as a matter of interest, just how many potential peado's (in your initial 'first impression', or through failing a CRB) have you been approached by to help out at the club? Is it a common occurence?
Chat Forum
[closed]
Watch out there’s paediatrician about!
-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
Assume everyone's OK, don't bother doing any checking, and then round up the ones that are abusers once we catch them at it?
Anyone know what the rest of Europe does?
As civilised countries they seem to function pretty well without the UK's obsession with CCTV cameras and DNA sampling that we seem to think is essential for well being, so I'm genuinely curious what the other major European countries do with respect to this issue.Posted 2 years ago # -
It seems to be a little out of control, frankly, and is government jerking the knee in answer to a popular moral panic. Very few children are abused. Of those who are abused, very few are abused by strangers/cricket coaches/ballet teachers etc rather than their families. The measures to deal with the perceived threat are unlikely to be terribly effective at stopping abuse, although they will admittedly neutralise those who get caught once.
To achieve that (limited) goal in response to a hugely exaggerated threat, we do seem to be creating a situation in which the default position is polite suspicion of other people's motives whenever there is any interaction between adults and children. I tend to take the view that this not terribly healthy from anyone's perspective.
And apologies for the "berk" remark jon, that was un-called-for.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Without any statistics I would wager a small sum that incidents of abuse are broadly similar in both countries.
Probably, but I know that many other countries don't have the same level of tabloid-induced paedo-hysteria there is here.
A friend's Russian wife who came to live here found it really shocking and horrible.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Meh... I doubt it... though how would I know I guess
one of the problems is that offenders by their very nature are not out there 24/7 'offending'
Just because they weren't offending at the time, or didn't try anything on with you, doesn't mean they weren't an offender.
BTW, I've never heard of anyone at any of my old schools/clubs/associations etc making allegations of improper activities
I have - I've had occasion to speak to a couple of our club membership about inappropriate behaviour (bear in mind not everything is geared to sexual abuse - there's emotional abuse and bullying as well); other clubs in the area were also approached by an individual who was very cagey about going for CRB checking. The WO's at this club were concerned and approached the county WO who on checking with the Child Protection people at the police identified him as a 'rehabilitated' sex offender.
And by that token, i remain unshakeable in my belief that this sort of checking is a good thing.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Very few children are abused.
Not according to the report cited above. Not very many report the abuse, which i accept is because they are abused by people they know and trust who tell them not to.
Having reread my own post I also want to clarify. I have not had to deal with people in my club for sexual abuse. I had to talk to one player about distasteful innuendo type remarks which doubtless you and I would laugh at but which were inappropriate in earshot of a group of under 9's; and to one parent who verbally abused / bullied his own son for lack of effort during a game, which impacts on the responsibility to make the game as enjoyable as possible. Neither are particularly indicators they're about to commit a grave sexual offence; neither particularly require me to be an appointed WO to be in a position to point out why they are unacceptable. But they are.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Probably, but I know that many other countries don't have the same level of tabloid-induced paedo-hysteria there is here.
Thats my point really, perception and reality. Heightened sensitivy does not necessarily equate with heightened risk.
Posted 2 years ago # -
true surfer but ignorance does not equal safety either.
In terms of other countries it would be speculation only as the vast majority of abuse goes unreported and therefore even comparing reported cases does not mean comparing like with like.
In terms of this country sexual abuse, for example, the figures vary widely from 3% of the population to 30 % depending on terms of what abuse is and the survey.
Most is committed by people of a similar age via unwanted sexual advances through to assualt/rape. It is then family members next most likely, then its is people known to the family (not uncles aunties) but someone you know and trust with your kids who can say persuade the child they would not be believed because they trust me (this type the legislation is geared at ) like say a scout leader, football coach etc.
Finally stranger danger is the rarest and is usually flashing.
Of those who experience it those who are flashed tend to have only one incident of abuse. The others are abused multiple times over period ranging from weeks to years.
Females are more likely to be sexually abused than males.I guess it depends on your definition of very few is 5 % very few? I don’t know but I do know whatever the actual number is it is too HIGH and (within reason clearly) anything we do to reduce this number should be supported.
It is only filling in a form FFS they are not taking your DNA and Genetic fingerprint you fill them in to get car insurance, a tv licence, why not to protect children?Posted 2 years ago # -
I reckon we'd function pretty well without laws to regulate (and complicate) our lives... but then I'm a bit of a closet anarchist, so that's my bias
Fine with me, my bias is towards stabbing anarchists, decapitating their families and dipping my soldiers in the resultant holes. Can't wait for it to be legal!
