Checks to Drive Kids Now

Author
Discussion

speedchick

Original Poster:

5,194 posts

228 months

Friday 11th September 2009
quotequote all
Ok I know it's the Wail, but it has just been mentioned on the BBC news, just where is this interferance going to stop? For crying out laud, my daughter and her friends are forever getting lifts from the various parents in the group.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212637/No...

Lord Pikey

3,257 posts

221 months

Friday 11th September 2009
quotequote all
§5000 fine if its more than 3 times a month and you do not sign up according to radio 1 now.


what happens about nannys or babysitters then?

Jasandjules

70,420 posts

235 months

Friday 11th September 2009
quotequote all
200 staff to vet all those parents? I see this going t**s up very quickly, though it does just seem like another attempt of the Nanny state to gather as much information about people as possible. I wonder how many MPs have shares in IT Database Building companies.

Digga

41,086 posts

289 months

Friday 11th September 2009
quotequote all
Aside from the monumental increase in annying interference this represents - just think of the cost and manpower being thrown at this pointless initiative. I use the word 'initiative' in it's contemporary, politicised, knee jerk, ill-concieved reaction sense, and not in the Oxford Enlglish meaning of the word.

B Oeuf

39,731 posts

290 months

Friday 11th September 2009
quotequote all
Great idea, the CSA works a treat doesn't it, government databases are a doddle to set up and run, and data never gets lost.......what could possibly go wrong?

BTW, how on earth is this going to be monitored?

FFS, this bunch are really piss poor aren't they

Monki

1,233 posts

197 months

Friday 11th September 2009
quotequote all
Creates more government non-jobs I guess....few thousand in the admin department, few thousand in a call centre, few thousands insepctors, few thousand "Kid camera" operator's, few thousand advisors for the implementation......

Wow, if winky keeps this up there'll be zero unemployment in the UK ! hehe Thank god we have a blossoming private sector to keep paying more tax eh? rolleyes

parakitaMol.

11,876 posts

257 months

Friday 11th September 2009
quotequote all
Lord Pikey said:
what happens about nannys or babysitters then?
Nannies are already CRB checked for their 'business'


I am absolutely livid about this utter waste of time.

It is a waste of time becaue paedophiles will find a way to circumvent it whilst 99% the population will be inconvenienced needlessly and children will receive even LESS contact with society - which is already compromised because parents are too scared to let their kids play out / walk to school.

It's pandering to the nation of alreay over-protected molly coddled kids because of these 'helicopter' parents who live in this bubble of fear.

I read something recently that the numbers of child murders/abductions have remained static since the 40s.... yet the FEAR is 1000 x what it used to be - totally disproportionate and it is utterly ludicrous.

M3333

2,265 posts

220 months

Friday 11th September 2009
quotequote all
The loony's running the asylum get better!

What a utterly stupid idea. Does the Government actually believe anyone with an intent to harm children is going to think 'now i have signed this i can never ever do any harm'

FFS, i know the cases in recent years have been horrific but it is still very very rare. This idea is just extreme and will not stop any nutcase doing whatever he/she is going to do to. rolleyes

B Oeuf

39,731 posts

290 months

Friday 11th September 2009
quotequote all
parakitaMol. said:
It is a waste of time becaue paedophiles will find a way to circumvent it whilst 99% the population will be inconvenienced needlessly
That's the real issue with this utterly pointless legislation, has there ever been an instance of a Paedo having been caught driving a bunch of kids to a footy match?

Digga

41,086 posts

289 months

Friday 11th September 2009
quotequote all
B Oeuf said:
parakitaMol. said:
It is a waste of time becaue paedophiles will find a way to circumvent it whilst 99% the population will be inconvenienced needlessly
That's the real issue with this utterly pointless legislation, has there ever been an instance of a Paedo having been caught driving a bunch of kids to a footy match?
It also achieves what this government likes best; to criminalise the population by assuming guilt until innocence has been verified through rigorously invading privacy and dignity.

parakitaMol.

11,876 posts

257 months

Friday 11th September 2009
quotequote all
B Oeuf said:
parakitaMol. said:
It is a waste of time becaue paedophiles will find a way to circumvent it whilst 99% the population will be inconvenienced needlessly
That's the real issue with this utterly pointless legislation, has there ever been an instance of a Paedo having been caught driving a bunch of kids to a footy match?
No, but curiously it seems that most of them are already *known* in one way or another - (Huntley AND Whiting are good examples of that) and have prior convictions that escalate in severity....

