Webbo Posted 27 September 2009 Posted 27 September 2009 LINK Childcare help 'could be illegal'Parents in England who regularly look after friends' children and receive a "reward" for doing so must register as childminders, regulator Ofsted says. It said most parents would be exempt but those who babysat for more than two hours at a time, or for more than 14 days per year, should be registered. The "reward" could be money or free baby-sitting in return, it said. The warning comes after Ofsted told two policewomen to end an arrangement to care for each other's children. According to the Mail on Sunday, Ofsted told two detective constables, Leanne Shepherd, from Milton Keynes, and Lucy Jarrett, from Buckingham, to end their arrangement. Ms Shepherd told the newspaper: "When the Ofsted inspector turned up, the first thing she said was: 'I have had a report that you're running an illegal childminding business'. "I straightaway thought she must be mistaken, so invited her into my home to explain we were police officers and best friends helping each other out. "But she told me I was breaking the law and must end the arrangement with Lucy immediately. "I was stunned, completely devastated... I couldn't see how I could continue working." Petition started Reward is not just a case of money changing hands. The supply of services or goods and, in some circumstances, reciprocal arrangements can also constitute reward Ofsted spokesman According to the newspaper, the Thames Valley officer is believed to have been reported by a neighbour. Thames Valley Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file officers, said the pair had its "full support". Secretary Andy Viney said: "Both of them are experienced professional officers. "They just want to return to work after having children and have found that the system is working totally against them. "They've been threatened with prosecution by Ofsted if they continue doing this." An Ofsted spokesman said it applied regulations found in the Childcare Act 2006, but was currently discussing the interpretation of the word "reward" with the department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). "Reward is not just a case of money changing hands. The supply of services or goods and, in some circumstances, reciprocal arrangements can also constitute reward," he said. "Generally" mothers who looked after each other's children were not providing childminding for which registration was required because the care was for less than two hours or took place on fewer than 14 days in a year, he said. Close relatives of children, such as grandparents, siblings, aunts or uncles, were exempt from the rules, he added. Minister for Children, Schools and Families Vernon Coaker said the Childcare Act 2006 was in place "to ensure the safety and wellbeing of all children" but the government needed to make sure it did not "penalise hard-working families". "My department is speaking to Ofsted about the interpretation of the word 'reward' in this particular case," he said. A petition to scrap the rules governing reciprocal child care on the Number 10 website has gathered more than 2,000 signatures. Anyone required to register to become a childminder would also have to undergo a criminal records check. Why can't this Govt just mind it's own business?
Fosse Boy Posted 27 September 2009 Posted 27 September 2009 It wouldn't matter which party was in office, the same sort of things would occur. It's quangos who run the country, not politicians.
Webbo Posted 27 September 2009 Author Posted 27 September 2009 It wouldn't matter which party was in office, the same sort of things would occur.It's quangos who run the country, not politicians. Only the Labour party want to micro manage everybodies lives. They brought in this law and they appointed an army of bureuacrats to enforce it. Hasn't Ofsted got more important things to worry about?
AoWW Posted 27 September 2009 Posted 27 September 2009 Ridiculous. It's like the proposal (not sure if it's now become law and cba to check it) where you have to be CRB checked before you can give a lift to a child other than your own. Bureaucracy gone mad.
davieG Posted 27 September 2009 Posted 27 September 2009 Only the Labour party want to micro manage everybodies lives. They brought in this law and they appointed an army of bureuacrats to enforce it.Hasn't Ofsted got more important things to worry about? I think the problem these days is laws are rushed at the behest of clamouring media claiming to represent the public majority without proper scrutiny to look at the micro impact. You then get a bunch of jobs worths fearful of getting any thing wrong and the media pouncing on them at the slightest opportunity over reacting. It's vicious circle driven by the media following rare incidents that are blown out of all proportion the criminal record check thing is a typical example. The Government of the day provides a knee jerk 'this must never happen again' response and there you have it.
MPH Posted 27 September 2009 Posted 27 September 2009 Ridiculous.It's like the proposal (not sure if it's now become law and cba to check it) where you have to be CRB checked before you can give a lift to a child other than your own. Bureaucracy gone mad. you speak my language!! i dislike CRB checks immensley, im not a criminal, i just feel annoyed at the fact every time i apply for a care Job of any sort i have to wait 6-10 weeks before the crb check comes through....