Posted 2 years ago # -
junkyard, do you work in child protection? well raised set of points.
theotherjonv - Member
So, who is paying for it, then?
The government and hence taxpayer.
Yes.
The taxpayer also pays a fortune in managing the wide range of secondary effects of sexual abuse: mental health probems, suicides/inquests, drug addiction, violent crime (you'd be suprised how many inmates were abused as children), the investigation of 'uncovered' peadophiles such as the one in the nursey down here recently. Yes most people are abused by a family member or family friend, but nevertheless it may be a wise investment to screen out a few more abuse cases now and not pay for the knock-on effects of this when these children grow up.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Fine with me, my bias is towards stabbing anarchists, decapitating their families and dipping my soldiers in the resultant holes. Can't wait for it to be legal!
In my world it wouldn't be a question of legality, more a question of acceptability (by society/community as a whole). Don't reckon your bias would be considered acceptable and hence you'd quickly be eliminated
Posted 2 years ago # -
Two interesting/amusing/worrying quotes from the Speccy Coffee House article on this;
Anybody who wants to be with children so badly they're prepared to pay sixty-four quid for the privilege is a nonce right out of the box, if you ask me. Maybe that's the whole idea?
I see there is a picture of Ed Balls in the Telegraph today sitting in a primary school. Does he have a CRB check certificate?
Posted 2 years ago # -
I think you may be the one guilty of jumping to conclusions.
Without any statistics I would wager a small sum that incidents of abuse are broadly similar in both countries.Quite possibly - although I wouldn't be surprised if Spanish culture leads to different levels, whether higher or lower I wouldn't like to say.
What I do believe, though, is that the currently proposed checks are basically taking a default "guilty" position, assuming that noone can be trusted, and this I believe to be completely OTT, unnecesary, and in the long run will be far more harmful than no check at all. After all, if you basically send out the message to kids that no adult can be trusted, who will they turn to when they really have a problem?
Posted 2 years ago # -
It grew out of the fact that the perpetrator of the Soham murders had previous
Actually no he didn't. Allegations, no convictions, hence he passed the checks. If anything he's a good example of why schemes like this are a waste of time!Posted 2 years ago # -
If anything he's a good example of why schemes like this are a waste of time!
No, he's a good example of both the good and bad side to this kind of scheme - the checks also include "soft intelligence", unproven allegations. The basic idea is "no smoke without fire", receive a couple of accusations from unrelated sources, and you're a marked man (or woman). Of course, you could be completely innocent, and out of your chosen line of work for ever, with no legal redress, but never mind: at least the kids are safe!
Posted 2 years ago # -
So it's worse than useless then.
Posted 2 years ago # -
aracer
That is the exact point clearly you read the article the OP linked to
FAIL
The scheme was recommended by the Bichard report into the Soham murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman by college caretaker Ian Huntley.
Huntley had been given the job despite previous allegations of sex with under-age girls, which were not passed on.
Two hundred case workers at the ISA's Darlington base will collect information from police, professional bodies and employers, before ruling who is barred.
The rules aim to stop those like Soham killer Ian Huntley accessing children
Even those like Huntley, without a criminal record, could be barred if officials are convinced by other "soft intelligence" against them.Why does asking anyone to fill in this form assume anything? Does applying for gun licence assume you are a criminal or check to see that you are not one and compotenmt to own a gun?I dont really see what you find so offensive/different here.
I undertand the govt dont have a great track record on this with ID cards etc but on this they are correct. I have worked in child protection cases and when you see the damage done you would do something as trivial as this if it can protect just one person which it will probably do.
EDIT :if someone has
unproven allegations
It is now known that North East Lincolnshire Social Services had received four complaints of underage sexual relations against Huntley in the late 1990s.
Humberside Police said he was reported to them eight times by alleged victims, and he was also arrested once for failure to appear at court.
There were also three allegations of rape against Huntley.
One investigation resulted in a charge, in May 1998, but the case never came to court as the CPS was not hopeful of a conviction and dropped the case.
so then fit to work with children or would we jumping ot crazy conclusions by not letting him work in a school?Posted 2 years ago # -
Why does asking anyone to fill in this form assume anything? Does applying for gun licence assume you are a criminal or check to see that you are not one and compotenmt to own a gun?I dont really see what you find so offensive/different here.
Because it's not about owning a weapon, it's about interacting with children. It's assuming that you need to check all adults that want to interact with children. If implemented it will undoubtably protect some children - but what about the other thousands whose lives won't be enriched by perfectly normal interaction with adults?
Posted 2 years ago # -
It's assuming that you need to check all adults that want to interact with
children.GUNSyes totaly different.
