offences topped off with a DUI. Absolute shock to all of us, who would happily have let her drive the minibus..... now, imagine if we had and THEN discovered after an accident that these convictions existed? We've welcomed her as a helper in school, but she won't be taking the netball team anywhere!

 

And as for you, Paul, so far you've posted that there's no point vetting non-family as most abusers are family; then posted that the idea of vetting family is the ultimate in silliness; then posted that all this form-filling and spying on people is the product of the warped Labour loonies, but also posted that the worst example of it is the Conservative Conference! When you make your mind up what you think, then maybe I'll be able to decide whether I agree with you! Flaming politicians - always on both sides of any argument to make sure they win! :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who decides what is and isn't "appropriate"? And in the case of your "lovely lady" drunk driver, surely a check by the school of her driving licence would have revealed that she had been banned without the need for this new agency. Common sense has gone out of the window. Even bodies like the NSPCC have come out against this. If you feel you can't trust anyone then fine, drive your own kids everywhere, never let them out of your sight, wrap them up in cotton wool. Best of luck when they're still living with you in their 30s because they're frightened of the big bad world. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the Woman who started all this nonesense (Ester Ranson) has now recanted, rightly observing that the situation has become hysterical. :roll: Meanwhile: we've had a mother who drowned her 4 year old in the bath; and another mother who stabbed her two sleeping daughters to death - perhaps we need a police check before allowing folk to have kids in the first place?! :?:shock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some good points asperity :wink:

 

Who decides what is and isn't "appropriate"?

 

The million dollar question, and who vets the people who do the vetting :?:

 

As for the drink driving, If you have been done for drink driving in the past, lose your licence (have it stolen or put though the washing mashine) and get another, it comes back clean so no one looking at your licence would know :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then is would have thought someone who hasnt had a driving offence for 10 years plus would have been ok to drive.

 

But saying that would a paedo check have picked it up over 10 years... i doubt it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to be something of an expert on drink driving LtKije. Is there anything you want to share with us? :wink::wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, right! :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What ever :lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

As part of my job I have to go on Nuclear licensed sites and MOD sites any drinking offense or drug offense would stop me. I would presume also that if you had a drinking conviction it could interfere with your job

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who decides what is and isn't "appropriate"? And in the case of your "lovely lady" drunk driver, surely a check by the school of her driving licence would have revealed that she had been banned without the need for this new agency. Common sense has gone out of the window. Even bodies like the NSPCC have come out against this. If you feel you can't trust anyone then fine, drive your own kids everywhere, never let them out of your sight, wrap them up in cotton wool. Best of luck when they're still living with you in their 30s because they're frightened of the big bad world. :wink:

 

No, you've missed my point completely. Not one of us would have ever thought to check. We WOULD have trusted her. Without the legally required automatic check that applies to everyone, there is no way that would have come to light. Honestly, knowing she has a history of unsafe driving and a lack of judgement over her own fitness to drive a car, you really think that it's hysterical over-protectiveness to decide not to give her a bigger vehicle and load it up with kids?

 

And I know you won't agree, but I think an automatic check that's the same for everyone is a damn sight less insulting than offering your services and having someone say "Hmm, well, you look like a bit of a drunk to me, so if you don't mind, we'll just check you, but we all think Mrs Jenkins is great, so she's straight in."!

 

And will you please stop saying it's a paedo hunt? It is the bog standard check for entries on the Police Computer System, and it's been in place for donkey's years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't drink at all when I'm on board, any incident would have us all tested for alcohol and drugs. So it's not worth taking the chance. The same goes for driving as far as I'm concerned. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deary me, you accept the need for rather intrusive random dope and drink testing to ensure fitness to be a sailor and have responsibility for the wellbeing of other independent adults, but you're squealing and screaming at the idea of completing a form to confirm fitness to have the care of children? I'd probably object more to being made to pee in a cup in front of witnesses before they'd let me drive the boat!!

 

Can I borrow that island where you hide until all the strange people go away?! :lol:

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...