cashinmattress Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 Britain will subject everyone who works with kids to multiple, repeated police-checks Britain's pedophile-phobia has reached new heights of insanity -- now everyone who comes into contact with a child at school has to have a police background check and get certified as genuine non-pedophiles. But not just once -- over and over again; a different certificate for teaching karate, escorting field trips, or giving a presentation on careers day. Because, you know, you might not be a karate-teaching pedo, but you might be a field-trip pedo. Everyone's included from Members of Parliament to authors giving a reading. Charlie Stross has some good commentary on the potential dangers all this background checking creates: As you can imagine, the authors are upset. As Philip Pullman puts it, "It seems to be fuelled by the same combination of prurience, sexual fear and cold political calculation," the author of the bestselling His Dark Materials trilogy said today. "When you go into a school as an author or an illustrator you talk to a class at a time or else to the whole school. How on earth -- how on earth -- how in the world is anybody going to rape or assault a child in those circumstances? It's preposterous..." Even the simplest of databases have been found to contain error rates of 10%. (The HMRC database in this study contains merely first, second and surname, title, sex, data of birth, address and National Insurance number -- nevertheless 10% of the records contain errors.) Other agencies are even more prone to mistakes. For example: my wife recently discovered that our GP's medical records showed her as having been born outside the UK rather than in an NHS hospital in Manchester. We don't know why that error's in the system, and we've got the birth certificate and witnesses to prove that it is an error, but imagine the fun that might ensue if the control freaks in Whitehall decided to enforce record sharing between the NHS and the Immigration Agency ...! (Hopefully they're not that stupid, but who can tell?) The point is, if 10% of government database records contain an error, than the probability of a sweep of databases coming up with an error rises as you consult more sources. And there are a whole bundle of wonderful ways for errors to show up. If your name and date of birth are the same as someone with heavy criminal record, a CRB check could label you as a bad guy. If your social security number is one digit transposition away from $BAD_GUY, see above. If the previous owner of your house was a child abuser, see above. If your street address is one letter/digit away from a street address occupied by a criminal and some bored clerk mis-typed it, you can end up being conflated with somebody else. And the more sources the CRB checks, the higher the probability of a false positive result -- that is, of them obtaining a positive result (subject is a criminal) when in fact the subject is a negative. This is not a hypothetical worry. As of last November, the CRB had falsely identified more than 12,000 people as criminals, according to the Home Office. (Raw parliamentary answer here.) These are the disputes that were upheld, that is, ones where the falsely mis-identified were able to convince the CRB that their record was incorrect. These are false positives which have been conclusively identified as such. While the identified false positive rate is around 0.1%, the true figure is certainly much higher: because there will be a proportion of individuals identified as false positives who are in the unfortunate position of lacking the documentation to prove their innocence. Bloody hell. What kind of crazy paranoid nation have we become? Who is going to pay for all this mad legislation and enforcement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flatnose Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 Britain will subject everyone who works with kids to multiple, repeated police-checksBloody hell. What kind of crazy paranoid nation have we become? Who is going to pay for all this mad legislation and enforcement? Yet another stealth tax to keep the armies of useless government individuals in a job! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selling up Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 There have been excellent threads on this lunacy at the Guardian Comment is Free section. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elizabeth Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 Yet another stealth tax to keep the armies of useless government individuals in a job! You betcha. Those checks take a lot of time. Whole industries are generated. Mind you I don't think it unreasonable that a person should have to be checked but I reckon once a year at max, because if you are a paedo or convicted of kiddie abuse, you should by rights be banged up for a couple of years (although of course I know the new trendy thing amoung some judges is to recommend that the paedo buy the kid a bike as a little 'sorry I violated you, and turned you into a screwball for the next 20 years' make-up pressie). I do like the idea that someone might be a karate paedo but not a field trip paedo. Also there is a real problem with each organisation being unable to rely on previous checks - as a result many temps have to go through the process with every agency they register with and pay for it themselves. Should not a person be able to keep a certified copy of one of these things and have it updated every year if needs be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Miller Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 Britain will subject everyone who works with kids to multiple, repeated police-checksBloody hell. What kind of crazy paranoid nation have we become? Who is going to pay for all this mad legislation and enforcement? Michel Jackson turned quite pale at the news then asked his Dr to assist his suicide. Allegedly he momentarily perked up when he heard the words, "You'll just feel a small *****". