Jump to content
asperity

We're all guilty!!

Recommended Posts

LP, I didn't refer to it as a paedo hunt :shock::? And why should I submit to any sort of police check? Look after your own kids if you're that worried. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you willing take drug tests as I do as part of your job. Is there a big leap for you that people that work with children should take a test to see if they a competent :!:

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:

 

I get paid to do my job and therefore accept testing as a condition of my employment. I don't have to pay anything for the test, and it isn't being imposed on me by some government agency with a very vague idea of what they're actually checking for. I'm responsible to my employer for the care of several million pounds worth of ship carrying several million pounds worth of cargo, not to mention the safety of my crew, so I accept that it is reasonable for them to check that I am fit to do my job. I repeat that I don't have to pay to be checked.

 

No you can't, go find your own island. :wink::wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree with asperity that you should not be charged for the test. I am similar to him that I have to do drug and alcohol tests but I do not have to pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rifles said "paedo hunt". I didn't mean you personally.

 

In what way are you "submitting" to a police check? You complete the form, which is basically a bit of paper saying who you are, and then someone looks to see if there is anything ALREADY on the computer. Why have you got such a bug up your bum about it?

 

I'm not some loony seeing monsters everywhere. I just welcome any suggestion for reducing risk of any kind to kids in general - and I think you'll find most parents do too.

 

Let's turn this round. You tell me how many incidents of harm coming to children as a result of rejecting this idea, reducing or abolishing PNC checks would be an acceptable level of wastage in order to save the money and preserve your right to be regarded as beyond reproach without question? Would it undermine your views if we'd had no PNC check, so my story was that we allowed our nice lady to drive the team bus unchecked, she was tanked up, is doing three years for manslaughter because four kids died in the resulting accident and one of them was mine? And don't say that's silly - because the basis for this database idea is that someone abducted, abused and murdered two little girls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unpaid volunteers won't get charged. The proposed ?64 charge is for those who are paid. If there's a budget to pay the driver, there's a budget to fund the check. But no, I agree that these checks, if required by law, should not be chargeable.

 

And Asperity, quite apart from being exceedingly peevish with your island, which is not nice :x please tell me I did not just read you suggesting that a boat is worthy of more care than a busload of kids. The PNC check is not vague - it checks for criminal convictions, so people can make an informed decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey! If you want the people who volunteer to drive your kids to and fro to be checked thats fine. I'm sure there's a way of doing that without making legislation, creating another load of civil servants wasting taxpayers money, and potentially criminalizing innocent people. I'm sure that if you and other concerned parents were to get together you could vet each other to your heart's content. :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does it criminalize innocent people to identify those with criminal convictions? By definition, they are not innocent people.

 

You don't have the same objection to everyone on a boat being tested - is that not a greater insult or criminalisation to be assumed to be a dope fiend or a drunk unless you prove otherwise every six weeks? Why are you not resigning in the interests of nautical dignity and civil liberties?

 

Or is it that you can rant about vetting because nobody you care about falls into the groups to get additional protection?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rifles said "paedo hunt". I didn't mean you personally.

 

 

Yes i did , although i think someone else mentioned it first.

 

These checks are not "hunt the paedo"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a person doesn't get vetted and subsequently is found to be driving a minibus full of kids he is deemed to be a criminal and is fined ?5000, although I should imagine most people would say he was innocent. I think that's quite clear.

 

I wonder where you get the idea I have to be tested every 6 weeks. We have random testing as being tested on a regular basis would be self defeating. Once a year is deemed to be sufficient. And by the way I work on ships. A boat is a submarine!! :shock::shock::wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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!

 

 

WHO paid for the check?

IF a school or anyone business that has dealings with the vulnerable, wants to employ someone, it should be possible for the "employee" to get the person checked.

Also, that piece of paper is like an MOT. As soon as you drive out of the garage it is out of date.

I hope that you have had all the employees at your school checked out just in case some haven't relwased all the skeletons in their cupboard.

 

Given that you don't use your own name, have you something to hide?

