PDA

View Full Version : A quarter of adults to face 'anti-paedophile' tests



Tylerdurden
06-26-2008, 12:50 PM
The launch of a new Government agency will see 11.3million people vetted for any criminal past before they are approved to have contact with children aged under 16.
But the increase in child protection measures is so great it is "poisoning" relationships between the generations, according to respected sociologist Professor Frank Furedi.
In a report for think tank Civitas, he said the use of criminal records bureau checks to ensure the safety of children and vulnerable adults has created an atmosphere of suspicion.
As a result ordinary parents - many of whom are volunteers at sports and social clubs - now find themselves regarded "potential child abusers".
The checks were introduced to tighten procedures to protect children after school caretaker Ian Huntley murdered 10 year olds Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells in Soham in 2002.
However, there are growing fears that the measures have now gone too far.
Professor Furedi said most adults now think twice before telling off children who were misbehaving, or helping children in distress for fear of the consequences.
He said that the need for the checks had transformed parents "in the regulatory and public imagination into potential child abusers, barred from any contact with children until the database gives them the green light".
From next year the new Independent Safeguarding Authority will require any adult who come into contact with children or vulnerable adults either through their work or in voluntary groups to be vetted.
But Prof Furedi's report, Licensed to Hug, highlighted examples of when adult-child relationships were distorted by the need for CRB checks already being required by schools and other organisations.
In one example, a woman could not kiss her daughter goodbye on a school trip because she had not been vetted.
In another, a mother was surprised to be told by another parent that she and her husband were "CRB checked" when their children played together.
In a third example, a father was given "filthy looks" by a group of mothers when he took his child swimming on his own in "a scene from a Western when the room goes silent and tumbleweed blows across the foreground".
Prof Furedi details how one woman was made to feel like a "second class mother" because she was barred from a school disco because she did not have a CRB check.
Prof Furedi, a sociology professor from Kent University, said that "adults are no longer trusted or expected to engage with children on their own initiative".
He said: "When parents feel in need of official reassurance that other parents have passed the paedophile test before they even start on the pleasantries, something has gone badly wrong in our communities.
"We should question whether there is anything healthy in a response where communities look at children's own fathers with suspicion, but would balk at helping a lost child find their way home."
Prof Furedi, the author of a book called "Paranoid Parenting", said there was a trend to treat parenthood as a "professional endeavour that demanded increasing regulation and monitoring".
Prof Furedi said that CRB checks did not "provide anything like a cast-iron guarantee that children will be safe with a particular adult".
"All it tells us is that the person has not been convicted of an offence in the past," he said.
He called for a national review to demonstrate the need to "improve and clarify adult authority".
Prof Furedi said: "The adult qualities of spontaneous compassion and commitment are far more effective safeguarding methods than pieces of paper that promote the messages 'Keep Out' and 'Watch Your Back'."
Figures show that volunteering is on the decline with 13 per cent of men saying they would not volunteer because they were worried people would think they were child abusers, according to a survey last year.
The report comes after Children's Commissioner, Sir Al Aynsley Green, said 50,000 girls were waiting to join the Guides because of a shortage of adult volunteers, partly caused by the red tape of the CRB process.
Martin Narey, chief executive of children's charity Barnardo's, said his behaviour had been affected by the suspicions around adult-child relationships.
Writing in The New Statesman, he says: "I am likely to usher my wife forward if a child falls over in the street, lest my picking up the child could be misinterpreted. We need to address that. Adults - particularly men - should not routinely be seen as potential child abusers.
"And we need urgently to expose the nonsense of 'stranger danger' and convince parents that, although the risk of a child of theirs being abused at all is small, that risk comes not from lurking strangers, but from people known by their children - often relatives - who are able to exploit a child's trust."
However, he stressed that not to run any checks on past behaviour that could point to potential abuse would be "scandalously reckless" and he supported plans for the new Independent Safeguarding Authority whose work he said "will restore parental confidence" in adults who volunteer to help groups like the Scouts.
The CRB said yesterday that it will process 3.6million checks this year - up from 3.4million last year - of which 20 per cent were for volunteers.
Vince Gaskell, the bureau's chief executive, said he did not believe that CRB checks were poisoning the relationship between adults and children.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2194359/A-quarter-of-adults-to-face-%27anti-paedophile%27-tests.html

Tylerdurden
06-26-2008, 12:51 PM
Holy ****e! If you have a conviction in your past you better not touch your kid without approval.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
06-26-2008, 12:56 PM
"Vince Gaskell, the bureau's chief executive, said he did not believe that CRB checks were poisoning the relationship between adults and children."