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 You betcha. Those checks take a lot of time. Whole industries are generated. Mind you I don't think it unreasonable that a person should have to be checked but I reckon once a year at max, because if you are a paedo or convicted of kiddie abuse, you should by rights be banged up for a couple of years (although of course I know the new trendy thing amoung some judges is to recommend that the paedo buy the kid a bike as a little 'sorry I violated you, and turned you into a screwball for the next 20 years' make-up pressie). I do like the idea that someone might be a karate paedo but not a field trip paedo. Also there is a real problem with each organisation being unable to rely on previous checks - as a result many temps have to go through the process with every agency they register with and pay for it themselves. Should not a person be able to keep a certified copy of one of these things and have it updated every year if needs be? what about peados who like to pick up kids at the mall. you can see where this might lead....ID cards with built in peado checks.....no need to fear and if you have done nothing wrong and all that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Als Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 I can't find the link now but in one of these online articles the author said that they had asked a Home Office official if they expected a rebellion. According to the author the official simply couldn't grasp the fact that people might not want to join their database. Then he said that there must be something suspicious about them if they didn't want to join. The author went on to say that this database is viewed by the Home Office as a kind of 'club' for decent human beings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selling up Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 (edited) Mind you I don't think it unreasonable that a person should have to be checked In this context I think it is entirely unreasonable. They are talking about requiring a check for people such as visiting speakers, or myself, musical director of a children's theatre group twice weekly, who are already allowed no unchaperoned contact with children. Now I have no problem with these two propositions: 1) People who have access to children on a 1-1 basis, unchaperoned, might have to have their criminal background checked. On the other hand, I would dearly love somebody to explain why this should be applied only to statistically low-risk adults (teachers, doctors, musical directors of amateur operatic societies) and not to the statistically higher-risk adults (family friends, uncles, parents). 2) People such as me who are not willing to let the state investigate our backgrounds should not be given unsupervised access to children. Fine. Such was the status quo before this lunatic legislations which now says: I will not be allowed to stand at the front of a roomful of 20 children and 2 other adults (the minimum the society feels is safe) without submitting to government checks. It is preposterous. And before anyone says: "If you have nothing to hide, you've nothing to worry about" I ask them to consider database errors, and the personal cost to me of being inaccurately identified as a paedophile. On the guardian thread, someone raised the objection that children might come to trust me and then Facebook me or chat to me alone from the group EG if we met in the audience at a concert (both of which they do in fact). But that applies to the staff at the sweet shop, the bus driver, dad's friend from work and every other adult they would ever come into contact with. So why should I accept being singled out for investigation? If this becomes law I will be resigning as musical director, and I expect thousands of other volunteers will do the same. Edited July 19, 2009 by Selling up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elizabeth Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 In this context I think it is entirely unreasonable.They are talking about requiring a check for people such as visiting speakers, or myself, musical director of a children's theatre group twice weekly, who are already allowed no unchaperoned contact with children. ... I will not be allowed to stand at the front of a roomful of 20 children and 2 other adults (the minimum the society feels is safe) without submitting to government checks. It is preposterous. And before anyone says: "If you have nothing to hide, you've nothing to worry about" I ask them to consider database errors, and the personal cost to me of being inaccurately identified as a paedophile. On the guardian thread, someone raised the objection that children might come to trust me and then Facebook me or chat to me alone from the group EG if we met in the audience at a concert (both of which they do in fact). But that applies to the staff at the sweet shop, the bus driver, dad's friend from work and every other adult they would ever come into contact with. So why should I accept being singled out for investigation? If this becomes law I will be resigning as musical director, and I expect thousands of other volunteers will do the same. You have totally made your point. You are not doing it 1:1, and you have got other adults present who have been checked, so I agree, you shouldn't need to be checked. Having had one of these for a vulnerable adults job, I didn't really care. But I do take the point. We did have one person come up with a spent assault background from 20 years ago. It was a judgement call whether to allow him to continue. The wrong call and we would have lost one of the best workers we ever had! He really understood the clients and was one of the most calm and reasonable people I have ever seen in the face of some of the most atrocious behaviour I have ever encountered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecrashingisles Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 But that applies to the staff at the sweet shop, the bus driver, dad's friend from work and every other adult they would ever come into contact with. Someone with the mindset that led to this policy would just answer by saying, "Yes, that's why the next step is to extend it to the whole population." