I think there's a fine line between creating a safe environment for children and fostering a witch hunt mentality when it come to this type of legislation and more often than not we fall either side of that line.

Because I work in social care, albeit with vulnerable adults...not children, I'm subject to rigous police checks on a regular basis. Because I'm relocting and applying for jobs now, most companies expect you to pay for a CRB enhanced discloure (about £35 each time) I've got 3 already from March this year, but I'll have to pay for more depending on the companys I apply to.

The thing is, once you're employed, you're often left to work on your own with service users who are non verbal or have very poor communication skills. So potentially it's open season for any nasty piece of work. Then again the cost of the CRB lines someones pocket and keeping you on as a lone worker means employers not having to fork out for extra staff. I suspect a lot of the legislation has been hi-jacked as a money making enterprise.

I'm all for as much legal action to protect the vulnerable of any age, and I'd rather it was on the draconian side than too lax, but I think a good dose of common sense wouldn't go amiss.

did you know that a paedophile in the uk who has sex with a 13 year old would not be considered a paedophile in spain, as the age for consent there is 13 . thats something that should be changed as spain is part of the european union. all of europe should be standardised. many young men charged with under aged sex in the uk end up living in spain when released from prison .

reply to post by read between the lines

---

Fix the Uk's own culture before preaching to others As to this,like others have said..on the one hand you want to protect the young...but on the other it's also vile how they think paedophiles are lurking around every corner.I dont agree with this policy...the risks FAR outweigh the benefits,paedophiles will always exist,freedom only lasts as long as you allow it to.

If it were that easy...

Most kids are abused within a "family" either close family friends, parents, step parents...etc.

people who through the course of their jobs must form "relationships" with children should be screened better.

Most rapes and molestations of kids occurs when a pedo forms some trust with the child...this takes time.

Too bad my Mother's pedo boyfriend back when I was 8 couldn't be tested.

Most organizations that serve children do screen as best they can and do ask questions prior to employ that may indicate problems...trouble is that most pedos know the system so well they can circumvent and potential obstacles to getting close to their prey.

This guy my Mom dated was a Lodge member, a Scout Master, a Firearms instructor, coached soccer...he had three sons and abused them all as well as me...not all are particular on sex of victim. Availability and opportunity are key for them.

If the tests ACCURATELY screen out potential abusers - meaning a success rate of near 100% with little or no chance of false positives/false negatives then it can't be bad thing.

Reality is though that they can't test everyone and abusers are damned good at finding ways around the systems in place already.

reply to post by Solomons

---

i guess you had to move to spain . im just of average intelegence i dont realy understand you. are you with me or against me.

Thats a nice black and white picture you have there,you should frame it.

Is this really a surprise...

EVERY person you meet on the internet is a 50 year old bloke who is grooming you and will eventually try to kidnap you.

EVERY stranger is a paedophile.

EVERY male teacher who is left alone with a girl for 1 second is a paedophile.


If you have one ounce of kindness to somebody you don't know, they will abuse it and kidnap you...

Kids get this sort of rubbish drummed into them every single day of their childhood. And it's utter nonsense. I have never met some of my best friends, I have had my life saved twice by somebody I never even met... The government just seems to drag it the opposite way.

??? From what I read in the OP, this is refering to CRB (Criminal records beurau s.p?) Checks. This is a standard form nearly every employee in the UK has to fill out, if they are in a job where they will come into contact with minors, elderly or in a job where they will be visiting customers homes etc.

It weeds out the potentional violent, thieves and those with sex abuse history from going into jobs where they have an opportunity to re-offend.

Seems to me the OP is taking it out of proportion! If it was regular people who wanted to get visitation rights for seeing thier children etc, then I would understand why he made the post...

reply to post by SystemiK

---

They have got it so wrong, they do not 'test' for paedophiles, its a backgropund check! Yes CRB checks are needed (even people who seem very normal can be offenders. They are sneaky, cunning people who cover their tracks flawlessly) but they are little use as a test for paedophiles, just a source of past offences. What they atually need to include in this test is quite contaversiol but necessary if they are to determine the truth. I watched a program a couple of years back where they took a group of women and gave them a series of videos to watch whilst hooked up to sensors. Some of which was hardcore pornography. Interestingly the results of all showed they're bodies had become aroused even though some of there minds told them they did not like it. I am sure the same practice be used when testing paedophiles. I'm not sure if it would just prove to contaversial for this to ever be considered.