If implemented it will undoubtably protect some children
agreed so what more important to you then the message it sends out or protecting some kids from abuse?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Well, I'm a Scout helper (i.e. I show up at Scouts and do basic crowd control; occasionally I go on bike rides with scouts).
I'm probably going to give up doing this once it comes into force (November next year?).
I'm not a lawyer, so I can't read through the legislation to work out all the things that might happen to me and then go to bed and sleep peacefully. So I think it best to avoid it as much as possible.
Posted 2 years ago # -
For more analysis on why this is badly thought out, The Register has been warning on this for a year. The comments after are illuminating too.
Posted 2 years ago # -
interesting that all the people with any experience of working within the child protection system at whatever level, from my very basic to others on here who clearly are much more deeply involved see this as a good thing.
The dissenting voices all seem to come from those outside the system, with no knowledge of what really goes on.
I simply don't accept that you are assumed guilty as a default position. You are just asking someone to undertake a simple registration to confirm there are no reasons why they shouldn't be allowed access to work with children and vulnerable adults.
To Luked2; that would be your choice but then you'll miss out on the enriching experience that scouting / working with kids gives you, and frankly you'll be the worse off for it. Speak to the scouting association about what you need to do, they'll guide you through it / arrange whatever needs to be done and assuming you pass, as I'm sure you will, you will be free to continue assisting. There's nothing complex or time consuming, and if people get sucked into believing they shouldn't do it by the civil liberties campaigners, either in the wider world or on here, more fool them.
I'm sure the system won't be perfect. There will always be the clever ones who have never been caught or alleged against who will pass the test. It's then down to the vigilance of the trained people to spot and act. Someone will slip the net and offend and the system will be criticised. But if the default position is that we grant free access to anyone on the street as of right, the guy I referenced in one of my earlier posts would be coaching at a club near me now, building up trust to a position where he can then offend and dispute the allegations because everyone will know him by then and it can't be so-and-so, he's a lovely bloke. That was his M.O. and without asking him to do the check the club would never have flushed him out. That can't be acceptable, even once, can it?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Whilst my sample size is tiny, the one person I know who was abused as a child and is open about it is totally against this new procedure as it would have had NO effect whatsoever on the ability of their abuser to have access to them. Why, because, it was a neighbour.
This same person was active in social clubs, sports etc and it's clear from this thread that enough people will be put off from volunteering that their life would have been negatively impacted by these searches rather the legislation having helped them avoid the bloke down the road.
I have NO faith that the system will work from a technical standpoint. I have NO faith that unproven and baseless allegations will not be used as a weapon against people, preventing them from working in their chosen field.
Interestingly it will definitely stop my company offering work experience to local schools because we'd have to vet the entire staff, and that isn't going to happen.
Posted 2 years ago # -
yes atlaz, your sample of one is too small.
What is up for debate is the financial and as you rightly point out practical (company stops offering work experience)cost of this versus the potential benefits in terms of who you might 'spare' from abuse (moral/practical) and how much that will save in real money in terms of society managing the after-effects of that abuse. No one is saying it will be wiped out within a generation, but someone is suggesting that on balance it is worth it.
In layperson's terms, keeping your car tyres at the correct pressure is a bit of a chore if you do it every week (and who here really does?) but it will slow down wear and decrease the chances of losing control of your vehicle. It won't mean you don't replace your worn tyres every so often or will never have a crash but most would aggree that it makes a small but discernible difference if you can be bothered to do it.
In general people that work in the field of child protection and investigation of abuse do have a good perspective of what is worth doing and what is probably not worth doing, just as experts in road safety etc do. The problem with all areas of safety and risk managment is that no individuals will be able to stand up and say "Hey, I wasn't abused/injured/insert-other-misfortune-that-safety-measure-was-brought-in-to-prevent thanks to this marvellous scheme, hurrah!" But plenty of people will have their lives made more difficult by these rules without ever being able to see or meet the beneficiaries of these changes.
The possible fly in the ointment is that the main beneficiaries are in fact those who will be tasked to do the work (ie capita!)and the public relations implications of responding to poor journalism that makes your balanced decisions look a lot dafter than they really are.
In a nutshell, unless the experts are being 'bent' by their own interests or those of capita, then they know what they are doing and we should let them get on with it.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I have NO faith that unproven and baseless allegations will not be used as a weapon against people, preventing them from working in their chosen field.
Again look at the baseless allegations against Ian Huntley above - he never stood trial for anything remember and had no criminal record.