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Miller Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 I can't find the link now but in one of these online articles the author said that they had asked a Home Office official if they expected a rebellion. According to the author the official simply couldn't grasp the fact that people might not want to join their database. Then he said that there must be something suspicious about them if they didn't want to join. The author went on to say that this database is viewed by the Home Office as a kind of 'club' for decent human beings. It's a very good point, I read people were put off being Boy Scout leaders & helpers because of health and safety @rap and being vulnerable to being sued. Many people just want to pitch in, not become subject to checks etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wires 74 Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 It's a very good point, I read people were put off being Boy Scout leaders & helpers because of health and safety @rap and being vulnerable to being sued. Many people just want to pitch in, not become subject to checks etc The local Village Cricket team has just had to start refusing under-17`s because to play them would have meant CRB checks for everyone else - one wonders where this lunacy is going ... Incidentally try reading the article in Guardian comment by the Governments witchfinder-General Beatrix Campbell- if your blood pressure will stand it that is ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selling up Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 (edited) You have totally made your point. You are not doing it 1:1, and you have got other adults present who have been checked, so I agree, you shouldn't need to be checked.Having had one of these for a vulnerable adults job, I didn't really care. But I do take the point. We did have one person come up with a spent assault background from 20 years ago. It was a judgement call whether to allow him to continue. The wrong call and we would have lost one of the best workers we ever had! He really understood the clients and was one of the most calm and reasonable people I have ever seen in the face of some of the most atrocious behaviour I have ever encountered. Good... calmed down now! This issue makes me cross. Ironically, I already happily submit to a CRB check for my GP job so this is pretty much entirely a matter of principle for me. It seems entirely appropriate that in a role where I am required to undress children, touch them - even genitally on occasion, that I should be required by law to disclose any criminal background. It makes me furious that I should be told that I need a comparable level of clearance to stand chaperoned in front of twenty young singers. I can't explain why it bothers me so much except that it seems to represent paranoia and crowd-pleasing nonsense over rationality and proportionality... and yet another example of the growth of the database state. Edited July 19, 2009 by Selling up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cashinmattress Posted July 19, 2009 Author Share Posted July 19, 2009 (edited) The real issue for me... Is the state trying to segregate children away from the free willed, gifted, artistic, intelligent and morally adept citizens who actually care about the future of our kids? It can only prove to push them away from any form of education and guidance role by insulting and marginalizing us with this preposterous, humiliating legislation. Do we really need a bunch of state sanctioned, law abiding robots and lackeys looking after our kids? Will the church have to step up and give 100% pedo free status to all British clergy? Dangerous precedents are being set. Edited July 19, 2009 by cashinmattress Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selling up Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 Will the church have to step up and give 100% pedo free status to all British clergy?Dangerous precedents are being set. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eek Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 (edited) THe article seems to be nicked from Charlie Stross blog earlier this week antipope . Its an insane set of rules but what would you expect from this government. edit to post to complete url Edited July 19, 2009 by eek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Miller Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 The local Village Cricket team has just had to start refusing under-17`s because to play them would have meant CRB checks for everyone else - one wonders where this lunacy is going ...Incidentally try reading the article in Guardian comment by the Governments witchfinder-General Beatrix Campbell- if your blood pressure will stand it that is ... CAN ANYONE NAME ANOTHER COUNTRY THAT HAS PROPOSED THIS MADDNESS? I live abroad now, I tell people snippets of info from blighty, they clearly think I am exaggerating the many stories! You can't hang your national flag up as you might offend someone always gets a great laugh! Any Yanks I meet want to come over and shoot the "God damn commie barstewards". The fact we meet & greet illegal 'asylum' seekers with food and travel vouchers before tucking them into a hotel bed, before we can find them a permanent home with a flat screen TV makes their necks turn purple. They are in disbelief that a 16 year old girl get pregnant and is housed in a property because she is up the duff. We pay farmers (Mp's) to 'set aside' land and explain that simply means don't use it for anything. By now it's hard to stop some of them have a cardiac arrest! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elizabeth Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 The real issue for me...Is the state trying to segregate children away from the free willed, gifted, artistic, intelligent and morally adept citizens who actually care about the future of our kids? It can only prove to push them away from any form of education and guidance role by insulting and marginalizing us with this preposterous, humiliating legislation. Do we really need a bunch of state sanctioned, law abiding robots and lackeys looking after our kids? Will the church have to step up and give 100% pedo free status to all British clergy? Dangerous precedents are being set. the problem is that paedos are often attracted to volunteering with kids. If it doesn't involve 1:1 contact and other adults who have been checked are present it shouldn't have to happen. It also costs about £20 a check (contracted of course by Government to particular providers). But there has to be a limit. The first limit is of course that up to the present most paedos have gone undetected (Church reference a classic ) so it is unlikely to have captured the really prolific ones anyway. They are probably paid up members of the naive government bureaucrat's 'decency club'. The second is that the multiple checks are mad. Once you have had a check you should be able to refer anyone else to the same check, not do the thing time and time again, which is how it works at the moment. The current process is just another government contracted, consumer and private economy sponsored cash machine for multiple withdrawals by the government contract in-crowd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cashinmattress Posted July 19, 2009 Author Share Posted July 19, 2009 (edited) Yes it is a tax and cash cow, but it's the 'guilty until proven innocent' meme which has become ever more popular within the UK psyche which bothers me. Sure, kids have the right to safety, but come on man. Not long ago we were sending little Billy in to the coal mines and textile mills, and before that it was sacrificing him on the village altar to appease the gods. There will always be some abuse, but branding everybody a potential pedo unless they cough up the background-check fee's and conform to some hokey state standard is out of order. The greatest percentage of child abuse starts in the home, just as it always has. Nothing will change that. Edited July 19, 2009 by cashinmattress Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R K Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 The first limit is of course that up to the present most paedos have gone undetected (Church reference a classic ) so it is unlikely to have captured the really prolific ones anyway. The problem with the Catholic Church and paedophilia wasn't that the prolific abusers went undetected at all. It was that the Catholic Church protected them and covered it up to the detriment of the children in their care/supervision. (Christian Brothers in particular) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enrieb Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 On the other hand, I would dearly love somebody to explain why this should be applied only to statistically low-risk adults (teachers, doctors, musical directors of amateur operatic societies) and not to the statistically higher-risk adults (family friends, uncles, parents). This is a good point and demonstrates the compete absurdity of the pedo debate, the overwhelming majority of incidents of pedophilia are committed by close family members of the victim, not strangers in bushes and gym teachers. Every ******ing numpty chav or sun reader I meet displays incredible levels of rage towards pedo's, but they see nothing wrong with driving down the road beeping the horn at school girls, chatting up underage girls in pubs or standing by as a member of their own family pursues a sexual relationship with a girl who is still at school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number79 Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 I know that I should be incensed at this but for some reason am not. The crb check, imo, is insufficient since there can be years between checks. How many offences can one commit in a couple of years having had a satisfactory crb check? Maybe I am not so annoyed as I should be because this should now get me out of having to help with swimming, my daughters school has a rosta for parents that have to go in and help with swimming lessons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 The problem with the Catholic Church and paedophilia wasn't that the prolific abusers went undetected at all. It was that the Catholic Church protected them and covered it up to the detriment of the children in their care/supervision. (Christian Brothers in particular) But surely as long as they confessed to it and genuinely repented, no harm was done in the first place anyway. In the current climate this kind of thing is actually impossible to argue against. If you have to explain to somebody why you have a problem with it then you've already lost. The thing is, I don't know if the people who propose this garbage really believe in it, deep down, themselves, or if they're just overcompensating before anybody points the finger of suspicion at them. Anyway, by their twisted logic there's probably no such thing as a none-paedophile; anybody who does pass a CRB check should just be considered as a paedophile who hasn't been convicted yet. eight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cashinmattress Posted July 19, 2009 Author Share Posted July 19, 2009 This is a good point and demonstrates the compete absurdity of the pedo debate, the overwhelming majority of incidents of pedophilia are committed by close family members of the victim, not strangers in bushes and gym teachers. Every ******ing numpty chav or sun reader I meet displays incredible levels of rage towards pedo's, but they see nothing wrong with driving down the road beeping the horn at school girls, chatting up underage girls in pubs or standing by as a member of their own family pursues a sexual relationship with a girl who is still at school. Or how about a man who buys his wife/lover a sexy school girl outfit? Are there not issues with that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elizabeth Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 Or how about a man who buys his wife/lover a sexy school girl outfit? Are there not issues with that? Apart from the fact that 40 year old women generally look ridiculous in sexy school girl outfits (riding crop or no?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.