The ANSWER is to lock them up and not let them out again for fks sake. Or is that too straight forward?

Yes, it is, so how about drumming up a fearful society willing to 'pay' a token to 'recieve' peace of mind... (my little certificate buys me a 'good parent' badge..) utter bullst... just like this imaginary fking 'global warming' (my little petrol tax buys me a 'good citizen badge') fk off.

....that's another thing that gets my fking goat - all this social worker softy therapy, lenient sentencing and 'rights' in prison.

Yes. I am mildly annoyed by this - and mostly because again, it's the 'majority' of middle England grey, 2 dimensional suckers who fall for it in the sheep like belief that nanny knows best. I hate them more than I hate politicians.

Edited by parakitaMol. on Friday 11th September 08:44

Jasandjules

70,420 posts

235 months

Friday 11th September 2009
quotequote all
parakitaMol. said:
The ANSWER is to shoot them. Or is that too straight forward?
EFA.

The alternative is that when "safe" to be released the person is placed in a house for a week with the children of the members of the board (and the shrink) who deemed them safe to be released.......... See how many of them are let out then...

jesta1865

3,448 posts

215 months

Friday 11th September 2009
quotequote all
just been speaking to people in a school about this, and they are assuming that as they have to pay for the enhanced crb checks already out of their budget, that they will have to find the £64 for this as well and not just for the people they have working for them.

they have already had their budgets cut this year, now the gubbermint is going to take back more.

seems a bit too convenient that it all adds up to £100.

just another stealth tax i think. i am surprised they haven't tried to tax us if we have less than 50% of our time in the car on our own.

idiots.

chris watton

22,478 posts

266 months

Friday 11th September 2009
quotequote all
So, this is really about creating yet more non jobs, aimed specifically at persecuting the average UK law abiding citizen. They will have to pay £64 for a certificate to confirm that they are not a paedophile! All jobs to persecute the tax payer are paid for by the tax payer!
It has gone way beyond madness – the government can seemingly get away with anything!

BOR

4,811 posts

261 months

Friday 11th September 2009
quotequote all

The Home Office said: 'The Vetting and Barring Scheme does not cover personal or family relationships, so parents making informal arrangements to give lifts to children will not have to be vetted.


parakitaMol.

11,876 posts

257 months

Friday 11th September 2009
quotequote all
BOR said:
The Home Office said: 'The Vetting and Barring Scheme does not cover personal or family relationships, so parents making informal arrangements to give lifts to children will not have to be vetted.
No we understand this however; any 'groups' however informal will be.... Scout Groups, Saturday football clubs, anything which is being offered as a club or activity where parents make contributions in order to keep it going. It's absurd, unweildy and will ultimately destroy a number of local community based groups because where they rely on 'goodwill' to transport or mind children the cost of this will force them to cancel... and for what? it's a stinking rancid red herring that will NOT prevent child abuse or catch paedophiles.

speedchick

Original Poster:

5,194 posts

228 months

Friday 11th September 2009
quotequote all
They were saying on the BBC this morning that if its an informal group of parents, with the who's driving them to football practice this week' then it's ok, but if the ffotball club ask the parents to do car share, then those parents have to be checked out. so the best thing to do is sort it out amongst yourselves and not rely on the cadets/scouts/footy club to sort it.

Edited by speedchick on Friday 11th September 09:32

Bing o

15,184 posts

225 months

Friday 11th September 2009
quotequote all
What a stupid bunch of inept s. Bring on 2010 when we can consign the PLP to the dustbin of history.

BOR

4,811 posts

261 months

Friday 11th September 2009
quotequote all
(@ parakita)

Sure. I agree with you, and I think it's a bad idea. But you can understand why it's being proposed. After every attack where the perpetrator is in a position of trust, there is always an outcry about why the guy's previous convictions weren't picked up.

I think the idea is questionable and reinforces the myth that there is a paedo under every bed, but it's an exageration to suggest that you can#t give your neighbours' kids a lift without a formal check.

Edited by BOR on Friday 11th September 09:40

zac510

5,546 posts

212 months

Friday 11th September 2009
quotequote all
[quote]Vetting and Barring Scheme
[/quote]

They've really only got one objective haven't they - to vet and bar people!

It's not the 'Make People's Life Easier Scheme'.