It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Parents who ferry children must have anti-paedophile checks

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:41 AM
link   
I cant belive the Goverment are even considering this! WTF!
Parents who give lifts to other children from sports and social clubs face prosecution if they fail to register with the Government’s new anti-paedophile database.



Any formal agreement to ferry youngsters to and from the likes of Scouts, dance classes or local football matches, even if only once a month, will fall under the Government’s new Vetting and Barring Scheme.

It means anyone who fails to register and have their backgrounds checked faces a fine of up to £5,000 and a criminal record.
Independent Safeguarding Authority could bar 'lonely' people from working with children
Security breach at Independent Safeguarding Authority before full launch of anti-paedophile database
Even authors will have to be vetted Parents who help children read in class or those who host foreign pupils as part of school exchange trips will also have to be vetted by the new Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) and undergo criminal record checks.

School governors, dentists, pharmacists, prison officers and even dinner ladies are among the huge list of people who will now fall under the scheme, which starts to be rolled out next month and will eventually cover 11.3 million people.

Anyone who is paid for their efforts will also be charged a £64 fee to register, although unpaid volunteers are exempt from paying.


www.telegraph.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...


[edit on 11/9/09 by parrallel]

[edit on 11/9/09 by parrallel]


[mod edit: clipped quoted content, added required EX tags]
Mod Edit: Quoting External Sources – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11-9-2009 by 12m8keall2c]




posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Im all for keeping children safe because i have 2 myself but this just says to me "More control over the masses"



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:56 AM
link   
I dunno. It seems like a bit of a double edged sword. It may be a bit of a hit on social liberties, but children really need to be protected. And just because someone "seems" safe, doesn't always mean they are.

A friend of mine had a husband who'd been a cop for 25 years. They had adopted 6 "special needs" children and often played "taxi" for many of their childrens classmates. Lo and behold, about 3 years ago, he was found to have a boatload of kiddy porn in his police locker. He would have been the last person anyone would have expected; he was gentle, kind, loving. But he had done things to his young special needs daugter that were unthinkable. He never touched any other children (that we knew of), but maybe a screening for this sort of thing could have saved a ton of agony...



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:59 AM
link   
Although, I do agree that what they are proposing is a tad overboard.

Maybe in this case less is more.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   
Its a difficult one. For my voluntary work with children I had to have these checks done. In a way it gives you some comfort and protection. we have very strict procedures on how we can behave and interact with the children. It is sad that it has come to this. when we have a child who is upset, we can't do the natural thing and put your arm round the child to comfort them, we have strict guidelines on how to break up fights, which there are many. Children will want to hold your hands or jump on you in the swimming pool, you have to maintain ways at keeping any physical contact to zero which the kids obviously dont understand.

The reason for this strictness, is because in the past a child had been abused, simply by a volunteer giving what seemed like an innocent piggy back.

I find it a very difficult area really. we do seem to have this horrible view of anyone wanting work with kids as being a possible paedophile. I really dont know what the answer is?



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:14 AM
link   
I completely and totally agree that children should be protect as good as possible.
However, we musn't create a situation where an adult who smiles at children is considered to be a possible pedophile.
It will be a very difficult task for any gouvernment to find the right way to handle this.
I think it is great that a lot of money will be spend on this, but there are many other needs children have. I don't know what it's like in other countries, but here in the Netherlands, child abuse is a major problem. Much more money should be available to really help out children and improve the system that is responsible for this kind of help. The waiting lists for children who are in danger, are way too long. Sometimes children have to wait for more than 6 months before the system can even start trying to help them. Without wanting to minimalize the pedophile issue, helping abused children and child abuse prevention need major improvements and that costs a lot of money too, I suppose.
I gues what I'm trying to say is that although the pedophile check is very, very important, other urgent issues concerning helpless children should not be overlooked.


[edit on 11-9-2009 by DarknessFollows]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Yeah and it also costs £64 per person to get the check done.

A nice little earner there for the government, who no longer trust parents with their own kids!