PS. It is in bad taste to criticise people's grammar and spelling. Lymm must be going downhill, is it the "newbie" people? :shock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The checks are free, as they will continue to be for volunteers. All employees are checked and checks are required every three years. That has been the case for some time. Did you not know?

 

I don't use my name because my first posts were made in the uniform discussion and with feelings running high at the time, I didn't want anyone assuming that my comments were the views of my kids. Not only do I have nothing to hide, I have a PNC check to prove it. Do you? And let's be honest "Peter T" is hardly a radical declaration of identity either, is it?

 

I have no objection to anyone disagreeing with me, and I respect your right to an opinion, but I can't respect someone who doesn't declare any opinion or further the discussion, but simply posts a string of insults.

 

As for Lymm going downhill, well I hadn't heard you were moving in, but you're welcome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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:

 

That's not quite what I said. Actually, by and large I don't post on here in a political capacity indeed I even criticise my own Party from time to time (not too much though 'cos the L/Ds monitor all of my posts and use my comments...against me :wink::), I just bounce around a few thoughts which are hopefully objective rather than subjective. My guess is that this new Vetting & Barring scheme will prove to be a right shambles, and there will be even fewer volunteers than there are now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
all this form-filling and spying on people is the product of the warped Labour loonies

 

I sense that it is a commonly held view in our country, although I don't recall calling them loonies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not new. It's an extension of the existing and successfully operating scheme to close a loophole, standardise practice for everyone and keep kids safe. There might be an initial period of delays due to increased demand, but there's no reason to assume it'll be a shambles.

 

There are two reasons it'll deter people. Fear of being found out and fear generated by all the shouting that's going on about invasion of privacy and persecution of innocent people!

 

And yes, I am ever so slightly playing with you..... but you did say those things, in this thread and you can't post as anything but a councillor. You are one. It's like being Royal, or a Policeman, or indeed a felon - you can't switch it off. You can't even wee as a free man!! :shock::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And by the way I work on ships. A boat is a submarine!! :shock::shock::wink:

 

Yeah, I know that. I have a mate in the Merchant Navy and it makes him DEAD CROSS if you call anything floaty that's bigger than a dinghy "a boat". I was just being bad. :twisted:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not new. It's an extension of the existing and successfully operating scheme to close a loophole, standardise practice for everyone and keep kids safe.

 

I am not upto date with this with my limited knowledge, but has it been found that child abuse or any criminal activity concerning children will be supressed by this new extension to the existing and succesfull operating scheme or is it that the old scheme doesn't work as it still carries on ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bichard report (on the murders of those two little girls by the caretaker) made some recommendations in its findings. One of them was that the existing Vetting and Barring Scheme that applies to anyone in certain roles with childen or vulnerable adults should be extended to include some volunteers who are currently exempt for no other reason than the fact they don't get paid. I honestly don't see the big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree something needs to be done to safeguard our children but going off on a slightly different tangent i think we should start with a judicial system that actually punishes the bastards.

 

Chemical castration, life to mean life, amputation and with todays technology ...death sentence.

 

Any system that will actually will work and not another tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've no problem with shooting them. Line em up and pass me the bullets. My balanced and reasonable nature deserts me in the face of people who damage children like that in a planned and calculating manner.

 

And do not ask me what I think should be done to the stinking specimens who supply such people with victims and images in the name of profit. I can't think of anything bad enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there were no kids, it would solve the peadophile hysteria, the bad parenting problem and the over-population issue - errm, perhaps a tad too drastic! :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If there were no kids, it would solve the peadophile hysteria, the bad parenting problem and the over-population issue - errm, perhaps a tad too drastic! :wink:

 

And somewhat unhelpful in terms of the survival of the human race....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but there's no reason to assume it'll be a shambles.

 

 

Years of experience of these things. Not only will it be a shambles but ever increasing amounts of money, taxpayer's money that is, will be thrown at it......unless an new incoming government looks at the whole matter afresh....and links it with the exploitation of our children by the media and the like, and have some joined up thinking on this most serious matter. Somewhere in one of the posts there was mention of the internet, I can never understand why the servers that the ISPs use can't just automatically delete child sex websites.

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...