4 allegations of underage sex
Reported 8 times by victims of abuse to police
3 rape allegations
Are you OK with him working with kids or should we be trying to stop people like him?
If yes then how do you propose to assess suitability then if you dont do a background check?
As for your mate abused by a neighbour the legislation is not designed to tackle this so it will have no impact on this. Again if you can think of a way of protecting kids from neighbours I know some people who be delighted to hear it.
Interestingly it will definitely stop my company offering work experience to local schools because we'd have to vet the entire staff, and that isn't going to happen.
Brilliant news one more child protected then from a potentially dangeous situation then. Unless of course you have some super human/sixth sense way of telling that no one you work with is an abuser .... if you have please share it with us.
As for those who would not fill in a form then much of everdaylife must make you angry , applying for jobs, getting a car, insurance, tv licence ...dont ever try to get a mortgage then or rent a house from an agency either ...hell you must feel oppressed everyday.Like the way no one actually answers the questions about alternatives so again.
I assume the default position for everyone is that we dont want children to be abused or put at risk. We are only arguing about how this should be done. If you object to this what would you suggest as an alternative to a background check?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Working in a hospital and having tho be enhanced CRB checked i completly aggree with what they are trying to do with this legislation and wouldn't stop me from work with children.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'm always unsure why people bring up Ian Huntley as an example in support of this sort of legislation.
Whilst he did work in a school, it wasn't the school the girls he murdered attended. Would stopping him working in that school have changed anything?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Brilliant news one more child protected then from a potentially dangeous situation then.
By that same token we could just ban children from leaving the house until they're 18, that way they'd be perfectly safe.
Or we could cut car accidents to zero by banning cars.
Etc.
julianwilson pointed out above, the question is financial/practical vs. benefits, I think that misses out the very important civil liberties aspect, another goverment check, another piece of paper to fill in before you can get on with a perfectly legitimate action.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'm always unsure why people bring up Ian Huntley as an example in support of this sort of legislation.
It could be because the legislation is a result of the Bichard report into the murders he committed
I have even cited this above.
By that same token we could just ban children from leaving the house until they're 18, that way they'd be perfectly safe.
Well apart from the fact that most abuse happens in the home. We cannot prevent it but we can minimise the risk which seems a sensible thing to attempt. Child protection is one issue children not going out is another. Th later also needs addressing as well.
Or we could cut car accidents to zero by banning cars
How about we ban dangerous drivers from driving cars and dangerous people from working with kids instead? Seems appropriate does it not?
very important civil liberties aspect,
As i have said if you hate filling in voluntary forms your civil liberties are oppressed on a a fairly regular basis. It is optional to apply NOT mandatory. Do you object to applying for a driving licence or should we just assume everyone (those with epiliespy , poor eyesight etc)meet the relevant sttandard?
Again filling in a form WILL prevent incidents of abuse not a high price to pay in the grand scheme of things is it?Again I note none of the objectors answered my question again.
What do you propse then?Posted 2 years ago # -
Junkyard - I don't think anyone is suggesting that someone with a history of multiple unprosecuted offences is going to be smoke without fire. However if I make an allegation about you and thereby prevent you working in your chosen career, is that fair?
People want to protect children and a fantastic goal is to reduce sexual abuse of children to zero. However, we know that even vetting everyone in the country isn't going to stop it. Or perhaps we should vet people and give them licenses in order to have kids of their own?
Another thing that is clear, from this thread alone, is that a lot of people will be feel even less like having anything to do with helping and mentoring children not their own and it's something that needs to be worked out.
The problem a lot of people have is not the AIM of the whole thing, just the manner in which it is being proposed to be carried out and the language being used ("If you don't like this, you're a paedophile" or "one more child protected then from a potentially dangeous situation then" for example). As you're clearly more informed on this than I, are there any stats that suggest how many children we can reasonably say would have been spared the misery of abuse if this legislation was brought into force, say, 5 years ago? I'm aware a lot of abuse isn't reported but lets start with fact and extrapolate from there.
Posted 2 years ago # -
what we really need is the paedofinder general
Posted 2 years ago # -
Atlaz, the benefits or rather 'reduction in abuse cases' from a change brought in five years ago will not be reliably measurable for at least five years more.
