Childcare help 'could be illegal'

So... if I leave my kids with my parents for a few evenings a month I'm a criminal now? Or are they criminals for agreeing to help?

This doesn't make much sense to me... Aren't the government supposed to be all for family and community?
 
Stolly said:
People don't normally make a profit out of family and friends in my experience. Cover costs perhaps, but not make a living. You have to draw the line somewhere, and that seems a sensible place to me.
Click to expand...

where does it say anything about making a living. It says making money or rewards. that means any friend or relative that you may chuck £20 towards now has to register. I hope and expect mos people will ignore this law.

Duff-Man said:
This doesn't make much sense to me... Aren't the government supposed to be all for family and community?
Click to expand...
Nope this governments all about micro management of us, with ridiculous knee-jerk laws.
 
AcidHell2 said:
where does it say anything about making a living. It says making money or rewards. that means any friend or relative that you may chuck £20 towards now has to register. I hope and expect mos people will ignore this law.
Click to expand...

I never said it did, i was stating my opinion.
 
AcidHell2 said:
Why? that is ridiculous. if it's your extended family say a niece or something and you give them a bit of money to babysit. They should register. Come on. It is utterly retarded.
Click to expand...

I hardly mean your neice. According to BBC "Close relatives of children, such as grandparents, siblings, aunts or uncles, were exempt from the rules, he added. " which I think would include neices and nephews. Again if it doesn't then tweak it a little.

Perhaps it's a badly drafted law - labour seems to be good at those. But fundamentally I think anyone looking after kids, for profit, when there is no family connection (I'd exempt neighbours as well) should be vetted.
 
The Halk said:
I hardly mean your neice. According to BBC "Close relatives of children, such as grandparents, siblings, aunts or uncles, were exempt from the rules, he added. " which I think would include neices and nephews. Again if it doesn't then tweak it a little.
.
Click to expand...

And how about friends which would include godparents. It needs more than a tweak. It needs to change to professional babysitters only.
 
my old neighbour was claiming every benifit under the sun, including a couple of (probably) made up disability benifits, and she looked after people's kids after school, maybe 4 or 5 at a time for a good few hours, she's not entirely all there to begin with, but she's the sort of person who should be forced into this program, NOT those who are doing it to help each other out, babysitting to return the favour is fine, having to register for it is retarded.

does that mean if a kid wants to go to their friends house after school, the family must undergo a police CRB check? and the child must take their own dinner, the other child's parents must register as a minder for the duration of the kid's visit? insanity :/
 
about this being "for reward" business, the same goes for anyone who drives someone somewhere, even designated drivers, and then accepts petrol money. They aren't insured, because they're doing it for reward....
 
AcidHell2 said:
And how about friends which would include godparents. It needs more than a tweak. It needs to change to professional babysitters only.
Click to expand...

Godparents are close family...

I've actually changed my mind. I now think it's a law with so many problems it's worse than no law at all.

The law should exclude family, neighbours, people doing it irregularly (which it already does), and where babysitting is offered in return.

There's two reasons a proper law is desirable though. First because parents may asume anyone advertising that they can look after kids will be vetted, and secondly to make sure we tax the buggers.
 
What next though? Will they start churning out laws that if you clean the neighbour hoods cars for extra pocket money you have to register at the council because it is a "rewarded business"... or clean the cars for free? :/ A bit different but same context I believe.
 
The Halk said:
There's two reasons a proper law is desirable though. First because parents may asume anyone advertising that they can look after kids will be vetted, and secondly to make sure we tax the buggers.
Click to expand...

The law does not ensure taxation because sole traders declare their own income, being registered doesn't mean squat.
 
AcidHell2 said:
Since when. Unless the law says otherwise godparents generally have no legal rights.
Click to expand...

I meant in my opinion. Meaning the laws I envisaged would include what I considered to be close family. I have no idea what position godparents are in the legal scheme of things. I know that my dads will mentions my godparents as guardians should him and my mum pop their clogs some time before I'm 18. It's erm, a little out of date now if it's still in there :)
 
Energize said:
The law does not help with taxation as anyone registered as a babysitter declares their own income, if they weren't before they won't be now.
Click to expand...

HMRC would at least be able to see who was a babysitter. It might have a positive effect on preventing them claiming benefits when they shouldn't, or submitting little or no tax.

HMRC sometimes do crack down on that sort of thing.
 
Yet another looney law from Labour and the terminally greedy **** in Westminster.

Shall we add it to the "thou shall not set off nuclear weapons" law?

Its pathetic, truely pathetic, yet people complain and do nothing about it.
 
It's made very clear in Ofsted legislation.

"‘Reward’ can be money or payment by other means such as gifts or services or providing reciprocal care for another person."

However, I imagine this will be looked at, for instance as of...last september I think, family members are no longer alowed to register for looking after kids related to them, as they were doing this so the parents could claim benefits.

I'll see if I can find out for sure if this is being looked at.

Oh also it costs £30 a year to register as a childminder and a one off payment of ...£30-40 I can't remember exactly for a CRB, so it's hardly naked profiteering, it costs more than that for us to amend an incorrect entry on our database, which IS naked profiteering.

Interestingly, if the woman looked after her friends child in the childs home, she wouldn't HAVE to register.

Oh and godparents don't count as relatives.

Yes, I work for Ofsted.
 
Last edited:
Fenris said:
Oh also it costs £30 a year to register as a childminder and a one off payment of ...£30-40 I can't remember exactly for a CRB, so it's hardly naked profiteering, it costs more than that for us to amend an incorrect entry on our database, which IS naked profiteering.
Click to expand...

Wow that is profiteering, £30 for a computer to check a record and another £30 for someone to file a document. I thought registration would actually be free.
 
Energize said:
Wow that is profiteering, £30 for a computer to check a record and another £30 for someone to file a document. I thought registration would actually be free.
Click to expand...

Everything costs money, and that money has to come from somewhere.


Ofsted is a non-profit organisation, by deffinition it can't be profiteering.
 
Last edited:
I do understand why this law is there, but it's been so badly concocted and applied its crazy.

For example 4 good friends all have children, they decide to get together to form a babysitters club where every 2 weeks one of them takes it in turn to look after all the others kids for a day/evening, so that the other parents can have some personal time.

...this is now against the law unless they register as child minders. They're not doing anything wrong, however the case cited by the OP states that the rewards don't have to be financial, in which case they can pretty much apply it to anything they want.

Oh and the neighbour who reported those 2 police officers needs a good slap imo, its none of their business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom