A quarter of adults to face 'anti-paedophile' tests (UK)

A quarter of adults to face 'anti-paedophile' tests (UK)

www.telegraph.co.uk

A quarter of the population must take "anti-paedophile" tests to have contact with children

The launch of a new Government agency will see 11.3 million people vetted for any criminal past before they are approved to have contact with children aged under 16.

But the increase in child protection measures is so great it is "poisoning" relationships between the generations, according to respected sociologist Professor Frank Furedi.

In a report for think tank Civitas, he said the use of criminal records bureau checks to ensure the safety of children and vulnerable adults has created an atmosphere of suspicion.

As a result ordinary parents - many of whom are volunteers at sports and social clubs - now find themselves regarded "potential child abusers".

(visit the link for the full news article)

But Prof Furedi's report, Licensed to Hug, highlighted examples of when adult-child relationships were distorted by the need for CRB checks already being required by schools and other organisations.

In one example, a woman could not kiss her daughter goodbye on a school trip because she had not been vetted.

This is one of those topics which are tough to come to terms with. On the one hand, there are so many cases in which children are harmed by those around them that there is definitely a need for something to change. On the other hand, how far do we go?

In this case, the nature of relationships between parents and their children could seemingly be subject to the approval of the state. In my own experience of CPS here in the US, the agency has become somewhat of a monster which often overlooks what is 'right' for what is standard procedure.

A mother was not allowed to kiss her child goodbye before undergoing testing? I worry that this type of governmental approach of screening parents may become a barrier to relationships between a parent and child. The potential for problems here seems to be great.

www.telegraph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

On the one hand, such things are necessary to protect kids from dangerous people. How many times have we heard of killers or rapists being persons that were in a position of trust?

On the other hand, however, if my daughters school tried to prevent me from kissing her goodbye, they would be met with the most vociferous opposition, even if it meant my arrest.

Originally posted by stumason
How many times have we heard of killers or rapists being persons that were in a position of trust?

How many times have we heard of good parents, good teachers, good babysitters and good role models that were in a position of trust?

Thats right. None. Because its not good for shock value media.

Its easy to assume everything has gone to hell and everyone is a pedophile when you do not hear stories about the many more people who are not pedophiles.

We have a similar scenario unfolding in this country and there's been no outcry or even complaint over it, which is sad. My wife volunteered to teach Catechism classes on weeknights at our old church for the grade school aged girls 4 years ago. Thanks to the in-church sex scandal (of which our parish was absolutely no part) which didn't even involve volunteers, but rather priests, she had to have a complete background check done at the sheriff's dept. including fingerprinting. It wasn't a big deal to her, because she'd worked her way through high school and college as an assistant in the alzheimer's ward of a retirement home/assisted living facillity and had to have the full background check and fingerprinting done there, also. I wasn't in the least bit pleased and actually declined participation in the church's education program because up to that point I'd managed to go the first 27 years of my life without ever giving up my prints for any reason. I was even able to have my concealed carry permit in Arizona without them printing me.

Unfortunately, since moving to Washington, I had to get printed to get my permit. I was really very sad to never again be able to say the feds didn't have my prints on file anywhere.

Wait, just wait a minute.

What does the criminal mind have to do with the pedophile mind?
Theres no correlation between the two.

Criminals, especially those incarcerated, are WELL known for taking pedophiles aside and punishing if not killing them for being pedophiles.
Something we morally bound citizens can't seem to bring ourselves to do.

So what does criminal background have to do with pedophilia?


Most pedophiles are non criminals, they tend to have squeaky clean criminal records.
These tests aren't going to eliminate pedophiles from being around your kids, they will eliminate those who have the balls to kill pedophiles who might want to touch your children indecently.


This is so backward, it's almost insane.

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi


Congratulations! You have won the award for best quote out of context

That is just another step towards 1984... as it is stated in many schoolbooks, the family is a disease as they say... well they are there to destroy it and to mount childrens against their parents. Divide and conquer. Hype the threat.

This is just another psychological experiment to make people think what you want them to think.

I'm in Canada, and here we've seen a case where the 12 years old child brought a case against his parents because he was grounded and he won. The COURT ruled over a PARENT in the education of a 10 years old!! We're going fast down the drain of the state owning your children and you won't have a say over them and they will be brainwashed to side with the government because their parents are ``restrictive, backwards, evil, control freaks..``.

I know how it works, a teen will most of the time, take the side against his parent... because they are in a rebellious state of mind most of the time. I know, I was. Then it divides the families and the teen now see the state has it's family.

I know it's an ``exageration`` but I think this is a small step towards that. Also, we could add that programs in school teaching the kids to spy on their parents is another, there's also others things but it's a large subject...

It's also a mean to put more people in jail, make money for the state, put people under fear and more control by the government.

[edit on 26-6-2008 by Vitchilo]

In one example, a woman could not kiss her daughter goodbye on a school trip because she had not been vetted.

