One reason why I hate this govt.

[Webbo]

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

Why do we need any legislation anyway?

[breadandcheese]

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

It's a fair thought and has its origins in the misuse of parliament by this government. With less parliamentiary time for debating new laws, there are ill-thought out pieces of legislation that get passed through and have countless unintended consequences. It is not deliberate, but it happens and shouldn't.

[acooling08]

1 reason? Where the fook you been these last few years?

[Daggers]

Why can't this Govt just mind it's own business?

It's not the Government - it's Ofsted, you don't vote for them and they are simply (mis)interpreting a law.

[Daggers]

Why do we need any legislation anyway?

For those of us who send our children to child minders, schools or have them partaking in activities away from home under adult supervision, having the adults vetted is a sensible and painless precaution.

[Webbo]

It's not the Government - it's Ofsted, you don't vote for them and they are simply (mis)interpreting a law.

But this govt introduced this pointless law.

For those of us who send our children to child minders, schools or have them partaking in activities away from home under adult supervision, having the adults vetted is a sensible and painless precaution.

If you are sending them to a stranger then it removes risk, fair enough. If you are paying someone then there are tax implications. None of this applies to getting your neighbour/friend to look after your kids.

As I said earlier in the thread what about my daughter having a sleepover at her friends house, do we have to send in the inspectors first? I've got a feeling that we are going to have to reciprocate soon and I'm certainly not having some govt busybody coming round my house.

If this govt didn't assume that we are all potential criminals or utter morons then this country would be a happier place.

[Thracian]

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.

Ah but they know best. Didn't you know that? Demonstrations of their infinite wisdom are ongoing as we speak even as close to home as Barwell.

[Zingari]

They reckon that there may be as many as 40,000 people for whom a records check may suggest should be kept away from vulnerable persons based on police records.

So they already know who they are and could tell them up front they are not getting work with children.and make sure they don't . The ones on the list should provide the authorities with details of where they are working and in what capacity

Checking 11 million ( estimated amount of crb checks)to identify 40,000 seems to be a pretty inefficient process.

[Daggers]

But this govt introduced this pointless law.

If you are sending them to a stranger then it removes risk, fair enough. If you are paying someone then there are tax implications. None of this applies to getting your neighbour/friend to look after your kids.

As I said earlier in the thread what about my daughter having a sleepover at her friends house, do we have to send in the inspectors first? I've got a feeling that we are going to have to reciprocate soon and I'm certainly not having some govt busybody coming round my house.

If this govt didn't assume that we are all potential criminals or utter morons then this country would be a happier place.

The law isn't pointless, the interpretation of it was just a victory for idiocy.

Laws evolve, and I'm prepared to be corrected here, they don't just hit the statute book as an example of perfection.

No, it shouldn't impact on sleepovers or friends doing each other favours but that doesn't negate the pressing need for child workers to be formally checked out...for rather obvious and well-publicised reasons.

I'm no flag-waver for the Government - but this isn't really a bone worth gnawing

[Head Honcho]

They reckon that there may be as many as 40,000 people for whom a records check may suggest should be kept away from vulnerable persons based on police records.

So they already know who they are and could tell them up front they are not getting work with children.and make sure they don't . The ones on the list should provide the authorities with details of where they are working and in what capacity

Checking 11 million ( estimated amount of crb checks)to identify 40,000 seems to be a pretty inefficient process.

So what do you suggest?

Give the 40000 potential peado's an ID card in the hope that they'll produce it everytime they are asked to mind a child?

[Guest]

The law isn't pointless, the interpretation of it was just a victory for idiocy.

Laws evolve, and I'm prepared to be corrected here, they don't just hit the statute book as an example of perfection.

If laws were perfect, there would be no need for judges to decide how it needs to be interpreted.

Checks like this have to be introduced otherwise there would be more litigation than there already is.

[Zingari]

So what do you suggest?

Give the 40000 potential peado's an ID card in the hope that they'll produce it everytime they are asked to mind a child?

No not really , I'm suggesting it would be easier for the authorities to keep tabs on the ones who are on the list rather than constantly checking and rechecking the ones who aren't . but I admit that this would not be easy either and in practice probably just as unworkable and liable to be ineffective, as most heinous serial crimes are committed by people who are not on any list because they have not been caught

My own view ( for what it's worth ) is that CRBs etc are just a stepping stone that has been implemented by the state so that the general public will eventually be calling out for ( nay , even demanding ) compulsory ID cards with all out details held in one data base .

but then I am a conspiracy crackpot , so you'll have to excuse me

[Thracian]

For those of us who send our children to child minders, schools or have them partaking in activities away from home under adult supervision, having the adults vetted is a sensible and painless precaution.

Most of us survived well enough before vetting was ever heard of. And, for all the vetting, kids still become the victims of perverts.

If lowlife's can't get work with children do you seriously think they won't try to find other ways to get at them?

In some ways I might argue that sending them underground, so to speak, is more dangerous than having them around where their preoccupations might be more easily recognised.

