Sounds like worthy intentions and bad law to me.
Chat Forum
[closed]
Watch out there’s paediatrician about!
-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
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.
Define abuse. There's mental abuse, verbal abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse. Its a matter of perception and this is where the issue gets cloudy. Its only a small leap to define shouting at a child as verbal abuse and legislate accordingly...
Or are you thinking of abuse as termed by the tabloid media?
Reactionary legislation such as this is bad for law and bad for society.
Posted 2 years ago # -
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
I suggest we don't do anything apart from procescute to the full extent of the law anyone who does abuse children, and keep such people away from children in the future. Our UK society seems to be getting more and more distrustful of others as a default position, and anything which excerbates this strikes me as a producing a worse environment to bring up happy children in than a better one.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Our UK society seems to be getting more and more distrustful of others as a default position, and anything which excerbates this strikes me as a producing a worse environment to bring up happy children in than a better one.
Ian, are you also deeply disillusioned that your employer didn't just take your word about your qualifications and previous excellent work performance? How dare they ask for your education certificates and chase up your references! Or perhaps you run your own business and trust that your prospective employees are who they say they are and can do what they say they can.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I went to some shops earlier today and they let walk straight in without once asking proof that I'd never been suspected of shoplifting.
We can spend all day producing facile examples to support our points of view
Posted 2 years ago # -
trust that your prospective employees are who they say they are and can do what they say they can.
Once again, yes. I trust the people I work with to have written their CVs with a certain regard for the truth - I don't doubt they've exaggerated, they've probably minimised the detail about some employers, but I don't expect them to tell me they know Java or C++ and for it to be a complete lie. As long as they can live up to what they've presented, I believe them. The default position is innocence, not guilt. And as long as they show me competance, I couldn't care less about their CV.
How long will it be till someone who's passed the checks is caught abusing? Then what?
Posted 2 years ago # -
I went to some shops earlier today and they let walk straight in without once asking proof that I'd never been suspected of shoplifting.
We can spend all day producing facile examples to support our points of view...basic risk assessment Ian: likelihood of occurence plus impact/consequences of it occurring. I think the shop one is at the other end of 'likely/damaging'. Try something a little bit more calamitous than the simple and everyday financial loss of shoplifting and then see how you feel about safety checks.
[edit] I have heard some pretty shocking and underhand cases, but thankfully I have never found the malicious or inept use of C++ to be a factor in child abuse.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Surely the problem with all this type of thing is that the result will be that the only people still wanting to have contact with children will be the very people who should not have contact with them, as they will be the most motivated.
This sounds like the dangerous dogs act to me - bad legislation introduced too quickly as the result of a media panic about an overhyped single incident. If the Soham murders hadn't been in the summer silly season they'd not have received the disproportionate coverage they did.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Good points, porter. The same is true of the firearms controls after Hungerford. Kneejerk political reaction which failed totally to address the issue of illegal guns while at the same time penalising honest people. This seems to do the very same.
Posted 2 years ago # -
None of this legislation would have caught the family member (now dead) who abused 2 generations in my family. It's bad, knee-jerk legislation and it will need revising. I used to volunteer as a Scout Leader, fully warranted, this would make me feel uncomfortable as the system as proposed is so open to abuse to prevent people doing something they enjoy.
The problem may be more with the CPS stopping cases that have a fair chance of success and thus preventing a proper record of abuse. Justice is not cheap and attempting to save money by stopping cases is most likely the root cause of the current problems.Posted 2 years ago # -
Spot on porterclough. It is madness to introduce legislation based on reactionary moral panic.
...basic risk assessment Ian: likelihood of occurence plus impact/consequences of it occurring. I think the shop one is at the other end of 'likely/damaging'. Try something a little bit more calamitous than the simple and everyday financial loss of shoplifting and then see how you feel about safety checks.
(Likelihood X severity)
Shoplifting is far more likely (common) than child abuse. Athough the severity is higher for the latter.