Zingari Posted 28 September 2009 Posted 28 September 2009 I think the problem these days is laws are rushed at the behest of clamouring media claiming to represent the public majority without proper scrutiny to look at the micro impact.You then get a bunch of jobs worths fearful of getting any thing wrong and the media pouncing on them at the slightest opportunity over reacting. It's vicious circle driven by the media following rare incidents that are blown out of all proportion the criminal record check thing is a typical example. The Government of the day provides a knee jerk 'this must never happen again' response and there you have it. isn't this a bit like having a media campaign against things like saving bridges ? just joking , actually i do agree with most of what you say , but feel we are all participants in this game at some time
Jon the Hat Posted 28 September 2009 Posted 28 September 2009 The purpose of the childminder registration is to give people confidence that they can trust the person they leave their children with. It is meant to put that trust in place where you don't personally know that person. Extending that to people you do know is a clear message that Ofsted has better capability that we do to decide who should or shouldn't care for our children. This is utter nonsense. Do Ofsted spend time with our friends, see how they are with their kids? With our kids? No, they look at a computer screen and run "checks" What utter utter arrogance to think they can make a better judgment then us. Wank£rs the lot of them. The rot starts at the top.
Jon the Hat Posted 28 September 2009 Posted 28 September 2009 I think the problem these days is laws are rushed at the behest of clamouring media claiming to represent the public majority without proper scrutiny to look at the micro impact.You then get a bunch of jobs worths fearful of getting any thing wrong and the media pouncing on them at the slightest opportunity over reacting. It's vicious circle driven by the media following rare incidents that are blown out of all proportion the criminal record check thing is a typical example. The Government of the day provides a knee jerk 'this must never happen again' response and there you have it. I agree in some cases, but if you can find me a case where someone blamed ofsted or any other authority for their poor judgment in choosing a babysitter, resulting in harm to a child and or public clamour for Ofsted or any other authority to "do something" I must have missed it.
davieG Posted 28 September 2009 Posted 28 September 2009 I agree in some cases, but if you can find me a case where someone blamed ofsted or any other authority for their poor judgment in choosing a babysitter, resulting in harm to a child and or public clamour for Ofsted or any other authority to "do something" I must have missed it. I was talking about many cases not necessarily this one as I don't know the details and I sure they wouldn't have clamoured for the detail but I suspect they clamoured for the legislation that includes this detail. My point was that these laws are rushed through as a result of public/media pressure and the detail like this is not examined thoroughly. Either that or they are amended at a very late stage to accommodate a variety of 'pressures' and the impact of these amendments are not examined.
Zingari Posted 28 September 2009 Posted 28 September 2009 a review has been ordered http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8277378.stm England's Children's Minister wants a review of the case of two police officers told they were breaking the law, caring for each other's children.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 28 September 2009 Posted 28 September 2009 I think that copper is very suspicious because of her weird eyebrows. Seriously though, isn't all of this a bit of a storm in a teacup over the interpretation of the word 'reward'? A bit of clarification and all sorted, hurray. It's very tricky all this. Everyone wants a system that guarantees their children do not get BUMMED TO DEATH by EVIL PAEDOS, provided that there is no possibility that they themselves come under scrutiny at any point. Where do you draw the line? Who's to say who is and isn't trustworthy? I know three people unlucky enough to have been sexually abused when they were young, the abuser in all cases being a family member and a close one at that
davieG Posted 28 September 2009 Posted 28 September 2009 I think that copper is very suspicious because of her weird eyebrows.Seriously though, isn't all of this a bit of a storm in a teacup over the interpretation of the word 'reward'? A bit of clarification and all sorted, hurray. It's very tricky all this. Everyone wants a system that guarantees their children do not get BUMMED TO DEATH by EVIL PAEDOS, provided that there is no possibility that they themselves come under scrutiny at any point. Where do you draw the line? Who's to say who is and isn't trustworthy? I know three people unlucky enough to have been sexually abused when they were young, the abuser in all cases being a family member and a close one at that Surely known abusers will be on the Sex offenders lists, unknown ones will be err unknown and any CRB check is unlikely to discover them.
Jon the Hat Posted 28 September 2009 Posted 28 September 2009 Where do you draw the line? Who's to say who is and isn't trustworthy? I know three people unlucky enough to have been sexually abused when they were young, the abuser in all cases being a family member and a close one at that ME!! I am to say who I trust with my child, not some govt bureaucrat. This is yet another example of bloody solicalists trying to take away our personal responsibility and it has gone was way too far in so many areas.
Head Honcho Posted 28 September 2009 Posted 28 September 2009 Ridiculous.It's like the proposal (not sure if it's now become law and cba to check it) where you have to be CRB checked before you can give a lift to a child other than your own. Bureaucracy gone mad. There are thousands of arrangements like this up and down the country but it only takes one to go tits up! Who do we blame then? Ofsted will only investigate when a complaint has made and methinks somebody has been playing silly buggers and dare I say it probably to do with the fact that the two woman were police officers!