We well enough knew the shower creepers among the staff of the boys school I went to.

It may be their ogling acted as a safety valve that prevented them getting frustrated and feeling the need to attack kids in secret. Who knows?

It's not something I have any desire to be an expert on but I don't feel that our kids are any safer today, with all the safeguards, than they ever were before. Nor do I think any of us schoolkids ever felt under particular threat. The threats were far greater in the amusement centres, when thumbing a lift or attending Sunday school.

As with so many situations nowadays, a big reason why problems continue anyway is because the law fails to deal effectively enough with people who do show themselves to be a threat to children and young teenagers.

So often - just as with violent crime and drug crime - the signs are there and offences are committed long before anything really serious happens.

The government sanctions and facilitates all sorts of action by all sorts of agencies and at great expense in rooting danger out but kops out of their real responsibility which is to deal with the people who really are a danger, however that threat comes to light. Examples abound every day.

Doubtless human rights legislation comes into it all and why we're shackled to that nonsense, with all it's ambiguities, we'll never find any real and lasting answers.

[Bellend Sebastian]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society...g-200909282095/

[Thracian]

If laws were perfect, there would be no need for judges to decide how it needs to be interpreted.

Checks like this have to be introduced otherwise there would be more litigation than there already is.

If they were thought through properly and defined/expressed simply they shouldn't need interpretation.

[Daggers]

I'm too busy to be bothered to list out all of the inanities in Thracian's posts as dressing yourself up as a primary school takes time and application.

[stez]

But this govt introduced this pointless law.

If you are sending them to a stranger then it removes risk, fair enough. If you are paying someone then there are tax implications. None of this applies to getting your neighbour/friend to look after your kids.

As I said earlier in the thread what about my daughter having a sleepover at her friends house, do we have to send in the inspectors first? I've got a feeling that we are going to have to reciprocate soon and I'm certainly not having some govt busybody coming round my house.

If this govt didn't assume that we are all potential criminals or utter morons then this country would be a happier place.

well, you've obviously got something to hide.

[Nationwider]

By registering themselves as childminders and declaring themselves as self employed part-time businesses, signing up to receive childcare vouchers in lieu of salary through the police's salary sacrifice scheme, receiving the vouchers (not taxed or NIC-able) and then paying each other the same vouchers each month before offsetting spurious expenses (not difficult at around £50 p/w to match the £243 p/m you can claim in vouchers) against this 'income' to ensure no taxable profit arose from the 'trade', the policewomen could have come to a discreet little arrangement whereby they saved themselves upto £1,000 per year each in tax and NICs.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

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.

This government has done nothing but encourage stupid bureaucracy and cranky "Political Correctness". Common sense has gone out of the window.

Well said in the above post, Jon.

[stez]

tax stuff

ahh, but as was mentioned yesterday; what if, instead of actually paying each other they bartered? one looked after the kids, the other took some rubbish to the tip etc or one looked after the kids one day and the other looked after them then next?

if we all did that, that'd render the tax man obsolete

[Zingari]

By registering themselves as childminders and declaring themselves as self employed part-time businesses, signing up to receive childcare vouchers in lieu of salary through the police's salary sacrifice scheme, receiving the vouchers (not taxed or NIC-able) and then paying each other the same vouchers each month before offsetting spurious expenses (not difficult at around £50 p/w to match the £243 p/m you can claim in vouchers) against this 'income' to ensure no taxable profit arose from the 'trade', the policewomen could have come to a discreet little arrangement whereby they saved themselves upto £1,000 per year each in tax and NICs.

there's probably some easy answer to this , but why have you got a picture of Roy Hudd as an avatar with a reference to an emu underneath , shouldn't it be Rod Hull ?

i know that i've probably missed something obvious to everyone else

[Jon the Hat]

Could someone just explain to me why it is a good idea to spend billions trying to make sure children are safe absolutely everywhere outside their own homes and families, yet fail miserably to protect children who are plainly at risk within their own homes and families?

[Webbo]

By registering themselves as childminders and declaring themselves as self employed part-time businesses, signing up to receive childcare vouchers in lieu of salary through the police's salary sacrifice scheme, receiving the vouchers (not taxed or NIC-able) and then paying each other the same vouchers each month before offsetting spurious expenses (not difficult at around £50 p/w to match the £243 p/m you can claim in vouchers) against this 'income' to ensure no taxable profit arose from the 'trade', the policewomen could have come to a discreet little arrangement whereby they saved themselves upto £1,000 per year each in tax and NICs.

When I first read that story in the Mail on Sunday I assumed that that might be the case and that they were claiming some sort of childcare allowance from the govt. It's since been widely reported on the BBC and there is no suggestion that that is the case.

[stez]

Could someone just explain to me why it is a good idea to spend billions trying to make sure children are safe absolutely everywhere outside their own homes and families, yet fail miserably to protect children who are plainly at risk within their own homes and families?

i have no answer other than:

[Guest]

If they were thought through properly and defined/expressed simply they shouldn't need interpretation.

You should try it sometime.