Disproportionate legislating in response to a percieved threat makes a mockery of our legal system.
Posted 2 years ago # -
again, porterclough, from my experience in the field the opposite is true. Why on earth will honest, well intentioned people stop applying? It won't stop me, I have nothing to worry and therefore why should I not apply?
In my experience of asking potential volunteers at our cricket club, and experience gleaned by other WO's at other clubs, the only person who has volunteered and then baulked once they were asked to undertake CRB checking had good reason, he was a convicted and 'rehabilitated' paedophile whose licence barred him ever working with children / vulnerable adults again. Every single other person has willingly undergone CRB checking? Why's that going to change?
The people that do this are cowards. Anything that will increase their risk of being caught will make them less likely to do it.
Posted 2 years ago # -
reactionary moral panic.
a percieved threat
lol. Read junkyard's posts again please. Oh and google 'Bill Goad' if you are really wondering how it all works. (the Wilson involved in investigating that case is no relation BTW)
its a form for goodness' sake not a body cavity search. If you don't want to have one done then don't apply for a job. Although quite how that would put anyone off a job (considering the amazing selection processes these days) is beyond me.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I think you should do some research. (Actual study rather than spurious spouting from google) Read some Stanley Cohen. Points for seeing if you can google and find his most well known works.
You obviously don't see the general cumulative effect of such legislation preferring to focus on the micro. That's your prerogative, however I feel this makes you ignorant. You, as I am also, are entitled to your opinion.
It is a reaction to a perceived threat unless you can prove that there is significant risk of abuse to a significantly large section of society. Otherwise it is pointless, needless and worthless overkill.
Posted 2 years ago # -
1. Occurrence and signification
An event occurs and, because of its nature, the media decide it is worthy of dramatic coverage ("Full Colour Pics of Satanic Abuse Site", "Razorblade Found In Babyfood" etc) and the event is signified as a violent, worrying one.
2.Wider social implications (fanning the flames)
Connections are made between one event and the wider malaise of society as a whole. After the initial event, the life of the story is extended through the contributions of 'expert' opinion makers, who establish that this one event is just the tip of the iceberg, and that it is part of an overall pattern which constitutes a major social menace ("Child abuse figures on the up" "Safety concerns at babyfood packing plants" etc etc). Thus public attention is focused on the issues
3.Social Control
Moral panics seek some sort of resolution and this often comes with a change in the law, designed to further penalise those established as the threatening deviants at the source of the panic ("New clampdown on devil-worshippers". "Strict New Safety Controls on Babyfood"). This satisfies the public who feel they are empowered politically by the media.
Seem familiar?
Posted 2 years ago # -
It is a reaction to a perceived threat unless you can prove that there is significant risk of abuse to a significantly large section of society. Otherwise it is pointless, needless and worthless overkill.
will prevalence rates of abuse suffice then?
look here then
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/Briefings/prevalenceTable1_wdf49715.pdf
Agains surveys show that we are talking abiut 10 -20 % of the population. A figure so high that most people tend to just denounce it as b0llocks but hey you can all use Google and find the results out for yourself.
Knee jerk reaction a judical survey started dec 2003, published June 2004 and implemented in 2010.. the very definition of kneejerk reaction there.
It is interesting that no one in the field is objecting only those of you who dont work in the field.
Do you doubt this legislation will prevent inceidents of abuse?
Why is NOT filling in a form more important to you than protecting children and preventing abuse?
Porterclough
Surely the problem with all this type of thing is that the result will be that the only people still wanting to have contact with children will be the very people who should not have contact with them, as they will be the most motivated.
Honestly are you trying to say here only paedos will apply now there is a form involved? Why on earth would you think that? Surely the reverse is true ? The only people not motivated to apply will be paedos. See the otherjonv post for example (someone again with experience in this area) and please do try and explain why you think this to be the case.