Well, in the immortal words of mandy Rice-Davies, "He would say that, wouldn't he?"

The rest of us will beg to differ.

In fact, I have not felt quite this cross with my Government since Tony and Cherie left Downing Street.

Tanbark Spanker
06-26-2008, 01:14 PM
www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_c7JTADT_k

I hear GHW and Cheney were abusing Cath O'Brians 9 yr. old daughter.

botebum
06-26-2008, 01:46 PM
Although I don't always trust your sources, Mark, I'm not surprised that something like this is or could happen.
Parent is a verb. It is not what you are just for having a child. It's what you do when you have one. Years ago, parents started trying to turn their responsibility over to the school system to raise their children. What has evolved is that the government that runs the schools has taken up that job. How many times do you hear stories about parents being arrested for corporal punishment of their children. Spanking isn't beating. Corporal punishment or not of my kids is my and my wife's choice. Beating them is a legal issue. (Just for the record- I don't have to hit my kids because they know I will. One look is now enough.)
During my first marriage, my oldest stepdaughter had some pretty serious rebellion issues. She was 15-16. She made the mistake of calling my then wife a c***. I slapped her hard enough to sit her down. She ran from the house and called CPS(Child Protective Services) from a friend's house.CPS investigators showed up two days later:rolleyes:. I was formally polite with them, although not allowing them in the house. This kind of pissed them off but my response was, "no warrant? We talk on the porch". We discussed the situation and they clearly weren't happy with some of my responses. They didn't think that slapping my SD was appropriate for the situation. I explained that as her parent, it was my job to raise her to be respectful and to follow rules. My reaction had very little to do with anger. (I know some here will loudly disagree with my actions- tough) I told the investigators that if they needed to see an example of my anger I'd be happy to show them. I called my wife to the door and told the investigator to call her a c***. He seemed confused. I told him that I was raising my daughter and she got slapped. If he were to call my wife by the same name, he see that I wasn't planning on raising him. The interview transgressed to a point where the investigator thought that I should allow my daughter to make rules for herself in a larger way or at least be able to have an equal say in family issues. She wasn't doing well in school at the time and was rebellious at every opportunity. I exlained this to him and told him that when she started taking on the responsibilities that she already had then she might be allowed some further responsibility in raising herself. Until then, it's a monarchy and I'm the King, Mom's the Queen, and all the kids were Loyal Subjects. No room for democracy in the raising of kids for now. The investigators left looking unpleased and wet(it was raining and the porch had no roof). In NYS the law says that they have to return a finding of "founded" or "unfounded" to the accused within two weeks. A week later, we received a form letter stating "unfounded".
My daughter has grown to be a fine young woman of 29 years. She is happily married and has 4 great kids. She has thanked me for staying tough when she was going through tough parts of growing up.
Was I too tough sometimes? Yes. Do I reget the way I raised those kids? Not in the whole. Am I raising my two girls now the same way I raised the first set? They are 8 and 2, so right now, pretty much yes. Ask me again in 8 years if I'm still raising teens the same way and I'll tell you. I doubt I'll have the same issues, as Tonya and I stand together on raising the kids more than the x-box and I ever did.
Will I ever need the government to tell me how to raise my kids? A resounding NO!

Doug

hansp77
06-26-2008, 02:21 PM
Have you read Liquid Fear (http://books.google.com/books?id=VexDgzx5BlgC&pg=PA1&sig=ACfU3U3bVluZos1LjMqnVRiPSpv01Ms6cA&vq=%22Let+me+assert+my+firm+belief+that+the+only+t hing+we+have+to+fear+is+fear+itself.+Franklin+Dela no+Roosevelt,%22&source=gbs_quotes_s&cad=2#PPP1,M1) by Zygmunt Bauman Mark?
If you haven't I think you would like it.