Thoughts are not a crime,the actions you take from that thought are a crime. Yet another poor thought out *weed out the paedophiles nonsense* how about trying to teach children about getting into such circumstances with strangers? or like the other person said,most paedophiles are known to the victim ie family members..The fact people want to blanket sweep a whole generation of young people is just as disgusting

reply to post by mystiq

---

I'm not sure what they mean by "test" when it looks like they mean background investigation. If anyone is suggesting some kind of personality test as a measure of whether you are a possible pedophile or not, it would be a serious matter, indeed.

For one thing a person doesn’t have control over their automatic responses. As example, there are woman who achieve orgasm during rape and it horrifies/shames them in they feel something is wrong with them, when the fact nothing is wrong with them.

Also, there is a big difference between thinking and doing, and it is not a criminal crime to think no matter how wrong the thought is.

Let’s look at this from a non-sexual direction, how many of us are capable of murder based on a personality test? I bet the percentage would be high even though the vast majority will go their whole lives not doing it.

reply to post by MCoG1980

---

i guess the only people to get jobs with kids then in the future will be unucs, or maybe no one will be trusted or capable of passing all the tests, so we will all be working in factorys producing nanny robots teacher robots

Click here for more information.

I taught music for a while to kids aged between about 6 and 18. I quit after a while because I got really fed up with the number of dumb regulations involved... anyway, I had to have a CRB check which I really didn't mind, but the paranoid atmosphere started to get to me after a while.

I teach guitar, and I was talking about teaching to a supervisor and it came out in conversation that I'd been moving kids' fingers into the correct fretboard position. It had never occurred to me that there might be anything wrong with this, but he was horrified because it might leave me open to accusations of child abuse.

I taught at many different schools every week and I mentioned this to the nice ladies in the office at one of the junior schools I visited. They told me that things were so strict that when it was really sunny, they weren't allowed to put sun block on the kids themselves: they'd have to squeeze some onto the child's hands and then let them rub it in. This meant, obviously, a hideous mess when it came to the younger ones who would often wind up with sunblock in their eyes.

Again, my naivety almost got me into trouble when illness at one school meant that out of the three children whom I usually taught in one class, only one, a little girl, turned up. I got on with the lesson as usual, and closed the door to the classroom to keep noise out. I was later told that I shouldn't have done that simply because I was on my own with a little girl.

There were other things that contributed to my leaving teaching, (mostly to do with really stupid paperwork for which I didn't get paid extra) but that whole loony paranoid attitude was definitely a contributing factor.

And as several posters have already remarked, it doesn't stop paedophiles who haven't yet been caught.

The problem, all round, is to do with fear. A handful of cases are blown out of proportion. Parents get fearful, and then this is passed on to the teachers - particularly through the government. People are terrified of being perceived as not doing enough to prevent abuse, and it means that the whole teacher-child relationship becomes unnatural because teachers have to look over their shoulders all the time to avoid even the slightest hint of suspicion.

Ludicrous.

Well if someone is aroused by that then they are a threat, whether they intend to carry out those thoughts or not. The test i was talking of doesn't evaluate you on thoughts but on peoples arousal, which they cannot control.

reply to post by read between the lines

---

Look, i agree with CRB for running background checks for 'past offences - providing that the offence tehy are looking for involves children, it would be stupid not to.

And as the poor child lay there bleeding and gasping for air..all I could do was watch.......

Since you can not control arousal don't you think it would be a poor indicator? People can get aroused without a clue or reason as to why, and if it was based on thought then there would not be tens of millions of Viagra sold either.



[edit on 1-2-2009 by Xtrozero]

I see your point, it gets messy doesn't it, if this as you say is not a reliable method then what method is there. observation and education probably, but again, people will get paranoid - catch 22 situation. Its a sad fact, that people who you may think are trrustworthy and normal can be wolves in sheeps clothing. I feel for all those children who innocence and mental state are stolen forever by one persons selfish need to satisfy his lust.

peace