More vetting required for adult volunteeers

#1
Not sure if this has been covered elsewhere but the nanny state has now just gone too far. I've been listening to radio 4 and it seems that from next year peopie who volunteer to drive kids to and from clubs will also need a vetting check if they do it regularly - which is apparently once a month!!

madness - all adults are now criminals by default and I as a parent can no longer exercise my own judgement about who I consider suitable to transport my kids. Dear God why not just take eveyone's children away on the off chance we are all paedos.

Apparently it is all OK though because it is only a one off check that will last forever - which in my view makes it pointless and an uneccessary expense that will in fact have no value.

The Daily Mail is not normally right but I think their concerns are quite right.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tted-giant-new-child-protection-database.html
 
#2
Havent read the article. But this is redolent of "ticks in boxes". After the tick is in the box, if things go awry, the system can be blamed and everyone involved can be held non accountable.
 
#4
It seems a little ludicrous that they protect the identity of convicted sex offenders and then criminalise lawful members of society.

I shall continue to transport my childrens friends to scouts, swimming pools etc because when I am absent on duty, they return the favour.
 
#5
Two things struck me from today’s interview.

Firstly it was stated that the checks would be “free”. Wrong! It will take someone’s time to process the checks, and that person will be paid by the taxpayer. I have a lot to do with FoI requests at the moment & the amount of management time spent on them can cost more than the amount being questioned.

Secondly Humphreys had the spokesman wriggling like a worm with the following exchange:

JH: So the government is now going to decide who is fit to be with children? (or words to that effect)

Spokesman: No, the body will be independent.

JH: But who appoints the body?

Spokesman: The chairman of the body will appoint the members.

JH: Who appoints the chairman?

Spokesman: The chairman will be independent.

JH: Yes, but who appoints him?

Spokesman (after some hum-ing & haw-ing): Ministers.

Had to rush for my train at that point, but as usual I was not surprised. I’m increasingly worried by the control that the Government is trying to put on our children with the Early Years syllabus, encouraging them to inform on parents on “elf ‘n’ safety” or environmental issues & now this which could be used to ensure that no-one off-message can have access to kids.
 
#6
All this will achieve is a reduction in the amount of people prepared to put time and effort into activities for kids.
They were talking about quarter of the adult population having to be vetted on the radio this morning, at a cost of £64 a head.
The presumption of innocence has long gone in this country, now we must be suspicious of everyone and everyone must prove their innocence in a advance.
 
#7
Unfortunately InVinoVeritas, the criminal seems to be alot more protected than the victim in this country now days with new identities, nice wings in Butlins, sorry prison and so on.

My old man coaches rugby for my little brothers team and has been subject to these type of checks for years, back to 16 years ago when he was coaching my football team. The difference in that time is unbelieavable now though, he says the authorities have produced an almost fear climate where by at rugby training he just lightly pushed two of the lads along (not a shove, just helped them along) and another coach, without meeting him I'd say would be a wet spineless type said 'Ooh you can't touch them like that'.
Therefore they've created something where there seems to be no difference between touching in an inappropriate sense, and touching them full stop.
Ridiculous.
 
#8
I am all for restrictions and safe guards. I am actually, in my views on security and law and order fairly right wing. BUT, this for me is the same as the National ID cards scheme. It will cost a fortune, and provide us with no benefit at all. I can not see any positive points to this scheme at all. In fact, if anything, it might give us false assurances.

MrsBazzinho "Darling, you know the guy taking ladyminime to school is covered in blood and carrying an axe and three dismembered heads?"

Bazzinho "Thats okay darling, he had a government certificate to prove he is safe with kids, so I didn't ask about the other stuff"
 
#9
danqpr said:
Unfortunately InVinoVeritas, the criminal seems to be alot more protected than the victim in this country now days with new identities, nice wings in Butlins, sorry prison and so on.
Based on your time in prison learning how easy / hard it is?
 
#10
It is also nice to see that other comments, unproved accusations or basic rumour mongering supplied can now be taken into account by those involved in this database too. As has been said earlier we are now guilty by default it seems, and have to pay to be declared innocent by a Goverment that seems to be hell bent on recreating the days of the Stasi. In fact with this I think we are virtually there.

Shortly people will no longer volunteer, and why should they when it will cost 64 quid ??
 
#11
I am raging that I can no longer privately agree to take a friend's child every week to a club without the check or face a £5000 fine. Madness, parents have now totally lost their ability to decide who looks after their children - arrrrgh.


Children will now have it confirmed that all adults are dangerous unless they have a certificate that is useless once issued.

edited for mong typing.
 
#12
Utter madness. I can understand this check for adults that WORK with children or around children for long periods(Paid work i mean... I.e. teachers / caretakers). But they rest is madness...

Whatever next... Age aparteid? Adults not being allowed on the same bus as kids... or on the same street?

I don't see the job of government as trying to mitigate every conceivable risk.

This government gets more Orwellian by the week.
 
#13
Bazzinho1977 said:
danqpr said:
Unfortunately InVinoVeritas, the criminal seems to be alot more protected than the victim in this country now days with new identities, nice wings in Butlins, sorry prison and so on.
Based on your time in prison learning how easy / hard it is?
Not personal - had mates that have been in who have been fine.

