Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
Child protection or civil liberties?
From the Telegraph:
An estimated 11.3 million people – including some teenagers – will have to register with the Independent Safeguarding Authority by the time it is fully operational.
Anyone who wants to carry out any sort of work in schools or health care, together with most sports coaches, clergy and charity staff must have their backgrounds checked out before they start their jobs to see if they pose a risk.
Apart from the fears that the red tape and cost (£64 each unless you’re an unpaid volunteer) will deter good people from these essential roles, there is growing criticism of the impact the scheme will have on society at large.
A group of authors led by Philip Pullman has threatened to stop visiting schools unless they are exempted from being vetted by the ISA, while even Sir Michael Bichard , whose Soham inquiry set the whole thing off, has expressed some reservations.
Now The Manifesto Club , a civil liberties campaign group, has uncovered official guidance revealing that ISA case workers will not just look at an individual’s criminal record to decide if they are safe to build up relationships of trust with the young or vulnerable.
They will also be allowed to take into account allegations made by former employers or the public, and rule that an applicant appears dangerous because they are unable to build up relationships or have a complicated private life.
Of course, no one would want our children to be placed in danger by allowing unsuitable people to work with them.
But is forcing a quarter of the adult population to go through a lengthy, costly and subjective investigation into their past and their lifestyle the best way to make Britain safe?
An estimated 11.3 million people – including some teenagers – will have to register with the Independent Safeguarding Authority by the time it is fully operational.
Anyone who wants to carry out any sort of work in schools or health care, together with most sports coaches, clergy and charity staff must have their backgrounds checked out before they start their jobs to see if they pose a risk.
Apart from the fears that the red tape and cost (£64 each unless you’re an unpaid volunteer) will deter good people from these essential roles, there is growing criticism of the impact the scheme will have on society at large.
A group of authors led by Philip Pullman has threatened to stop visiting schools unless they are exempted from being vetted by the ISA, while even Sir Michael Bichard , whose Soham inquiry set the whole thing off, has expressed some reservations.
Now The Manifesto Club , a civil liberties campaign group, has uncovered official guidance revealing that ISA case workers will not just look at an individual’s criminal record to decide if they are safe to build up relationships of trust with the young or vulnerable.
They will also be allowed to take into account allegations made by former employers or the public, and rule that an applicant appears dangerous because they are unable to build up relationships or have a complicated private life.
Of course, no one would want our children to be placed in danger by allowing unsuitable people to work with them.
But is forcing a quarter of the adult population to go through a lengthy, costly and subjective investigation into their past and their lifestyle the best way to make Britain safe?
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Well lets hear the alternatives
Do you think we should just trust people Geezer? Gromit?
Do you recall what happened at Soham?
Pullman is just personally sleighted and is acting like a petulant schoolboy.
I'm not aware of what Bichard has said but given that the Telegraph has
declined to be explicit or quote him I'm rather inclined to suspect that it's
pretty minor.
So let's hear the alternatives
Do you think we should just trust people Geezer? Gromit?
Do you recall what happened at Soham?
Pullman is just personally sleighted and is acting like a petulant schoolboy.
I'm not aware of what Bichard has said but given that the Telegraph has
declined to be explicit or quote him I'm rather inclined to suspect that it's
pretty minor.
So let's hear the alternatives
No jake I certainly do not! Anyone on the register has previous right? If so why are they even on the streets? I'm just playing up a bit that we have to put people through this when the answer is really very simple. Even if I take the charitablke view that they can't help it they should be eithet locked up indefinately or have the desire removed in whatever way society sees fit. The trouble is the horse as gone and the handwringing dogooding J Arthurs are trying to shut the stable door. As usual the honest and good majority have to be humiated because the state cannot get their ar5se in gear.
Like R1 says it's all due to the pathetic liberal sentencing regime that we have come to this.
But having said that I dont really see the problem with vetting. I have to be vetted for my Banking job so what's the problem - A load of leftiwes about to be exposed for CND and Militant membership ?
My big issue is thwe 1/4 of the population employed by the State according to Gromit
But having said that I dont really see the problem with vetting. I have to be vetted for my Banking job so what's the problem - A load of leftiwes about to be exposed for CND and Militant membership ?
My big issue is thwe 1/4 of the population employed by the State according to Gromit
Most of these people will be working in a controlled environment with little or no opportunity to pose a threat to children. Of course safeguards must be in place to try to protect children where employees and others have unfettered or unsupervised access to children – and I believe it already exists in the form of enhanced CRB checks.
There is also a grave danger that people will be incorrectly labelled as “unsuitable” by this process. For example, it is likely to “fail” people who have been arrested, but not charged or convicted of any offence, but who happen to have their DNA profile taken and illegally (according to the European Court) retained.