PatCassidy
06-26-2008, 03:16 PM
If you wanted to work with kids in Los Angeles through any program of the parks and recreation department, you have had to have been fingerprinted since at least 2002.

Every volunteer who sails with kids on the tall ship programs out of Los Angeles is "screened" this way. Also have to participate in random drug testing program.

It's not a big deal. You get fingerprinted. The end.

Unless you have a history of abusing children, you don't have anything to worry about.

TimH
06-26-2008, 03:19 PM
The government should just take all the children and have them be raised by machines. no adult human contact means no worries.

Kaa
06-26-2008, 03:38 PM
Also have to participate in random drug testing program.

It's not a big deal. You get fingerprinted. The end.

And pissing in a cup on command on a regular basis is part of getting fingerprinted or part of "The end"? :-)


Unless you have a history of abusing children, you don't have anything to worry about.

Really. You mean there has never been a single unfounded accusation of improper behavior. Never a single hysterical parent. The fact that adults are explicitly forbidden from being alone in a room with a kid is not worrying, oh no...

How many males work in child care? Why do you think this is so and is this good?

Kaa

Tylerdurden
06-26-2008, 03:40 PM
If you wanted to work with kids in Los Angeles through any program of the parks and recreation department, you have had to have been fingerprinted since at least 2002.

Every volunteer who sails with kids on the tall ship programs out of Los Angeles is "screened" this way. Also have to participate in random drug testing program.

It's not a big deal. You get fingerprinted. The end.

Unless you have a history of abusing children, you don't have anything to worry about.

So you would be okay if you were told you couldn't hug your kid after winning the big game because you haven't been vetted yet?

Tylerdurden
06-26-2008, 03:41 PM
Have you read Liquid Fear (http://books.google.com/books?id=VexDgzx5BlgC&pg=PA1&sig=ACfU3U3bVluZos1LjMqnVRiPSpv01Ms6cA&vq=%22Let+me+assert+my+firm+belief+that+the+only+t hing+we+have+to+fear+is+fear+itself.+Franklin+Dela no+Roosevelt,%22&source=gbs_quotes_s&cad=2#PPP1,M1) by Zygmunt Bauman Mark?
If you haven't I think you would like it.

I will give it a go thanks

PatCassidy
06-26-2008, 04:25 PM
You aren't going to get into trouble hugging a child. But you can't take a shower with one. And if one was arrested for taking a shower with kids, or taking pictures of kids taking showers - then yes, the big, bad government would say that it is time for you to leave the park.

The drug test is a Coast Guard requirement for working as crew on an inspected vessel.

Kaa
06-26-2008, 09:31 PM
You aren't going to get into trouble hugging a child.

I do not share your optimism.

In some places it's "inappropriate" for a four-year-old child to hug you!


School administrators gave a 4-year-old student an in-school suspension for inappropriately touching a teacher's aide after the pre-kindergartner hugged the woman.

A letter from La Vega school district administrators to the student's parents said that the boy was involved in "inappropriate physical behavior interpreted as sexual contact and/or sexual harassment" after he hugged the woman and he "rubbed his face in the chest of (the) female employee" on Nov. 10. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16159302/)

Or take the sexual misconduct policy at the Gettysburg College, and this time we're talking adults, no children involved. The policy


...sets the parameters for acceptable sexual contact. There needs to be consent, which it defines as “the act of willingly and verbally agreeing to engage in specific sexual conduct. If either person at any point in a sexual encounter does not give continuing and active consent, all sexual contact must cease, even if consent was given earlier.” Sexual interaction includes a wide variety of activities including “brushing,” “patting,” “kissing,” and -- gasp! -- “hugging.” (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15463)

Do note that hugging is defined as a sexual interaction.

So, I'm not going to get in trouble for hugging a child? Are you sure?

Kaa

ishmael
06-26-2008, 10:42 PM
When I worked with sex offenders I had to be vetted. When I worked with nuclear materials I got vetted a whole lot more. I couldn't tell them trust me on this, I'm a nice guy

So what, exactly, is the problem here? For certain jobs you get scoped. If they are saying a quarter of the populous is pedophiles and we need special investigations then that's more than a bit absurd. Maybe two percent, and most aren't active.