Sandwich
The problem may be more with the CPS stopping cases that have a fair chance of success and thus preventing a proper record of abuse.These kind of thing that would not appear on a current CRB test will appear on an ISA report..
Fill in a form and protect kids or go on about knee jerk reactions and dont protect children. It really is not a difficult choice for me.
I have never heard of Cohen or his work but [if wiki is to be believed] apparently
Cohen suggests the media overreact to an aspect of behaviour which may be seen as a challenge to existing social norms
I think child abuse does not actually challenge social norms it actually violates them. Anyone care to disagree?
Posted 2 years ago # -
thankfully I have never found the malicious or inept use of C++ to be a factor in child abuse.
class KiddyFiddler
{
public:
KiddyFiddler(void);
~KiddyFiddler(void);BOOL GetVetted(BOOL beenCaughtBefore);
.
.
.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Right so who gets the £819 000 000 quid raised from this hysteria
remember kidz were all guilty until proven innocent in Gordons world....
Posted 2 years ago # -
It is interesting that no one in the field is objecting only those of you who dont work in the field.
I work with young people (and have a full enhanced CRB check) and I don't like this new legislation personally. I do feel we are pandering to tabloid hysteria in this country - and I agree that we are getting to the point where we suspect everyone of being a paedophile.
And what about those who pass all the tests, does that then mean that they are definitely not a paedophile? Doesn't most abuse/paedophilia occur in the family home by a family member or close friend anyway, which this isn't really going to help.
One of the reasons there are so few male primary school teachers is because of fears of being branded a paedophile. It's a very sad state of affairs.
Edit: Also, it can already take weeks to get a CRB check, if they really want to check this many people, the admin burden is going to be ridiculous. What about while you are waiting for your test to come through, do you have to not give your mate's kids a lift to play football or whatever?
Posted 2 years ago # -
I have never heard of Cohen or his work
Then you are also ignorant of the wider issues. Do some proper research (wiki only gives a general view).See Folk Devils and Moral Panics.
What do your stats actually tell us taken completely out of context?
It is interesting that no one in the field is objecting only those of you who dont work in the field.
You don't know my credentials so you are assuming.
I have never mentioned 'knee jerk' BTW.
Posted 2 years ago # -
grumm did you read the whole thread? we discussed most of the above and yes most happens by a family member, it wont prevent all abuse, ,much like speeding limits dont stop speeding. It will stop some though that is the critical point and your civil iberties are infringed to the extent that you fill in a form like you do for many other mundane things without protest including the CRB form.
any chance of a reference for
One of the reasons there are so few male primary school teachers is because of fears of being branded a paedophile. It's a very sad state of affairs.
that really does sound like hpyperbole to me.
EDIT:
do you have to not give your mate's kids a lift to play football or whatever?
if it is an arrangement between you and your mate the legislation does not apply. If it is an arrangement between you and the club then it does appply.Posted 2 years ago # -
The only people not motivated to apply will be paedos.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Jesus! I'm ****! I didn't apply!!!!!!11111111111111111111888888eee536dh3f7dbsla6666666666666666666666
Does this mean I'm going to prison?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Sorry only skimmed the thread.
that really does sound like hpyperbole to me.
Not exactly research but...
Graham Holley, chief executive of the Training and Development Agency for Schools, said it is "immensely sad" that people question the motivation of men who want to work with young children.
Speaking after The Daily Telegraph disclosed that just one in 50 teachers of the youngest primary school pupils is male, he claimed the fear of being labelled a paedophile is the biggest obstacle to men beginning careers in teaching.
Mr Holley said: "In my view, the biggest obstacle is society's attitude. Men are deterred, partly because there is a prurient element of society that questions the motivation when men wish to work closely with young children.
"That is an immensely sad indictment of the way, in this so-called enlightened century, we can still be so uncritically suspicious of people who share the most selfless of motives: to help improve young lives.
