UK Government: Parents are essentially paedophiles

[Jonny]

I'm not saying it's a trend and I'm not trying to start an argument either, I understand where you people are coming from and perhaps I'm being naive but I really don't see how it is going to cause so many problems. If you've ever filled out a CRB form you'll know that there is nothing on there that couldn't be found out by Joe Public anyhow.

From what I've read it merely sounds like a slight extension to the current vetting process and will only affect those who have frequent contact with the vulnerable that are not already covered by current procedures.

 

[yhack]

Hold on a second, if I have a daughter who plays for a girls football team and gets a lift home from one of the other parents - isn't it a good thing that the person she gets a lift home from has been checked out a bit?

Surely you would know the person giving the lift before you say yes to them driving your daughter around?

 

[Tefal]

and of course, if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about

First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

 

[Dolph]

I'm not saying it's a trend and I'm not trying to start an argument either, I understand where you people are coming from and perhaps I'm being naive but I really don't see how it is going to cause so many problems. If you've ever filled out a CRB form you'll know that there is nothing on there that couldn't be found out by Joe Public anyhow.

Then how do we know it actually helps rather than just creating a moral hazard?

From what I've read it merely sounds like a slight extension to the current vetting process and will only affect those who have frequent contact with the vulnerable that are not already covered by current procedures.

But (absence of appeals to emotion) how successful are these checks likely to be, and what is the consequence of encouraging more reliance on the state instead of yourself? (in other words, how many people will simply think 'Well the CRB checks out', which is zero help against a previously unidentified threat or a first offender)

 

[Glaucus]

Hardly a labour monopoly - remember the Dangerous Dogs Act? Section 28 of the Local Government Act? Etc. It's the nature of all governments to do what they think will make them popular: and "protecting the children" ought to work. Whether it will backfire as much as some here and elsewhere suggest is open to question. Because if it falls, then the next time an unvetted person gets caught molesting a child the government looks good again.


M

Probably is still a monopoly probably like 90% of the stupid laws are labour.




*no idea on actual percentage*

 

[V4NT0M]

Sensationalist threat title is sensationalist.

 

[kwerk]

Have to keep those politicians busy with something. They get paid to create laws you know. They are basically working in a law factory.

 

[chrisd]

Oh god not that fallacy again.

How is that a fallacy?

 

[Vulcan]

If the government speed the CRB process up I think that this is a good idea - if it prevents 1 Ian Huntley getting through the system it will be worth it.....and of course, if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about

No it's not worth it.

Hold on a second, if I have a daughter who plays for a girls football team and gets a lift home from one of the other parents - isn't it a good thing that the person she gets a lift home from has been checked out a bit?

Pick them up yourself if you think theres peados everywhere.

 

[Energize]

Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

A more british version would be:

First labour came for the drug users (because alcohol isn't a drug right?)
and I did not speak out
because I was not a drug user
Then labour came for the "extreme" pornographers (aka illegal pictures of legal acts)
and I did not speak out
because I was not into bdsm.
Then labour came for the parents (who are all obviously paedophiles)
and I did not speak out
because I was not a parent.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

 

[darubio]

LOL! just reminds me of that eps of south park!

 

[Dolph]

How is that a fallacy?

It's a variant of the prosecutor's fallacy. It basically implies that there is no possibility of false matches, so the innocent have nothing to fear from this measure.

 

[chrisd]

It's a variant of the prosecutor's fallacy. It basically implies that there is no possibility of false matches, so the innocent have nothing to fear from this measure.

Of course there's a small chance of an initial false match but why should that worry anyone?

 

[Dolph]

Of course there's a small chance of an initial false match but why should that worry anyone?

Because that's all it takes to fail a CRB?

 

[Jonny]

what a bunch of overrreacting hippies

 

[Tute]

I don't agree with it, not at all, and like Dolph says it's just another retarded kneejerk Labour reaction to something that they have no clue how to solve.

Anyone coming into repeated contact with children have a CRB check done and are then watched to make sure there is no indecent behaviour.

I don't see what good putting everyone on a big list is going to do... oh wait, I see. Another step towards New Fascist Labour.

 

[frosty03]

I'm not saying it's a trend and I'm not trying to start an argument either, I understand where you people are coming from and perhaps I'm being naive but I really don't see how it is going to cause so many problems. If you've ever filled out a CRB form you'll know that there is nothing on there that couldn't be found out by Joe Public anyhow.

From what I've read it merely sounds like a slight extension to the current vetting process and will only affect those who have frequent contact with the vulnerable that are not already covered by current procedures.

There is one substantial diference (among many).

In that unsubstantiated accusations will also be included. Meaning that a potential malicious accusation (which is unproven) and for which you have no redress, since the person reporting it was acting out "of concern", could ruin your entire life.

Your neighbor, who you've had a quarrel with about parking and hates you, could phone up and say he didnt like the way you were looking at his or other kids around the park, and that will now go on your record. He may go so far and say you actually touched one of them (when you helped them after a fall). Now, what do you think will happen to you when this gets out on your form?

 

[Meridian]

Probably is still a monopoly probably like 90% of the stupid laws are labour.




*no idea on actual percentage*

I'm assuming that your definition of stupid is the traditional one - you disagree with them?


M

 

[Jonny]

There is one substantial diference (among many).

In that unsubstantiated accusations will also be included. Meaning that a potential malicious accusation (which is unproven) and for which you have no redress, since the person reporting it was acting out "of concern", could ruin your entire life.

Your neighbor, who you've had a quarrel with about parking and hates you, could phone up and say he didnt like the way you were looking at his or other kids around the park, and that will now go on your record. He may go so far and say you actually touched one of them (when you helped them after a fall). Now, what do you think will happen to you when this gets out on your form?

I understand what you are saying but as far as I'm aware the British justice system still works under the rule of 'innocent until proven guilty' and unless these accusations can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt then they will not appear on any police records

 

[bam0]

I understand what you are saying but as far as I'm aware the British justice system still works under the rule of 'innocent until proven guilty' and unless these accusations can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt then they will not appear on any police records

That's where you're wrong, this ISA database specifically includes "soft intelligence" such as that which frosty03 suggested, you aren't being convicted, or found guilty, of anything. They will just note down any accusation and use it judge your risk to young people/vulnerable adults.