Jump to content
asperity

We're all guilty!!

Recommended Posts

Cyberspace is the one place where the civil libertarians have their own way. Anyone can own a server, they can put anything they like on that server - suicide sites, bomb diagrams, hate campaigns.

 

Major providers have filters to weed out the worst, but in order to trigger the filters, a site has to be tagged with certain key words that raise red flags. That means if you make your site private and only hand out the URL to interested parties, so it doesn't come up in searches or browsers, and password the pages too, you can have a private party with very little chance of anyone gatecrashing. You can have free space on any number of sites if you go along to an internet cafe and sign up for an email account. You can even sell the passwords.

 

Basically, that's what you get when you remove all checks, assume everyone is decent and allow everyone to do as they please in the name of freedom..... And as civil liberties are eroded in cyberspace by the evolution of new laws and controls, so the undesirable minority is being caught and locked up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YOU look like you might be one of them dirty, horrid kiddie-fiddlers, it was confirmed last night.

 

Seriously, what is wrong with you?According to new government regulations you are up to no good and always have this weird look in your eye, you horrendous pervert.

 

Officials stressed that not only do you have a lot of cameras but you have also been hanging about the school gates, grinning at the first years and touching yourself through the pockets of your grimy raincoat.

 

Meanwhile it has also emerged that you seem very keen to pick up loads of children from football practice and then take them to Pizza Hut where you will encourage them to order the sexiest toppings and then film them all eating melted cheese.

 

But last night the newly-formed Independent Safeguarding Authority agreed to tell people that you had probably stopped being an unspeakable beast if you paid it ?64.

 

 

From the Daily Mash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wonder if Elton and partner David will have to be vetted if they adopt that little boy from a Ukranian orphanage ? :? (S.O.S !) :lol:

 

Seems as though it won't be required:

 

"Elton John will be banned from adopting the Ukrainian toddler he found in an orphanage because he is too old and unmarried, the country's minister for family and youth affairs confirmed today."

 

Today's Independent.

 

Seems as though they don't do political correctness in the Ukraine then. :wink::)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pity we can't adopt the same approach here if you ask me.... two blokes adopting kids?? not right if you ask me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, there's no official legal limit in the UK. In other countries it varies - in China it's just 30. I just happen to know because a friend of the family was turned down when she applied to adopt a child she was fostering, on the basis that she was 60 and widowed, despite her wealth of experience with kids and her excellent health. There's no bar to single adopters, but as it was explained to our friend, the key issue is to provide a child with the closest possible thing to the family he or she would have had in an ideal world - and they wanted younger parents (preferably two and preferably other children in the family) so they were confident of a better match. And indeed, found one.

 

So being the only child of a single parent aged 62 with no experience of raising children would not be regarded as a good option - and given the number of people wanting to adopt babies, highly unlikely to be the best option on offer at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's Times:

 

"The man who led the investigation into the Soham murders has attacked the Government?s new vetting scheme, which will force 11 million adults to have formal criminal record checks.

 

Retired Detective Chief Superintendent Chris Stevenson said that ?no amount of legislation, record keeping or checking? could prevent future murders of children by paedophiles. He accused ministers of creating a state of paranoia after the deaths of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in 2002.

 

Mr Stevenson said that he felt compelled to voice his criticism after being ordered to stop taking pictures of his grandson at a village football match. He said that efforts to keep paedophiles at bay had gone too far and needed to get ?back on an even keel?.

 

His opposition to increased checks came as the Government ordered a surprise review into its controversial scheme to vet adults who work with children or vulnerable adults. "

 

Just wondering if the Government consulted with Mr Stephenson before they introduced the Vetting & Barring scheme.

 

And, in fairness there was also the following comment:

 

"Under the new system, Ian Huntley, the Soham murderer, would not have got his job as a school caretaker: there had been investigations that fell short of prosecution."

 

Albeit of course that in the Soham case, Huntley had not "groomed" Jessica & Holly, but rather murdered them as a result of a chance encounter according to police investigations and evidence given in Court.

 

PS Just noticed the following as well, which emphasises a point that I made a few days ago:

 

"The sad reality is that for many children, the new rules will do nothing. Experts believe that a majority of cases of sexual abuse involve family members or friends. They require no vetting to get close to children."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Today's Times:

 

"The man who led the investigation into the Soham murders has attacked the Government?s new vetting scheme, which will force 11 million adults to have formal criminal record checks.

 

Retired Detective Chief Superintendent Chris Stevenson said that ?no amount of legislation, record keeping or checking? could prevent future murders of children by paedophiles. He accused ministers of creating a state of paranoia after the deaths of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in 2002.

