Exactly how they are doing it now but with more effort it seems...Rather than relying on stupid money making schemes like this (Not sure if you have to pay for this sort of thing? Someone does surely at the end of it?)
UK Government: Parents are essentially paedophiles
- Thread starter KNiVES
- Start date
Exactly how they are doing it now but with more effort it seems...Rather than relying on stupid money making schemes like this (Not sure if you have to pay for this sort of thing? Someone does surely at the end of it?)
Yes, this. Almost any other government would be better. The only party I can think of that would be more authoritarian is the BNP (and they'd be too incompetent to get anything done, so they might be less bad in practice).
I'd rather have "UK Government, sponsored by McDonalds" in charge, in which the position of PM is the employee of the month award. Or have representatives of Tesco and KFC play darts, winning team gets to be the government. Anything.
I'm now voting Conservative because they're the most liberal party. Which is a bit of an odd situation.
I'm not saying it would stop every paedophile out there because as someone rightly pointed out - all a CRB means is that the subject has not committed any previous crimes. However, in the case of Huntley he wasn't checked before being given a job in a school which beggars belief - yes he could have still had access to the children via Carr but we will never know whether he would have still murdered them.
I'd like to think I'm quite a rational person, I understand both sides of the argument but I still maintain my opinion that it's not the Orwellian law everybody seems to be making it out to be....what I didn't realise though is that this database might include 'soft' allegations such as bam0 said - now that is ridiculous.
You appear to be asking why anyone should be worried about being wrongly identified as a child abuser, but that's such a bizarre question that you surely can't mean it.
I saw the emphasis on 'initial', but I don't see how anyone could think it would matter if someone somehow managed to get their record corrected later. The damage would already have been done.
Imagine that you're in this situation:
You have a child.
One of your child's friends comes round once a week, a regular thing. You pick them both up from school on that day and take them to your house. The other child's parent(s) come round and pick them up a few hours later. Maybe a single parent who has to to work until 1900 on a Friday, for example.
So...a mistake is made and you fail the vetting because of it.
This other parent is told that you have failed the vetting, which they will interpret as meaning that you are proven guilty of sexually abusing children (because that's the whole point of having such a scheme).
They will tell other parents, obviously. Within hours, days at most, dozens of people will know that you are officially a child abuser.
Oh, and you have to tell your child that their friend isn't allowed in the house any more. They'll want to know why.
Do you see how all this would cause you harm? Do you think that saying it was a mistake would help? Do you think that a letter saying it was a mistake would completely clear your name in the mind of everyone else?
You are wrong, simple as that. The accusations remain on the official record and they will cause you to fail one of the new background checks.
So, for example, a completely baseless slander made solely as an attack on you or as the result of someone else's disturbed mind will be enough to prevent you being a nurse, teacher, etc, or even from picking your neighbour's child up from school with your own child.
The law also applies to things that happen frequently. So there is the opening to extend the application of it to arrangements between parents. Function creep is a particularly strong part of this government.
Say, for example, you arrange with someone who lives very close to you to pick up your children together. So, for example, you collect both children (i.e. yours and theirs) from school on Monday and Tuesday and they collect both children from school on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. If you only live a couple of houses apart, it's a waste to use two cars to collect two children.
That arrangement is formal and frequent, so it is covered by this law and you'd both need to be vetted.
Or and this is the crazy thing, you lock the ******** away for life so there is no need to check to see if someone is a convicted sex offender, because get this, the will be locked away!
To extend it further. If you are ALREADY a teacher/nurse/paediatrician, suddenly your career is over, your mortgage in question, heck your entire life in question. Just on ACCUSATION alone. No need for a trial or conviction, just the mere whiff of impropriety will do you.
And unlike a formal complaint, where the malicious complainant can be charged with wasting police time, this kind of accusation is just "voicing concern" and entirely without reproach. No accountability, no come back. I believe it can also be totally anonymous? So, your life and career sunk, because of an unverified accusation..... still think its a good idea?
Wait there's actually a law against that? As in you could be arrested and potentially imprisoned or fined for that?
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 1,184
- Location
- leicester
Its the government,the country is in a state,mostly through government policy,the whole lot of them should hang their heads in shame.
Only my opinion,but no one else gets to be put on a "list" because of it,unlike whats happening to the people,innocent or otherwise.
Only my opinion,but no one else gets to be put on a "list" because of it,unlike whats happening to the people,innocent or otherwise.