Police checks on everybody who comes into contact with kids Options

[GMR]

Whether you take your friends kids to school or just help out you will be police checked. Visiting authors, dignitaries etc who come into contact with children will also be police checked. Is this a sensible precaution or over the top bureaucracy? Why not go the whole hog and police check all parents that take their children to school as they come into contact with other kids?

The other problem is; this will only safeguard children and the vulnerable against known paedophiles; what about the ones that are not known; i.e. haven’t been caught yet? With all this police checking won’t it let our guard down and an unknown child abuser through the net?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...ile-checks.html

[JeffG]

Whether you take your friends kids to school or just help out you will be police checked.

Not quite true, according to the news this morning. If lift-sharing was organised by the school, then yes. If it's just parents taking turns to take neighbours kids to school, then no.

As you suggest, it won't protect kids any more than the current CRB checks do.

[GMR]

Not quite true, according to the news this morning. If lift-sharing was organised by the school, then yes. If it's just parents taking turns to take neighbours kids to school, then no.

As you suggest, it won't protect kids any more than the current CRB checks do.

What I heard that it was the first step to check everybody who comes into contact with kids.

[Iommi]

On the whole I see this a a result of scaremongering and a Government getting 'tough on crime and the causes of crime'. The result is we get this sort of legislation. We don't need this legislation to prevent another Ian Huntley.

[Andy]

Whether you take your friends kids to school....

That isn't true...."Parents who make informal agreements among themselves will not have to register".

Additionally, I'm not really sure what your post (rant) is trying to state....are you for or against checking? Obviously there has to be vetting and as a start up scheme, I believe it should be as stringent as possible, as it will probably settle and ease with experience/time and subsequent arising logistical problems.

[GMR]

On the whole I see this a a result of scaremongering and a Government getting 'tough on crime and the causes of crime'. The result is we get this sort of legislation. We don't need this legislation to prevent another Ian Huntley.

I agree..... I think they are trying to over egg the pudding.

[GMR]

That isn't true...."Parents who make informal agreements among themselves will not have to register".

Additionally, I'm not really sure what your post (rant) is trying to state....are you for or against checking? Obviously there has to be vetting and as a start up scheme, I believe it should be as stringent as possible, as it will probably settle and ease with experience/time and subsequent arising logistical problems.

First of all I put the topic up as a poser to create a debate. However, I do think it is over the top bureaucracy and I think we might be taking our eye of the ball.

[Andy]

First of all I put the topic up as a poser to create a debate. However, I do think it is over the top bureaucracy and I think we might be taking our eye of the ball.

Problem is, if you leave one section unmonitored or unchecked then there's the window of oppotunity that will be exploited. It has to be all or nothing, otherwise if another incident occurs like Huntly, we'll all be crying out "Why wasn't he vetted"? etc etc...

[dannyboy]

Problem is, if you leave one section unmonitored or unchecked then there's the window of oppotunity that will be exploited. It has to be all or nothing, otherwise if another incident occurs like Huntly, we'll all be crying out "Why wasn't he vetted"? etc etc...

you are only supposed to vet the paedophiles

[GMR]

Problem is, if you leave one section unmonitored or unchecked then there's the window of oppotunity that will be exploited. It has to be all or nothing, otherwise if another incident occurs like Huntly, we'll all be crying out "Why wasn't he vetted"? etc etc...

Yes, but how far do you go? Checking all parents who take their kids to school? Shop assistant who serve kids? Child abusers will still slip through the net. Whatever about doing what they do in America put all child abusers on the net?

[JeffG]

That isn't true...."Parents who make informal agreements among themselves will not have to register".

Which is more or less what I said in post #2.

Obviously there has to be vetting and as a start up scheme, I believe it should be as stringent as possible

How is it a start-up scheme, when there are already CRB checks? What are the differences? If CRB checks weren't enough, what was the point of them in the first place?

[Andy]

Yes, but how far do you go?

As far as the rules state...all adults who potentially could supervise children. One thing I would object to is the seemingly high £64 charge!!!

[Iommi]

As far as the rules state...all adults who potentially could supervise children. One thing I would object to is the seemingly high £64 charge!!!

Yes and I believe people who volunteer their time to supervise children should get it for free. All I can really see here is a system that will become corrupt; giving a false sense of security, but doing little to supervise the most determined of criminals.

We will start hearing of schemes that fall by the way side because of the cost of the scheme.

[GMR]

We will start hearing of schemes that fall by the way side because of the cost of the scheme.

I think that is a good point. People will be put off because of the price and other new schemes might not even bother to take off. The trouble with the government they don't think those things through properly.

[Darren]

We don't need this legislation to prevent another Ian Huntley.

So what, rely on trust?

[Gumbo]

Funny though they don't check peoples suitability before having kids, any old moron can do that nowadays and often do.

[Biker1]

Funny though they don't check peoples suitability before having kids, any old moron can do that nowadays and often do.

That's always been the case.

Difference now is that they don't have to take on the responsibility of providing for them themselves.
The State does that for them now.

[GMR]

So what, rely on trust?

Vigilance and observation. Just because people are shown to be clean doesn’t meant they are. All this police checks can do is lull people into a false sense of security.

[Iommi]

So what, rely on trust?

Ian Huntley was allowed to work as he did because of a failure of a system, not the absence of one.

[GMR]

Ian Huntley was allowed to work as he did because of a failure of a system, not the absence of one.

And what's the betting that when we have another Ian Huntley it will be because of the failure of the system. When you make a system more bureaucratic there is more chance of failure.