Bruce Hooke
06-26-2008, 10:44 PM
You aren't going to get into trouble hugging a child.

My understanding is that even touching a child pretty much anywhere other than on their hand is prohibited in schools these days. Gone are the days when the teacher might comfort a child who had fallen down on the playground by hugging them or send the kindergarteners home with an innocent hug. It is this aspect of the "all adults are dangerous" attitude that worries my much more than the vetting bit. Physical contact with other human beings is important to our health. Acting like we are all somehow dangerous to touch is deeply unhealthy and abnormal.

The Bigfella
06-27-2008, 01:01 AM
We've had "Working with Children" checks here for years. Damn good thing they are too. When I was running an outsourcing business, I had 80 or so people on one contract that had to be cleared by the vetting agency because they were in contact with kids.

I only ever had one employee "fail" the check, but I hired him anyhow - and I could tell that the guy at the agency was happy that I did (although he didn't say it in as many words). The agency could not give you details of why a person got the negative result, you had to ask the individual to divulge why the system pinged them. You were required to report whether you hired the person or not. My employee "failed" because of a pool room fight 13 years previously, when he was a hot-headed 15 year old.

I subsequently used that example as a test for managers that I was recruiting. "Would you hire this person"

martin schulz
06-27-2008, 02:33 AM
I remember being hugged by my kindergarden governess and being a 5 year old boy - I didn't like it.

Now when you also use the paintings I did back then (coffins, devils, fire, skulls) as evidence I am sure a clever lawyer could get an interesting case of child abuse.

AussieBarney
06-27-2008, 05:15 AM
I am a practising social worker who specialises in youth work I have had my particulars submitted for a "working with children check" 11 times in the past six years. Every time I have started a new contract. No problems I have passed each time. Anything to protect the kids. It did not impact on my privacy It protected the kidfs I am all for it I, personally know, only too bloody well the impact of the rockspiders and filth that prey on kids. Either you can have a law that says you need a check to work with kids or you can stand on some "right to privacy" crap and give the filth free rein with your kids Make a choice I know what my choice is Barney

Andrew Craig-Bennett
06-27-2008, 05:23 AM
Well, I am putting myself in for a Criminal Records Bureau check, as is my wife, so I will report back afterwards. Officially we am doing this because we want to put something back to my sons' Sea Scout troop, unofficially we have another reason, as we are planning to apply to adopt our niece, and I suspect that an application to adopt a 14 year old girl from overseas will ring every alarm bell in the Home Office! ;)

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
06-27-2008, 05:29 AM
Well, I am putting myself in for a Criminal Records Bureau check, as is my wife, so I will report back afterwards. ....

I didn't think you could apply for a check from the CRB on your own behalf - thought you had to have a convenient organization apply for you.... but SWMBO says you can - she also has a cunning way of avoiding the fee.

Hwyl
06-27-2008, 05:39 AM
unofficially we have another reason, as we are planning to apply to adopt our niece,

This news cannot pass without comment, may I offer my best wishes with that.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
06-27-2008, 06:34 AM
I didn't think you could apply for a check from the CRB on your own behalf - thought you had to have a convenient organization apply for you.... but SWMBO says you can - she also has a cunning way of avoiding the fee.

That's what we thought, too, so it seemed a good moment to respond to the Sea Scouts' long standing request for more helpers. In my own defence, I should add that we had been planning to do more with the Scouts anyway, but had not got round to it.

The Bigfella
06-27-2008, 08:23 AM
Best wishes there Andrew.

My daughter has had to apply for a CRB too - she's looking likely to be off to Korea to do some English as a Second Language teaching for a year. I had a long chat with her today about why she likes living in Asia. You can go downstairs any time of the night to buy a yoghurt! Their public transport is brilliant - and it works 24 hours a day - and you don't need a car!

Bob Cleek
06-27-2008, 12:22 PM
I'll bet these guys have something to say about this!

http://www.nambla.org/

Don't fret. Give it time. They used to say the same things about homosexuals that they are saying about pedophiles. I expect that within a few years, the pedophiles' "sexual orientation" will be recognized as a protected civil right by the California Supreme Court.

