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 😉
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?
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 [b]this[/b] 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?
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!
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!
So it's worse than useless then.
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?
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 [b]need[/b] to check [b]all[/b] 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?
It's assuming that you need to check all adults that want to interact with [s]children[/s].GUNS
yes 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?
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.
For more analysis on why this is badly thought out, [url= http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/11/isa_outrage_too_late/ ]The Register[/url] has been warning on this for a year. The comments after are illuminating too.
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?
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.
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 [i]is[/i] 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 [i]wasn't[/i] 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.
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.
[b]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?[/b]
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
what we really need is the paedofinder general
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.
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?
[b]STATS[/b]
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.
[i]Honestly all you have to do is fill in a form and children are better protected.[/i]
Have other countries implemented such schemes and have any quantifiable evidence of an improvement in child welfare after the introduction of such a scheme?
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.
Sounds like worthy intentions and bad law to me.
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.
[i]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]
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.
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.
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 🙂
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?
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. 🙂
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.
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.
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.
Spot on porterclough. It is madness to introduce legislation based on reactionary moral panic.
(Likelihood X severity) 😀...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.
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.
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.
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.
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 [i]perceived[/i] 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.
1. Occurrence and significationAn 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?
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
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 [b]not[/b] 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?
thankfully I have never found the malicious or inept use of C++ to be a factor in child abuse.
[code]class KiddyFiddler
{
public:
KiddyFiddler(void);
~KiddyFiddler(void);
BOOL GetVetted(BOOL beenCaughtBefore);
.
.
.
[/code]
Right so who gets the £819 000 000 quid raised from this hysteria
remember kidz were all guilty until proven innocent in Gordons world.... 😥
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?
Then you are also ignorant of the wider issues. Do some proper research (wiki only gives a general view).I have never heard of Cohen or his work
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.