Head Honcho Posted 28 September 2009 Posted 28 September 2009 ME!! I am to say who I trust with my child, not some govt bureaucrat. This is yet another example of bloody solicalists trying to take away our personal responsibility and it has gone was way too far in so many areas. I'm sure the parents of Beverley Allitts victims felt the same way!
Zingari Posted 28 September 2009 Posted 28 September 2009 the government and social services interfere too much except at other times when they don't interfere enough sort it out Gordon Brown it's all your fault !!!
Webbo Posted 28 September 2009 Author Posted 28 September 2009 I'm sure the parents of Beverley Allitts victims felt the same way! Beverly Allitt was a nurse at an NHS hospital. Presumably she'd had all the necessary checks. The parents didn't pick her to look after their children, she was selected by the govt run NHS.
Guest Basildon Fox Posted 28 September 2009 Posted 28 September 2009 ME!! I am to say who I trust with my child, not some govt bureaucrat. This is yet another example of bloody solicalists trying to take away our personal responsibility and it has gone was way too far in so many areas. Agree to a certain extent. What happens though when somebodies child is attacked by a newish friend who they then find out to be a child molester after. I feel sorry for the govt a little on this because this is the sort of thing where no one will be entirely happy what ever system is in place. The above has happened before and will continue to happen. Perhaps if it could help to keep one child safe then it is an exercise worthwhile. Perhaps though peoples civil liberties are being taken away far too much and this is an extreme example of a nanny state.
Webbo Posted 28 September 2009 Author Posted 28 September 2009 My youngest had a sleepover at her friend's house last week. I don't think her friend's mother was a registered childminder. Should I report her to Ofsted?
Zingari Posted 28 September 2009 Posted 28 September 2009 My youngest had a sleepover at her friend's house last week. I don't think her friend's mother was a registered childminder. Should I report her to Ofsted? yes , do that , unless she agrees to have sex with you
Jon the Hat Posted 28 September 2009 Posted 28 September 2009 Agree to a certain extent. What happens though when somebodies child is attacked by a newish friend who they then find out to be a child molester after. I feel sorry for the govt a little on this because this is the sort of thing where no one will be entirely happy what ever system is in place. The above has happened before and will continue to happen. Perhaps if it could help to keep one child safe then it is an exercise worthwhile. Perhaps though peoples civil liberties are being taken away far too much and this is an extreme example of a nanny state. People take responsbility for leaving their child with someone they didn't know well enough? The "if it keeps one child safe" argument is utter rubbish. If it keeps one child safe let's ban cars. If it keeps one child safe let's ban bicycles. If it keeps one child safe let spend £billions on pointless checks which make everyone a suspect. If it keeps one child safe lets introduce ID cards. If it keeps one child safe lets ban family members from babysitting. If it keeps one child safe lets wrap them all in bloody cotton wool and keep them in a display cabinet. What a load of old Sh1t...
Bellend Sebastian Posted 28 September 2009 Posted 28 September 2009 Agree to a certain extent. What happens though when somebodies child is attacked by a newish friend who they then find out to be a child molester after. I feel sorry for the govt a little on this because this is the sort of thing where no one will be entirely happy what ever system is in place. The above has happened before and will continue to happen. Perhaps if it could help to keep one child safe then it is an exercise worthwhile. Perhaps though peoples civil liberties are being taken away far too much and this is an extreme example of a nanny state. What if it's an old friend? Just because you've known someone a long time doesn't mean they're not a MASSIVE PAEDO
Guest Basildon Fox Posted 28 September 2009 Posted 28 September 2009 People take responsbility for leaving their child with someone they didn't know well enough?The "if it keeps one child safe" argument is utter rubbish. If it keeps one child safe let's ban cars. If it keeps one child safe let's ban bicycles. If it keeps one child safe let spend £billions on pointless checks which make everyone a suspect. If it keeps one child safe lets introduce ID cards. If it keeps one child safe lets ban family members from babysitting. If it keeps one child safe lets wrap them all in bloody cotton wool and keep them in a display cabinet. What a load of old Sh1t... Wow. What a well thought out argument that is. John the Hat for PM!!* * The opinion above may well be a load of old shit.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 28 September 2009 Posted 28 September 2009 The government isn't interfering in my life at all. I feel really left out. I keep hanging around with Communists and protestors, walking in front of CCTV cameras etc and they're just not interested. Could it be that this situation regarding these two lesbian police officers is the unfortunate result of an unforeseen consequence of legislation that could possibly have been slightly better thought out, rather than it being a deliberate and Orwellian attempt to control people's lives? It's just a thought, you know
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.