LymmParent Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 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..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rifles Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry hayes Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted September 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 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 ) And of course we will have to pay for the privilege. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 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." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 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. Surely not Observer, surely not. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 Wonder if Elton and partner David will have to be vetted if they adopt that little boy from a Ukranian orphanage ? (S.O.S !) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted September 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 Even the Woman who started all this nonesense (Ester Ranson) has now recanted, rightly observing that the situation has become hysterical. 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?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 Some good points asperity 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rifles Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 Dont think a paedo check would have been relevant for a dui ... applying for insurance would have picked it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 Not after 10 years it wouldn't, You do not have to declare dui to the insurance after 10 years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rifles Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted September 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 You seem to be something of an expert on drink driving LtKije. Is there anything you want to share with us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 In a previous job I had to run a small transport dept, and it came to light after a driver crashed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted September 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 Yeah, right! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 What ever 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted September 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 Glad to here it Same goes for me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 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?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.