"This fear of being labelled a paedophile is the single biggest deterrent to men who would otherwise consider teaching in our primary schools.Again, it's only the Telegraph but:
Critics say men are deterred from working with young children because of the idea that it is “women’s work”, the low wages and fears they may be branded paedophiles.
But they warn that the absence of male influence in classrooms means that many pupils grow up without important role models, and can lead to problems with discipline.
Anastasia de Waal, head of family and education at the think-tank Civitas, said: “It is very important for children, particularly young ones, to see men as teachers. Seeing men as role models is very important.Posted 2 years ago # -
These kind of thing that would not appear on a current CRB test will appear on an ISA report..
My point was there is all ready a system in place to stop abusers but because of the way the CPS acts as judge and jury before a case is heard we have introduced a deeply flawed system to rectify a fault that should not exist.
I'm all for protecting society, but it has to be all of society and it's rights, you are peddling the "nothing hide nothing to fear defence". Children's lives are no more precious than pensioners lives, they are equally precious.Posted 2 years ago # -
Children's lives are no more precious than pensioners lives, they are equally precious.
+1
"Think about the old people" doesn't have the same ring to it as "think about the children" does it!
For every child abused i wonder how maybe old folk are sitting pissing there pants because the carer is late or dieing alone because there "children" have forgotten about them?
Posted 2 years ago # -
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!
iirc, these sort of allegations fall under data protection, and the nature of the allegation, as well as the person(s) making them cannot be named, making refutation impossible.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Well said sofatester!
It brings me back to my point about disproportionate legislating in response to a perceived threat. Bad for law and bad for society, it glosses over the problem rather than addressing it.
Posted 2 years ago # -
For every child abused i wonder how maybe old folk are sitting pissing there pants because the carer is late or dieing alone because there "children" have forgotten about them?
Again a reasonable point and we should also do something about that but because this may/does happen should we just let the sexual abuse of children go unchecked?
Sitting in your own urine and unwanted sexual contact/abuse as a minor are clearly of a different magnitude.As to
my point about disproportionate legislating in response to a perceived threat.
Whilst on an individual basis it is a percieved threat the reality is that collectively it is a real threat as people in positions of trust do abuse children.I assume you are not disputing this fact? As for disproportionate legislation you only have to fill in a form FFS and it is NOT even compulsory like say ID cards would have been /will be. Again not even close to my definition of disproportionate.To be honest I would agree with most of the civil liberty objection raised if it was ID cards or the information/proces they requested went too far(pschometric testing, interviewing neighbours, police interview, social worker assessment for example). However are you honestly not prepared to fill in a form to protect children from abuse?
GRUMM - you read the Telegraph I always had you down as a Guardian man.
Interesting point but I dont agree with his personal opinion [he was clear it was his opinion} on it. ..most people just think I am nice for doing the job I do...well to my face ..or say I could not do what you do.Posted 2 years ago # -
Sitting in your own urine and unwanted sexual contact/abuse as a minor are clearly of a different magnitude.
No they are not, do not diminish others suffering to try and put your point across. Abuse is abuse as you pointed out above and as such should be tackled with the systems we have in place not "improved" with poor legislation.
It's not compulsory now..., what happens in the future and mission creep is not unheard of in beaureaucracy circles?
Posted 2 years ago # -
It's not compulsory now..., what happens in the future and mission creep is not unheard of in beaureaucracy circles?
Exactly. Hence my earlier point about where do we stop? Do we legislate against against shouting at childen? Abuse is a matter of perception.
I know of three separate people in positions of authority involving young people, who have been falsely accused. All were totally vindicated but all were suspended pending inquiry etc etc... one is now only a shadow of his former self and had his life turned upside down... anecdotal granted however there is a flip side to the crusade for 'child protection'
Children lie. To put all emphasis on the thought that all children are innocent, to the detriment of the authority of adults is dangerous.
To say it is only a form, is to miss the point.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Again not even close to my definition of disproportionate.