Point being - look at Bulger's killers - cost the tax payers millions giving them new identities, housing them, keeping them hidden etc.
 
#14
Right.

Just checked the detail of the scheme, and the plan is it will work like this:

You pay a one-off charge of £64 (as a registration fee) unless you are an unpaid volunteer.
It only applies to organised activities - so not just taking kids to schools / scouts / swimming baths.
Once you are registered there is an immediate check of your suitability against police records and "soft intelligence" (i.e. the type of intel they had on Huntley).
Because you are registered, if any new information comes in they can then bar you from working with kids from that point.
If you don't register, then you can be imprisoned etc.

That all sounds reasonable and laudable, except for:

1) Oh good, a centralised government ran collection of personal data and highly sensitive data that if it is incorrect OR if it gets out could absolutely ruin your life more than almost any other data
2) Reliant on a bunch of civil servants with all of their usual abilities to completely and utterly fcuk up everything they touch
3) Who the hell will vet that the information is correct? And what is the extent and weightin on the soft intelligence? How long before the body responsibile decide that they need to also have financial information? Or web access information / web sites visited? How do you appeal against or get copies of your information?
4) Who is to say that the information is up to date? As per my previous post, it wont stop people who have never been convicted / questioned / caught from hurting a child and getting away with it.
5) The costs of this scheme and running this agency will SPIRAL out of control. CSA anyone? NOMS? NPfIT? etc. etc. etc.
 
#15
danqpr said:
Bazzinho1977 said:
danqpr said:
Unfortunately InVinoVeritas, the criminal seems to be alot more protected than the victim in this country now days with new identities, nice wings in Butlins, sorry prison and so on.
Based on your time in prison learning how easy / hard it is?
Not personal - had mates that have been in who have been fine.

Point being - look at Bulger's killers - cost the tax payers millions giving them new identities, housing them, keeping them hidden etc.
Nah mate - that is the wrong point. It is not supported by this instance fella. You are talking about being easy on criminals - the above story is about potentially making more of us feel exactly like those criminals. It is actually a very invasive nasty right wing piece of legislation. In fact, if it was applied, it would mean that people like the murderers of Jamie Bulger would be banned from ever volunteering at a kids club.
 
#16
This has all the hallmarks of yet another piece of grand yet largely pointless (and indeed damaging) "Security Theatre" which this government is so good at.

We have a brand new Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) to bolt on to the existing Quangocracy and this scheme is estimated to eventually cover 11.3 million people.

I will repeat that: 11,300,000 people. All to have CRB check and to be assesed on a case by case basis taking into account "police intelligence and other appropriate sources." Wassat then??

At £64 a time that is close to £723m in fees and it has no doubt already cost a huge amount to set up because this monster, to be run entirely by people who have a vested interest in bigging this OTT nonsense up, already has 184 staff and it is estimated it will employ between 200 and 250 full-time equivalent staff by July 2010. There is without doubt a vast IT system to go wrong as well.

Yet all this slips into being with no substantive public debate?
 
#17
Again the government misses the main point that most abuse happens in the family and not at organised youth events.

Another waste of time and money and another step toward a full Nazi/Communist style society.
 
#18
Postie said:
I am raging that I can no longer privately agree to take a friend's child every week to a club without the check or face a £5000 fine.
Not quite the case. If a group of parents privately decide to set up one of those "walking bus" things or to do a car pool to a sports club then checks will not be needed.

If the school or club asks the adults to do it checks will be required.

My father used to do some stuff for a car scheme taking the elderly shopping or to the doctor. A new regulation came in which suggested that the cash he was given to cover mileage was to be taxed as income & he nearly sacked it. If this checking thing comes in he will sack it.

He's already given up volunteering to be a projectionist at the local volunteer run cinema because the free pint that staff got was deemed to be a taxable benefit in kind & because a CRB check was required because children, the elderly & vulnerable adults go to the cinema even though none of those groups is allowed in the projectionist's box.

Our local day centre for the elderly, again run by volunteers with one paid member of staff who cooks, is already creaking at the seams because of the burden of policies on bullying, diversity, EO, H&SAW and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh & all that it is required to generate. If the charity was wealthy enough they could tell the Government to poke off: as it isn't it has to comply to get council funding.

Don't get me started on the Boys' clubs being forced to close because they are sexist. Anyway, off to the swimming pool to try my luck at getting in to the women-only swimming session...
 
#19
Blogg said:
All to have CRB check and to be assesed on a case by case basis taking into account "police intelligence and other appropriate sources." Wassat then??
Don't get filmed at a demo or sports match in case this leads "police intelligence" to think you dodgy!
 
#20
So it is a Friday night and there is a game on the next morning when you get a phone call from the manager of your lads fooball team "Bumroll, John can't make it tomorrow as he has been called into work, you have a licence for the 17 seater minibus can you do us a favour and take all the kids tomorrow?" Does that mean the game is now called off or we face a fine of £5000 if we do take them? OR in the real world we take them because we are responsible parents? It feels to me that this Gobment just want another way to take more money off us low life (The way I think they feel about us) tax paying majority. It makes my blood boil.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top