Options
11.3 million potential pedophiles in UK?
![[Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e3c2248f25becf3d8b2c28dabe31c44a.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 1,469 Forum Member
✭✭✭
It seems to me that, once again, government is overreacting.
I have little problem in principal with checking up on adults who work closely with children, such as teachers, some social workers, scout leaders, school support staff and so on.
However, this new effort by the Govt seems ridiculously over the top.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8249020.stm
While it seems that £64 will not be charged to "volunteers", does anyone agree with me that:
1) This is just another tax
2) The main beneficiaries in all this will be the civil servants who wil be working on administering the scheme and certainly not kids who will lose out on going to clubs etc as a result.
3) It is a step towards a "denunciation" culture such as existed in Nazi Germany (report your local jew) or in Stalin's Soviet Union during the purges (report your local Trotskyite saboteur)
And what, I ask, is Cameron going to do about it if he is elected?
I have little problem in principal with checking up on adults who work closely with children, such as teachers, some social workers, scout leaders, school support staff and so on.
However, this new effort by the Govt seems ridiculously over the top.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8249020.stm
While it seems that £64 will not be charged to "volunteers", does anyone agree with me that:
1) This is just another tax
2) The main beneficiaries in all this will be the civil servants who wil be working on administering the scheme and certainly not kids who will lose out on going to clubs etc as a result.
3) It is a step towards a "denunciation" culture such as existed in Nazi Germany (report your local jew) or in Stalin's Soviet Union during the purges (report your local Trotskyite saboteur)
And what, I ask, is Cameron going to do about it if he is elected?
0
Comments
Typical government kneejerk overkill that will probably bring few - if any - of its intended benefits (much like the post-Dunblane handgun ban - look how effective that was).
But like you say, it will if nothing else keep a lot of civil servants and bureaucrats in jobs.
I'm glad I'm not involved in supervising or looking after kids in any way, shape or form - these days it's almost like you've got one foot in jail before you even start.
Essentially, it seems to me that they're branding over 11 million people potential child molesters until they can prove that they aren't. Strikes me as something of a U-turn on Britain's centuries-old principle of "innocent until proven guilty".
- Eric
*looks around corner to check for evil terrorists*
At least volunteers are exempt from the charge, and for the vast majority of people a CRB check will throw up absolutely nothing relevant. It won't stop unconvicted paedophiles of course, but nothing would do that.
Spending the money for this on investigating unsolved cases may help to boost convictions?
Typical Labour - using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
OK it'll create a few jobs but the effectiveness of such a scheme is impossible to measure. I'd have thought the biggest potential risk of sicko's grooming kids was via the web. Should we all be CRB checked before being allowed to log on?
A complete waste of time in my opinion. The existing legislation is more than sufficient.
We only have ourselves to blame.
'Er yes?'
'Well, could I see your CRB documentation?'
'I don't have any. I don't work with ch...'
'Get the van Gary, we've got a kiddy-fiddler on our hands. A right nonce'
Coming to your town soon.
Prophecy Politics - I know you elected me to sort out crime and unemployment today - but Im far too busy saving you from what might not actually happen tomorrow -and by the way "We expect you to pay for it"
Of course. All sorts of things are conceivable.
It's conceivable that because I have a car than can do 150mpg, I might do that down the High St this evening and slaughter a few pedestrians. So should it be confiscated?
This is classic nulabor nanny state overkill. I would bet there is no more child abuse now than there's ever been - we have a 24 hour media, that's the difference. The vast majority of the abuse is carried out by parents, girlfiends, boyfriends, relatives. What good will this idiotic legislation do those victims?
We have a society where kids think every adult is a threat and school teachers daredn't stick a plaster on a kid's arm.
No - the effect of this lunacy will be that many volunteers won't bother and just give up. There will be less kids' clubs. sports, activities and more of them hanging round on street corners. Which is precisely what we need.
I despair of these cretins, I really do.
The operative phrase here is 'could get access'.
Bad things 'could' happen all the time. They just do and always have.
But how far do people want to go?
You 'could' walk out of the house one day and somebody 'could' just go berserk and kill you.
So would it be acceptable to some if a curfew was imposed on the public for certain hours because a crime 'could' happen?
What if for the optimum safety of all the public people have to remain indoors unless they obtain a special license to leave their house because a bad thing 'could' potentially happen?
Obviously that was an exaggeration. But you have to understand that some of what is happening today would be seen as an exaggeration only a few short years ago.
If everybody's lives were so limited by caution and legislation that they were encouraged to not leave their house because of what 'could' happen, then at what cost would that be?
Surely there's a tipping point where people's standards of living are so affected by bureaucracy that they end up leading such a miserable existence that being 'safe' is literally a living nightmare.
There must eventually be a tipping point where the cost to people's lives is their own freedom itself.
What would the point of being alive be if people aren't allowed to simply live?
When you get people defending this kind of political control saying 'You have nothing to fear if you've got nothing to hide', I disagree...THIS is what there is to fear. The restrictions placed on your own life. You don't have to be guilty of a single thing to fear this.
" Better to be safe than sorry" so personally I see nothing wrong with this and I most definitely agree with this comment made by Barnardo's chief executive Martin Narey who you would imagine knows what he is talking about.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/new-checks-unveiled-for-childrens-club-drivers-1785536.htm
If it were my child I would want to know that everything possible was being done to protect him/her and if it was myself being vetted/ checked up on it wouldn't bother me in the least.
Very good point. We cannot even look after and contain the convicted paedophiles without someone wanting to let them out to roam the streets and recommit their filthy crimes.
Just another way Labour can get come more money from the public as a back door tax.
In which case very close relatives are where to start, not strangers, along with the shambles of various agencies as in the baby P case.
If they do more than three a month does that mean they have to apply for clearance as well.
Your quote is typical of the one used by all people who seek to control us with more and more surveillance and legislation. Like the ones who would have us drive at no speed because no deaths are acceptable on the roads. The only surprise is that he couldn't think of some more original way of expressing it!
If you want EVERYTHING possible to be done to protect your child, then it would be far better for convicted peadophiles to be kept in prison, rather than to have a scheme of trying to look into their criminal record?
Neither scheme would stop unconvicted peadophiles from having access to your children, but keeping convicted ones in prison would guarantee that NO convicted peadophile would ever have access to your children.
I will agree with what you say and at the same time point out that from the way this report is worded it is about 'parents' being vetted not strangers.
I do not think that would apply to them they are completely innocent.
Why they are always seen with children is that is the mental age they are best at home talking to. Both Brown and Balls live in Telly Tubbies land and the kiddies understand that language perfectly.
"Look Mummy those funny men (Balls and Brown) look like Tinky Winky and Po.:D
Behave yourself - keeping scum in prison costs money - making ordinary people pay/apply for certificates of innocence makes money ..LOL
Of course, they'll now know exactly who you are, and where you are, and what you've been doing in the last however many days due to the amount of CCTV installed to monitor us!