Bruce Hooke
06-27-2008, 01:22 PM
Don't fret. Give it time. They used to say the same things about homosexuals that they are saying about pedophiles. I expect that within a few years, the pedophiles' "sexual orientation" will be recognized as a protected civil right by the California Supreme Court.

That is one of the most repulsive, vile and obnoxious comments I have read in a long time. You are equating consensual private relationships between adults with assaults on innocent children and in so doing slandering various of my friends and family who happen to be gay.

It was because of trash like this that I starting giving up on the forum a few months back and I think it is time for me to sign off again.

PatCassidy
06-27-2008, 02:56 PM
sarcasm

Pronunciation: \ˈsär-ˌka-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwarəs- to cut
Date: 1550
1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b: the use or language of sarcasm
synonyms see wit

Keith Wilson
06-27-2008, 03:03 PM
Officially we am doing this because we want to put something back to my sons' Sea Scout troop, unofficially we have another reason, as we are planning to apply to adopt our niece, and I suspect that an application to adopt a 14 year old girl from overseas will ring every alarm bell in the Home Office!No doubt. Having adopted two children internationally myself, I can say that if everyone had to go through that process to have children, the species would have died out long ago. Good luck; I hope it goes easily and well.

sdowney717
07-21-2008, 05:04 PM
married at 9 and 10 in Yemen
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/world/middleeast/29marriage.html?hp

Why is this wrong?
Is there a problem with children forced to have sex with men many decades older than them and have them continually beaten into submission?

What about all the others whose story is never told.



But despite a rising tide of outrage, the fight against the practice is not easy. Hard-line Islamic conservatives, whose influence has grown enormously in the past two decades, defend it, pointing to the Prophet Muhammad’s marriage to a 9-year-old. Child marriage is deeply rooted in local custom here, and even enshrined in an old tribal expression: “Give me a girl of 8, and I can give you a guarantee” for a good marriage.
“Voices are rising in society against this phenomenon and its catastrophes,” said Shawki al-Qadhi, an imam and opposition member in Parliament who has tried unsuccessfully to muster support for a legal ban on child marriage in Yemen in the past. “But despite rejections of it by many people and some religious scholars, it continues.”



http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/15/yemen.childbride/index.html



"When I heard, my heart burned for her; he wasn't supposed to sleep with her," said Nujood's mother, who asked not to be identified.


video

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/15/yemen.childbride/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

some more sad information
http://infidelsarecool.com/2008/06/10/yemen-over-half-of-married-women-under-15-says-report/

ishmael
07-21-2008, 08:54 PM
When I worked with nukes I went through the full Monty Civil Service vetting. It didn't bother me much. It must have cost a small fortune. By the time they got to the personal interview they'd talked with everyone I'd ever known! And some people I'd forgotten I'd known.:) And I'm sure been through every piece of paper in my train.

Oddly, the guy running it, when it came to the personal interview, didn't schedule an appointment. He simply showed up at my home one Saturday morning. I was just barely awake, but said, "Sure, com'on in, can I get you a cup of coffee?" About five minutes into the interview my girlfriend came down the stairs with a quizzical look on her face and headed for the kitchen. Without missing a beat the guy said, "I assume that's Kris." It was then I knew they had me. :)

It felt a bit intrusive. But, the Cold War was raging, and I was, potentially, working with classified materials. It wasn't a whole lot of skin off my nose.

Larks
07-21-2008, 09:18 PM
Don't fret. Give it time. They used to say the same things about homosexuals that they are saying about pedophiles. I expect that within a few years, the pedophiles' "sexual orientation" will be recognized as a protected civil right by the California Supreme Court.

This may have been said with sarcasm and may be a deplorable sentiment but it would be interesting to hear from any psychologists on the forum on this concept. It isn't the first time that I have heard this sentiment from other psychologists in that many paedophiles don't "believe" that what they do/feel is wrong. That they are "wired" that way similarly to how people are "wired" to be attracted to same or opposite sex partners.

'Any one with any real knowledge on this rather than emotive opinions in the forum?

Osborne Russell
07-21-2008, 09:20 PM
Parent is a verb.

Not in English.