 

Mr Stevenson said that he felt compelled to voice his criticism after being ordered to stop taking pictures of his grandson at a village football match. He said that efforts to keep paedophiles at bay had gone too far and needed to get ?back on an even keel?.

 

His opposition to increased checks came as the Government ordered a surprise review into its controversial scheme to vet adults who work with children or vulnerable adults. "

 

Just wondering if the Government consulted with Mr Stephenson before they introduced the Vetting & Barring scheme.

 

My point exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a sad fact that there's no system that will stop sexual predators harming children.

 

It is a sad fact that the majority of sexual predators prey on the children nearest to them.

 

But how do these two sad facts lead to the suggestion that we should stop trying to reduce their opportunities? When it's also a sad fact that this new scheme WOULD have prevented Huntley having that job and the opportunity to kill those two girls?

 

I've not seen anyone who is objecting to the new proposals offering a sensible alternative.... step up lads!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a jungle out there; and we all need to be risk aware, but not paranoid, and the Government can't sanitise that, even with all the big brother data bases they desire. :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading there is an increase of sexual attacks on children by children will this new addition also include checks on children ?

 

Might sound a bit daft but where does it end?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When it's also a sad fact that this new scheme WOULD have prevented Huntley having that job and the opportunity to kill those two girls?

 

I've not seen anyone who is objecting to the new proposals offering a sensible alternative.... step up lads!

 

I'm stepping up...indeed as I always do, and in my own name!

 

Think you might find that in the case of Huntley the existing scheme at the time would have prevented him from getting the job, it didn't because of the admitted incompetence of Cambridgeshire Police together with the failure of the school's Head Teacher with regards to references and I quote:

 

"Two specific human errors were also made during the vetting process.

 

One staff member entered Huntley's date of birth incorrectly into the Child Access database, while another only looked on the national database under Huntley's alias surname Nixon.

 

Checking under Huntley would at least have thrown up a burglary charge from 1995 - that factor alone would have prevented him getting the caretaker's job, said the school's head teacher Howard Gilbert.

 

An internal investigation found "shortcomings" in the supervision and management of Cambridgeshire Criminal Records Bureau.

The report's author found an "apparent complacency" towards child access checks.

 

 

An officer told the inquiry the unit responsible for child access vetting was overworked. When Huntley applied for the Soham job in December 2001 he was one of 1,723 people being checked.

 

Head teacher of Soham Village College Howard Gilbert said he did not follow up any of the five references Huntley provided at his interview, two of which were undated and three of which were almost 18 months old. "

 

So actually this new scheme is not required, just the correct working of existing schemes and procedures, together with harsh sentencing of those convicted of crimes against children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Times, part of an article by Chris Stevenson the retired detective chief superintendent who was in charge of the Soham investigation.

 

"Commentators constantly refer to Huntley and the events in Soham as the reason for this. I am sure Sir Michael Bichard, who chaired the inquiry into the murders, did not intend such a wave of recrimination over one case. Yes, changes were necessary: Huntley lived a charmed life in Humberside, where he was investigated for a number of crimes. He was charged with rape, but after he spent a week in custody the case was dropped for lack of evidence.

 

As a result of poor intelligence, Huntley was appointed a school caretaker in Soham. Did that give him access to children? Yes, hundreds. Did he abuse them? No. In fact he reported to the headteacher that several teenage girls had made inappropriate comments. What Huntley did to Holly and Jessica was as bad as it gets, but did he come into contact with them through being a caretaker? Not exactly ? he was caretaker of Soham Village College, a school for the over-11s. The two girls attended St Andrew?s Junior School. Different building, different caretaker. Huntley had contact with them because Carr was employed at St Andrew?s as a classroom assistant. She worked in a class with Holly and Jessica, who both liked her. Holly?s mother sent Carr a box of chocolates on the last day of term to say thank you for helping her daughter.

 

The girls were sorry when Carr was not given a permanent job. This was what led them to Huntley.

 

Out for a ramble around Soham on the Sunday evening, they stopped outside Huntley and Carr?s house to ask after Carr. Huntley told the media that they were sorry she hadn?t got the job.

 

Tragically, she was away, visiting her family in Grimsby. It was the first time they had been apart overnight since their relationship started. Huntley was in a bad mood as Carr had told him she was going to her second party in successive nights. He was alone. Somehow he conned the girls into the house and they were never seen alive again.

 

Did he achieve this because he was a caretaker? He could have been in any occupation, lorry driver, architect, anything, and lived with a woman that the two girls knew and trusted. And were right to, as I am convinced that Carr would never have done anything to hurt them.