That's because your definition and opinion is formed from the distorted picture you get from the mass media. Hence my points about moral panic(Stan Cohen & Jock Young). Googleing to find figures that seem to back up what you say. However apply some critical analysis. The nspcc figures you quoted:- they arguably have a financial incentive to 'talk up' the occurrence of child abuse and distort the picture.
It genuinely scares me how so many swallow the 'official line' hook line and sinker.
Posted 2 years ago # -
jackson-pollock, what educational/professional area are you coming from with your points? Assuming you haven't been on one (you mentioned that you hadn't mentioned you didn't work in the 'field') perhaps you should go on a child protection/"what to do if you suspect a child has been abused" course (just the sort they send teachers on, nothing too heavy) and the trainers will point out all your points above and they will still tell you its worth it. On my last course, I had all these conversations especially the 'moral panic/razors in babyfood' and the teachers' career ruined ones, and a couple more (which are possibly not for a family forum) with a lecturer in social work-turned investigator of child abuse. He had a box full of papers and statistics, but also a far better take on the balance between hard stats and 'fuzzy logic' of policy in this area than I am able to word here. I was undoubtedly the 'un-pc dissenter' in my 'class' (high beard, sandals and conker shoes content in Children's mental health
). And I still went away with a somewhat recalibrated (upwards) sense of how much is too much. Like it or not it is these people not you (unless you have something to raise with the class?) who are experts in the incidence, severity and impact of abuse -did i mention the enormous financial cost to society of the social/health/criminal consequences of sexual abuse? -these aren't just lefty bleeding hearts like me making these decisons you know. We seem to credit the policy-makers with far too much humanity and feeling. They are working in a field that is driven hugely by some often very cruel cost-benefit analyses, many of which upset my liberal sensibilities greatly, and they think this is financially worth it.
Posted 2 years ago # -
jackson-pollock, what educational/professional area are you coming from with your points?
Criminology specializing in Criminal Law.
I am well aware of the severity & consequences resulting from child abuse. However the likelihood of it occurring is greatly less than mass media would have you believe. I do not think policy and legislation should be dictated by moral panic.
Posted 2 years ago # -
thanks for clearing that one up JP. (lovely acronym, non?)
I don't believe the mass media either; lordy, if i did my practice would be all over the shop! I am not sure the Nursing and Midwifery Council accepts that reading the Telegraph counts as Continuing Professional Development -I have to go a bit more 'peer reviewed academic journal' than that.
I don't think policy and legislation should be dictated by moral panic either. (at least we agree on something
) I just don't feel this legislation particularly is. Its not so bad in Children's mental health but when I worked with schizoprenia/drug addiction/offending the 'moral panic'/local press factor was frequently quite ludicrous. What people wanted there was really not what would really help overall. However cponversely, you wouldn't believe some of the morally 'wrong' decisions that did not get publicised in health and social care because of purely financial/logistical reasons. Perhaps we just differ in our 'underestimated danger vs moral panic' measurements then?
Posted 2 years ago # -
That's because your definition and opinion is formed from the distorted picture you get from the mass media.
For the record then I am currently a young peoples worker with a background working for Social services/child protection and teaching.
Currently I am rather sadly involved in 3 child protection cases with one due in court in the next few weeks.
I think what you read and believe has distorted your view far more than mine as this quote would tend to support that
The nspcc figures you quoted:- they arguably have a financial incentive to 'talk up' the occurrence of child abuse and distort the picture.
Thankfully ,yes, child abuse is infrequently rare but when it does happen the effects on the young persons lifes are truly devastating- I am sure you can agree with that.
When simply filling in a from may prevent it why would you not want to.EDIT: I agree ith Mr Wilson as well the moral panic that led to the locking up of the mentally ill who had committed no offence is perhaps a better example of what JP is trying to say. Clearly media fuelled moral panic does happen and is almost always unhelpful.
Posted 2 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
