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:
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.do you have to not give your mate's kids a lift to play football or whatever?
[b]
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/b]The only people not motivated to apply will be paedos.
Jesus! I'm ****ed! I didn't apply!!!!!!11111111111111111111888888eee536dh3f7dbsla6666666666666666666666
Does this mean I'm going to prison?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Well said sofatester!
It brings me back to my point about disproportionate legislating in response to a [i]perceived[/i] threat. Bad for law and bad for society, it glosses over the problem rather than addressing 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?
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 [i]perceived [/i]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.
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?
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.
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.
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 [i]enormous[/i] 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.
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.
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?
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.
I think what you read and believe has distorted your view far more than mine as this quote would tend to support that
Thats another debate 😀 Although my view is arguably based on a larger knowlege base (re; legislation, law and its causes and effects at least). That quote was an example of applying some degree of critical analysis.
Apologies if my posts seem a little hazey, finding it difficult to condense my points from years worth of study to a consise paragraph 😆
I've just been reading the legislation itself.
[url= http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/pdf/ukpga_20060047_en.pdf ]Vulnerable Groups Act[/url]
This seems even scarier than the newspapers have been hyping.
Here's one thing that jumped out.
A care provider has a legal responsibility to inform the Vetting and Barring people if someone puts a child at risk of harm. And they get to go to jail and pay a fine if they don't.
Well, quite a few things put children at risk of harm. I've taken scouts around Thetford Forest - that puts them at risk of harm (sharp pointy trees, big holes in the ground, etc). So I'd need to be reported for that.
On Sunday I was helping in the kitchen at church. One of the children there is very autistic, but [i]really[/i] likes helping in the kitchen. I keep trying to keep him out (hot liquids, etc) but other parents (including his) have a different (and equally valid) view that he should be allowed in to help - it's something he enjoys doing.
So - I have to report any adults who let him into the kitchen. And If I don't, then [b]I[/b] get to be prosecuted.
[i]Well, quite a few things put children at risk of harm. I've taken scouts around Thetford Forest - that puts them at risk of harm (sharp pointy trees, big holes in the ground, etc). So I'd need to be reported for that.[/i]
Don't worry, they'll be a separate register that will list all trees that are deemed safe to climb 🙂
As an aside mrs Surfer did a 10k in Delamere forest last week and we laughed at the signs saying "uneven surface" and the fact that many of the tree roots where spray painted Pink, no doubt to alert people of potential tripping hazards!
The problem is we pander to the lowest common denominator in this country. It doesn't make us any 'safer'. A sort of backward benchmarking of behaviour if you will.