 

How do we prevent such chance encounters happening? We can?t. No amount of legislation, record keeping or checking could prevent this type of crime completely. Thankfully it is extremely rare. Children are far more likely to be killed by a family member or on the roads.

 

Only recently a young girl was murdered by her mother?s partner. There is a suggestion that she had been sexually abused. He then hanged himself. The girl?s mother described him as loving, caring and the last person she would expect to do anything like that. We await the inquest, when it will be asked if the killings could have been prevented. I doubt that the answer will be yes.

 

We are subjecting our whole community to paranoia. On Friday a BBC journalist announced on breakfast television that ?a million children are being abused?.

 

Where do these figures come from? How do we know? Are we feeding the paranoia that stops a grandfather taking a picture of his nine-year-old grandson playing football? Surely this cannot continue. Someone needs to put things back on an even keel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always said and I will say it again.... If anyone tried to stop me taking a photograph of my son in a play, a football match or whatever, they would have to be bigger than me to call me a paedophile, as it would be the last thing they would be able to utter for a few weeks.

 

This whole nonsense is being blown out of all proportion by people who believe the hype that there is a paedo on every corner. Instead of all this nonsense, why don't they just tell the public where these sick weirdos are, let the bag heads and scallys sort them out, no more problem.

 

As for some of the hysterical comments on here, can I ask one question? If you people who are sooooooo protective of your kids go on holiday abroad and go to the beach, do you go and shout and scream at every person with a camera taking photos which may have captured your beloved in a swimming costume? Do you hell as like, because on holiday abroad, we return to the real world; away from the Nu Labor paranoia state that we live in over here and just get on with enjoying ourselves......

 

For gods sake, stop bloody worrying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So actually this new scheme is not required, just the correct working of existing schemes and procedures, together with harsh sentencing of those convicted of crimes against children.

 

Right, so you finally got round to answering the question "have you a better plan" and the answer is "no". In true political style it was buried deep under quotes and coloured ink... but I ploughed on and found it!!

 

So let me just get this absolutely straight. You DO believe that volunteers to drive the school or team bus should be automatically taken on trust, but professional drivers need to be checked? That's the current system, working correctly. And you DON'T think that people doing the same job should be treated equally in all regards? That's the proposed "new scheme" as you keep calling it.

 

Let's just get back to the topic here for one second. It's not about cameras, or underage marriages or gay adoption. It's a simple statement that where checks are in place for drivers, it shouldn't matter whether they are volunteers or employees, the PROCESS should be the same. If the Government was handing out M&S vouchers to all drivers who transport children, then volunteers would be screaming for equality, wouldn't they?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought Lymm Parent what is actually wrong with the existing CRB system, which is available for checks on volunteers, and in fact free. Organisations simply have to have a policy that includes both paid and volunteer staff. Seems very simple to me, no need for a new scheme, just a wider implementation of the existing one.

 

http://www.crb.gov.uk/using_the_website/general_information.aspx#volunteer

 

PS Can you clarify what you mean by "true political style", I really don't understand what that means in relation to me, as I don't have a political style....just a Paul Kennedy style. :wink::)

 

PPS I sense from your posts LP that you are getting rather infuriated that you can't get your own way, and as I don't wish for your blood pressure to rise too much, maybe best that we agree to disagree on this "new scheme", and that we each have our own opposing views, and of course time will tell........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a thought Lymm Parent what is actually wrong with the existing CRB system, which is available for checks on volunteers, and in fact free.

 

http://www.crb.gov.uk/using_the_website/general_information.aspx#volunteer

 

PS Can you clarify what you mean by "true political style", I really don't understand what that means in relation to me, as I don't have a political style....just a Paul Kennedy style. :wink::)

 

Anything that includes the phrase "the new, incoming Government" at all or the phrase "nine months to go" when not discussing pregnancy is political. And you do it a lot! :roll:

 

CRB checks were done every three years and checked for convictions. PNC checks also check for instances that have not resulted in convictions. Frequently in cases involving young children, prosecution isn't an option. It's a more sensitive check.

 

Database registration also gives a pro-active option. As Peter T said, CRB checks were like MOTs. They were passive checks, and in theory, if someone committed an offence between checks, there might have been a period of time before their next check flagged it. With a database, then it becomes possible for the Police to alert organisations as soon as there is a reason.

 

With the "new system", you only get checked once and it's for life - because it's linked into the PNC and any offence will trigger action. It'll save money and time and reduce the number of times people have to undergo checks.

 

There's nothing "wrong" with CRB checks - but the new options are better. Faster, more efficient, less paperwork and hassle once it's up and running, therefore saving money - and most importantly, a system that doesn't have handy loopholes for the repulsive few!

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...