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:23 AM
link   
I had a CRB check for the voluntary driving work that I do working with adults who have learning disabilities. I dont see any problem here.

In my case the cost of the checks were met by the charity that I work for.

This dosen't seem to me like "big brother watching you".... just an effort to limit oportunities for bad intentioned people to come into contact with children and other vulnerable people.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 06:21 AM
link   
I hate children!

Would that be enough for me to pass this test?




posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by DangerDeath
I hate children!

Would that be enough for me to pass this test?



wow, i never knew there are others who hates children, good to know, i thought I'm on my own here,

i really hate them, they are annoying, noisy, disgusting, idiotic,



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Let's just hope you guys never become parents then. I feel sorry for those kids already.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Pedophiles are genuine children lovers. Wassa problem with that?

Maybe they intend to introduce a tax for pedophilia? Then, it would be better to declare yourself as a misoped....


[edit on 11-9-2009 by DangerDeath]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Yeah, that's really very funny. Suffering children are hysterical....NOT.
You gross me out and that's not easily done.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by parrallel
 


I haven't read the full article but seriously how ridiculous is this country becoming!?!

More PC madness, enough said...

[edit on 11/9/09 by Death_Kron]


CX

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by DangerDeath
Pedophiles are genuine children lovers. Wassa problem with that?

Maybe they intend to introduce a tax for pedophilia? Then, it would be better to declare yourself as a misoped....


[edit on 11-9-2009 by DangerDeath]


I'm amazed you edited your post, yet you left what we see above.


I'm guessing school is late going back some? If you're too old for school and still act like this, i feel genuinely sorry for you.

Regarding the topic, i see this causing major problems.

How are they going to check every person who gives kids lifts? I know parents who get a call at the last minute to help out with lifts, but they may not have done it before.

Does that mean if you are stuck and need your kid picked up from Scouts, you can't ask your neighbour you've known all your life because he hasn't been checked?

I respect that we need laws to stop the sicko's of the world endangering our kids, but the government just plucks laws out of their backsides without giving the parents any credit for having the common sense to check who takes their kids out.

CX.



[edit on 11/9/09 by CX]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by CX
 


I agree with you mate, at the end of the day we do need to look after children.

However our government creates laws that seem to negatively effect innocent people while the criminals are sitting there laughing!


CX

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by CX
 


However our government creates laws that seem to negatively effect innocent people while the criminals are sitting there laughing!


That would make a great thread on ATS, "Laws passed in the UK that only benefit the criminal society".

I haven't the knowledge of British law to do such a thread, but it would be an eye opener for sure. I think it would be long thread too.

CX.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by CX
 


You really don't get it?
They are creating an atmosphere (and not just "atmosphere") for denunciation. They first accuse you of being "potentially" guilty, then they sell you their "indulgence".
Now everyone will be able to accuse you of anything (like pedophilia) and you must prove yourself innocent before they prove you are guilty!!!!!

How many exclamation marks do you need to start thinking about what this really is about?

So, pay 64 quid and then feel "adequate" or pay "up to 5.000 euros" fine


But I'd say this is nothing but a rape and there will be more insane taxes and threats on people, just wait, very very soon. Once it starts rolling, you will be very sorry for making this apparently small compromise with your freedom.




Edit: price tag...

[edit on 11-9-2009 by DangerDeath]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
So, If grandparents want to take kids out somewhere or the parents of the child are busy and require the grandparents to pick the kids up from school... does that mean they too would also need to have checks done on them?



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   
This just so screwed up!

Any convicted sex offender isn't going to even try and get a check done. This records check will only indicate those with a criminal conviction or even an arrest for a sexual offence, whether covicted or not. So, what about all the ones out there who have never been caught?

It's unfortunate but there have also been many cases where the pedos have actually been working in positions of authority, deciding on the suitability of others.

This just seems like another piece of pointless authoritarianism on the part of the government propping up the scare tactics to convince us all that there's a pedo on every street corner.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join