It's nothing more than a control measure. This won't stop pedophiles at all.

reply to post by johnsky


I remember reading an interview with the ugly guy from the Royal Family (crappy English TV program..) who played the father, and how he was in prison and was accused of being a nonce (kiddie fiddler) and how it all ended up going down, because he had to clear his reputation. Being a violent thief is one thing, but messing with kids is another, apparently.

All organisations, associations, schools, clubs, churches, and leisure centres should simply close down and put signs out front that say "We are afraid."

I expect before they are done they will be giving sexual arousal tests to see if one prefers blue, pink, or lavender.

[edit on 26/6/08 by Pellevoisin]

what? Terrorism threats are no longer working on sheeple?

let's try sexual perversion as an excuse, then.

People who don't think the UK is already a nanny state better think again. The UK government is laughable. They treat their citizens like sheep and the average citizen has no clue whats in store for them. But people are waking up by the thousands (Just take a look at the David Icke phenomenon... his shows are now sold out months in advance and as he was one ridiculed for his claims he is now praised.)

Intelligent Cameras, people being arrested for clothing they wear, DNA databases for children, etc.... the UK govt better watch themselves because people aren't going to stand for the Orwellian nightmare that awaits them.


Remember remember the 5th of November.

Originally posted by stumason

On the other hand, however, if my daughters school tried to prevent me from kissing her goodbye, they would be met with the most vociferous opposition, even if it meant my arrest.

I was about to post exactly the same thing.

My girls get a kiss and a cuddle every day at school gates, or when they go off on a trip without fail.

Try taking that away from me and the school would be in for a shock.

CX.

Here in the states I was required by my churches insurance to have a background check to coach. They want a fingerprint check as well. I submitted to the background check but told them to take a hike on the fingerprint. [in polite terms] It violated my 5th amendment rights. I got to coach just the same.
I really don't mind the check but it only stands to reason that only a known sex offender would have a record. Most of these types of crimes are committed by those without records.

respectfully

reluctantpawn

reply to post by reluctantpawn


I have no problem at all with a background check. In fact I really feel it is a necessary thing. It just seems that the UK may be approaching this in a dangerous way.

Criminal does not equal paedophiles, as has already been pointed out.

There's a simple solution. Anyone who wants a job with children needs to take a test.

This test would consist of strapping your hog to a rod-o-meter while watching Romper Room.

reply to post by Sunsetspawn




You know. Thats a damned good idea! That would weed out the peds!

If only there be swift death for pedophiles once convicted, All this mess would not be going on.

But Institutions like the catholic church and such hide these monsters away (move 'em around the world to do their deeds) and the RRC is basically untouchable to us mere mortals.

So until society gets some big ones and takes on these creeps with harsh measure ..we test and follow like sheep.

I wonder what the ACLU will say about this (in the USA) as they always defend pedophiles and organizations like MAMBLA "man boy love association" which is a large pedophile group.

The problem is, not with those who work with the children. Certain procedures should be in place to help weed out dangerous elements. The problem is with the mother not being permitted to kiss her daughter goodbye. The government DOES NOT OWN OUR CHILDREN. Nor ARE WE CHILDREN TO BE TOLD WHAT OUR RIGHTS ARE OR ARE NOT! They or a corrupt judge may pass a pseudo law that takes away our sovereign rights, but it is not a law until I EMPOWER IT. Its just a crime against humanity with some very interesting signatures on it and when enough people move in on them, they will be dealt with.

No matter what crimes they create with their satanic ritual abuses and mind control to try scare us into giving up our rights, know the criminals are primarily them. Our criminals are trauma victims of their massive systematic abuse or mind controlled, for the most part. It doesn't matter what fear tactics they employ to try and get parents to think they own the kids, or herd us into wanting verichips implanted. Do not give into their crimes against humanity, because the rights you hand over to them, you have co-authored to be taken from your children. You become a party to their crimes if you give into them. All people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. I WOULD HAVE KISSED MY DAUGHTER GOODBYE AND SUED THE SYTSTEM FOR MILLIONS IF THEY HICCUPPED MY WAY!!!!!

[edit on 27-6-2008 by mystiq]

Involuntary desensitization, that is what this is.

Every generation feels that their kids are particularly exposed to dangers, and therefor feel the need to exercise more and more control and protection.
Those kids will grow up being used to this and will need to take it one step further in order to further protect their own kids.
It's despicable human nature in it's glory... change change change and more change.

Otherwise it can't be good, right?

Next step, microchipping, ranking latent behavior and subsequently regulations of so-called "potentials", part supervision and then complete supervision and proximity codes.
I know it sounds like sci-fi and doomsday bs, but look at human nature and see how one development grabs the next in line.
It won't be long before we need another rebellion, in order to reset our social conduct.

[edit on 27/6/08 by flice]

[edit on 27/6/08 by flice]