Most childhood sexual abuse goes unreported, at least in an official measurable way that can be presented as easily digestible statistics, which is what you seem to be asking for atlaz. (through my job) I know dozens and dozens of people who were abused as children, and children who have recently been abused. I know this from a variety of sources with varying degrees of measurability or reliability: my own hunches or suspicions (most abused children that we know of at least have some particular traits which are very rarely seen in children who have not been sexually abused), some just tell their friends/family, some also find the strength to tell a doctor, counsellor, mental health worker (which is where i personally fit in), some manage to tell social services and with the support of the last three groups, some even manage to tell the police. The minority actually make it as far as telling the courts and convicting someone with their evidence or statement. Yet however far that person gets with disclosing their abuse to someone who is able to add this to local or national statistics, or do anything about keeping other children safe from this abuser or bringing the abuser to justice, the effects to that person and back to my old point, the cost to society is theoretically the same.
There was a well known case round here of a man who employed and sexually abused teenage boys in a market stall, it wasn't until two or three of his victims came forward that the other [i]fourteen[/] did too. This was some fifteen years after the abuse took place in the case of many of these men. Several of them wer in prison and most of them had comitted numerous offences. (At a great financial cost to society, lest we forget) How do you carry out 'back of a beermat' cost/benefit analyses on that sort of thing with those sorts of variables? Someone is able to calculate a balance of probabilities on this but they will have an expert and national view over entire generations, not five or ten years.
I say again, leave it up to the experts to make this decision and trust that they are not being swayed by anyone with a financial interest in it.
You need to trust in a bunch of people who work in the field to make a balanced judgement on a set of extrememly fuzzy data.
Posted 2 years ago # -
However if I make an allegation about you and thereby prevent you working in your chosen career, is that fair?
Of course not but if our judicial system leads to innocent people being imprisoned is that really fair? Of course not but it does not mean the entire sysytem is unfair or should be replaced either. The implementation will be more subtle/complicated than that.
However, we know that even vetting everyone in the country isn't going to stop it.
Of course it wont but to do nothing will result in more abuse that is the point.Another thing that is clear, from this thread alone, is that a lot of people will be feel even less like having anything to do with helping and mentoring children not their own and it's something that needs to be worked out.
I agree this will be an issue. However I doubt any of those who say they wont do currently volunteer. Those on here who do this all seemed happy with the proposal (I bet they allready are via a CRB check)only those who dont volunteer with kids seem unhappy. Also it will clearly deter paedophiles/abusers from applying as well (NO i am not saying that anyone who refuses is a paedophile nor am I saying that those who are objecting on here are paedophiles)The problem a lot of people have is not the AIM of the whole thing, just the manner in which it is being proposed
Once more YOUR SUGGESTION IS WHAT THEN? what else can we do but vet then?
I keep asking this why has no one proposed anything better?STATS
Any stats would be pure speculation. Figures on abuse vary widely (3- 33%iirc)with the assumption that most(10-20%) goes unreported. To extrapolate from an estimate for the next 5 years would be very innacurate and not much more than a guess. Lets just say it is one incident of child abuse prevented would that be enough for you to be willing to fill in a form? Would 100 be enough for you or do you require more children abused till you would fill in the form? Seriously what number would you think makes the proces reasonable?In terms of people affected by this new measure they again vary widely. Higher estimates are 13.5 million people being vetted (I would expect much lower with most of those currently being CRB checked anyway).
About 3-8% of these will have something on their record. Dont forget the incident of a criminal record is about 20% for adult males alone.
Of these people think about 20,000- 40,000 will be "barred " from work.
Those figures are all best estimates. How many of those "barred"would have actually abused is again speculation.
Honestly all you have to do is fill in a form and children are better protected. You fill forms in all the time. Given WHY you are doing this it seems a reasonable and appropriate request.Posted 2 years ago # -
Honestly all you have to do is fill in a form and children are better protected.
Have other countries implemented such schemes and have any quantifiable evidence of an improvement in child welfare after the introduction of such a scheme?Posted 2 years ago # -
As I said in some detail in the post above NO ONE can give a quantifiable figure of current abuse levels let alone future events being prevented. It is difficult to compare our country to others as international rates/methods of recording/accuaracy vary between and within countries as most measures are either estimates or measures of reports (approx 75 % go unreported in this country at the time and about 33% never are). I am no expert on pan European rates or world wide prevalance rates so I cannot really comment further but I would take any comaprison figures with a pinch of salt personally.
As to this legislation how would anyone know how many people would have been abused if it was not introduced? Incidents are underreported, abusers tend to abuse more than one and each person more than once etc.
Like seat belts I dont know how we would calculate how many lives it has saved but I hope we could all agree it has saved some lives. Likewise this legislation will prevent some (NOT ALL) abuse occuring. How many who knows but what is the exact number at which you would agree the legislation is appropriate? I suspect no one is going to answer that one.
And again the default position is we ALL want to protect children so what do you suggest if not vetting individuals with access to children? Again no one has answered that either.Posted 2 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