A far greater threat exists in the form of single mothers who allow strange men unrestricted access to their homes and children simply on the basis that they have known them for a few weeks (or sometimes even less). No checks are carried out on their backgrounds and they have the potential to inflict far greater harm upon children than, say, a seventy year old lady who volunteers to do a bit of work at the local nursery once a week.
There is also a grave danger that people will be incorrectly labelled as “unsuitable” by this process. For example, it is likely to “fail” people who have been arrested, but not charged or convicted of any offence, but who happen to have their DNA profile taken and illegally (according to the European Court) retained.
A far greater threat exists in the form of single mothers who allow strange men unrestricted access to their homes and children simply on the basis that they have known them for a few weeks (or sometimes even less). No checks are carried out on their backgrounds and they have the potential to inflict far greater harm upon children than, say, a seventy year old lady who volunteers to do a bit of work at the local nursery once a week.
YMG - Shame they didn't do an intelligence check for your banking job!
In the Soham case, Huntley had no previous convictions only arrest
sentencing regiemes are therefore totally irrelevant.
Geezer - it's not a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted
If only it were just one "horse"
It's a case of shutting the stable door after 1 horse has bolted rather
than leaving it open and saying -" lightning doesn't strike twice".
Unless of course anybody here believes that the old vetting procedure
for people working with children was adequate?
Well? anyone?
In the Soham case, Huntley had no previous convictions only arrest
sentencing regiemes are therefore totally irrelevant.
Geezer - it's not a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted
If only it were just one "horse"
It's a case of shutting the stable door after 1 horse has bolted rather
than leaving it open and saying -" lightning doesn't strike twice".
Unless of course anybody here believes that the old vetting procedure
for people working with children was adequate?
Well? anyone?
I have gone into schools and have talked to kids (as part of an initiative from out local Chamber of Commerce). I was subject to a CRB check as were all the people who went on the course. It was not a problem in any way, shape or form. It took less than 4 weeks to come back. Most schools plan more than 4 weeks in advance.
Of course checks should be made, but on Sky News this morning it said parent swho regularly ferry kids to activities will also be subject to this check. Does that mean that the favour a mum may do for another mum round the corner, dropping her son to cubs with their son leave them subject to these checks. And what constitutes regularly, once a year every year is regular as is once a week everyweek. This really needs proper clarification else the little boy round the corner who loves his cubs might have to miss out now.
We have had this system in place in Scotland for years, though, I agree with R1 geezer, it obviously only works if the person has a record already. We have a process where if you work on a volutary basis for a charity etc, the checks are processed esentially free. I don't think they have noticed a drop off of people willing to undertake these types of jobs/roles - except perhaps by those with something to hide!
Geezer -
The whole point of Soham was that Huntly had been arrested several times but
nobody had ever managed to charge him with anything and get it to stick.
The only way there would be to sling suspected child offenders into gaol without
evidence or a trial and I doubt even you would want that.
NJ also misses the point. People are working with kids in a controlled environment.
But in that it would be easy to build a relationship with kids and get them to
meet outside of that environment.
The Soham girls were killed in Huntleys home
The whole point of Soham was that Huntly had been arrested several times but
nobody had ever managed to charge him with anything and get it to stick.
The only way there would be to sling suspected child offenders into gaol without
evidence or a trial and I doubt even you would want that.
NJ also misses the point. People are working with kids in a controlled environment.
But in that it would be easy to build a relationship with kids and get them to
meet outside of that environment.
The Soham girls were killed in Huntleys home
Jake you miss the point mate. I agree vetting would not have stopped huntley. You are also correct in that I would not expect people who had not be tried and convicted to be in some way disadvantaged.
The main point is this: Anyone who is a convicted paedo should not be at large, at all, ever. So why do you find that so remarkable? I;m not talking about "suspected molesters", I'm saying that if we where civilised we would not have known paedo's etc at large. So vetting serves no purpose.
However I accept that in reality we abuse the human rights of tha masses so the handwringers can feel more comfortable with themselves. So these subhumans are at large, vetting is therefore necessary because society does not have the stomach to deal with the problem properly.
Under geezer law convicted paedo is off the streets forever.
The main point is this: Anyone who is a convicted paedo should not be at large, at all, ever. So why do you find that so remarkable? I;m not talking about "suspected molesters", I'm saying that if we where civilised we would not have known paedo's etc at large. So vetting serves no purpose.
However I accept that in reality we abuse the human rights of tha masses so the handwringers can feel more comfortable with themselves. So these subhumans are at large, vetting is therefore necessary because society does not have the stomach to deal with the problem properly.
Under geezer law convicted paedo is off the streets forever.
1 to 20 of 20
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.