Did Anyone See This?, And what do you think? Options

[chocolatedog]

Here! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif)

Daft or what............ (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif) Loony Labour strikes again.............

[pianophrase]

Here! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif)

Daft or what............ (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif) Loony Labour strikes again.............

The world has gone mad !! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif)

[hello_cello]

How stupid.
Im totally against the fact that bell ringers who teach others to ring now need a CRB check, even though they will be in a room with about 6 other people usually... And most people under 12 or so are asked to have a parent present whilst they are learning.
Whats strange though, is they only need it to teach people under 18. However, not to just be in the tower with someone under 18.

[SueHM]

The sad thing is that all this hassle and expense will not prevent another 'Soham', however much people would like to believe that it will. The money that is spent on this daft scheme could do so much good in so many other ways. How about funding some more help for young parents in under-priveleged areas - far more likely to prevent abuse of vulnerable children. Sigh.

[sarah123]

"Parents who make arrangements among themselves will not have to be vetted.

But any formal agreement to drive youngsters to and from the likes of Scouts, dance classes or local football matches, can qualify as intensive” contact, officials have said. Dealing with children as rarely as once a month counts as “frequent”.
"

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif)

[maggiemay]

it's complete bonkers

[Aeolienne]

Does this only apply to driving, or is escorting children on public transport considered equally dangerous?

My dad still fumes at the attitude of my primary school's headmistress towards him. Four of us girls had to go to Trinity College of Music (this was long before it relocated to its Greenwich location) for our Grade I recorder exam. Given the impossibility of parking in zone 1, the obvious way to get there from a school in Hampstead was to take the tube from Finchley Road to Baker Street, and my father offered to take the afternoon off work to escort us there. But the headmistress (who seemed to have something of a phobia of the tube, I know not why) said it wouldn't do to have us taken on the tube by a strange man (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mad.gif) and insisted on roping in the mother of an older pupil (not known to any of us!) to drive us there.

[Susie]

The danger with these schemes which might alternatively be labelled as "Jobs for Civil Servants" or "Making Money for the Government" is that they lull people into a false sense of security. I've no objection to the current CRB, although I think it's a bit OTT, but surely it's better to use common sense and encourage children and teenagers to have an appropriate amount of caution.

[enharmonic]

Mr enharmonic taught for some years at a girls' boarding school. About 15 years ago one of the girls had to go up to London for the day, and it happened to be on Mr E's day off and he was going to London that day so he offered to give her a lift. However, the headmistress said that although he'd taught irreproachably at the school for 11 years she could not consent to this.
So......the girl's parents, who were happy for her to go with Mr E, had to pay for a taxi for the 14 mile journey from the school to the nearest station, pay for her ticket to London and make their way across London to meet her at Paddington.

Nowadays he would probably have been arrested for even offering to drive her!

[nickjones8]

I don't think this is any evidence of 'loony labour'.

Given the focus group culture, and the pressure on politicians arising from the worries irresponsibly conjured up by papers like the Mail, the Express and the Sun, any party would have done something similar.

I agree that this is unlikely to prevent the terrible (yet fortunately rare) atrocities. It certainly wont' prevent domestic abuse, which is the real risk to most children.

What we need is not further registration and control, which is unlikely to achieve much other than make adults even more reluctant to volunteer their services, or come into friendly contact with kids. We need less fear, more confident and sensibly advised kids, and MORE adults taking an active interest in childrens' welfare, not fewer ... the more isolated kids become, the more at risk they will be.

[andante]

Kingsley13 had to be CRB checked to help on the side of the swimming pool for the swimming club. The ASA insisted on it, even though she was 14 and they were the same people that she didn't need to be CRB checked to swim with. The council said that they wouldn't do any checks on her as she was under age, so sending the form to them was a waste of time. Swimming actually in the pool, with few clothes on = no check. Standing on the side fully clothed = check. Total madness.

The other thing is you fill the paperwork in and send it off and get a certificate saying you are legal and above board, but you can't show the same certificate to another organisation, they have to apply again. So one person who runs each of their children around with friends for clubs, works part time in a school, helps with guides or swimming or football, could have six or seven CRB checks all covering the same two year period.

[Amber]

"Parents who make arrangements among themselves will not have to be vetted."

What about parents who make arrangements direct with the children themselves?

When I went to pick my son up from town recently he asked "Could you run Finley home coz he's missed the bus?" I said "Sure, hop in."

Under this new ruling I realise now I should have phoned his mother and got her agreement to my giving him a lift, because potentially he was at risk of accepting a lift from me. Will I be prosecuted? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif)

Ambs x

By the way, Finley's only 15 years old, 6' 2" tall and plays prop forward in the school's A team. Bless 'is little cotton socks!

[andante]

That's why it's totally unworkable. Which is preferable, leaving Finley at the side of the road to be spotted by the next paedophile, or giving him a lift, when his Mum is expecting him to get a bus (ie not a situation where she is expecting him to be left there)?

The rules that relate to all children under 135cm (?) must be on a booster seat have an exception clause for when a lift is offered on an irregular basis. So that, for example, if your car breaks down another parent can legally bring your child home, even if they don't have a spare booster. If the same person regularly takes your child anywhere, then they are expected to have a booster.

These things are all very well in theory, but in practice I just can't see it working.

edit: just seen your edit, giving a description of Finley. You wouldn't need to worry about the booster seat, and he's probably too big to be threatened by strange men too (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

[Amber]

edit: just seen your edit, giving a description of Finley. You wouldn't need to worry about the booster seat, and he's probably too big to be threatened by strange men too (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Lol, exactly!
I had a difficult enough job squeezing him in as it was, without a booster seat to add to it all! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

[Susie]

edit: just seen your edit, giving a description of Finley. You wouldn't need to worry about the booster seat, and he's probably too big to be threatened by strange men too (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Lol, exactly!
I had a difficult enough job squeezing him in as it was, without a booster seat to add to it all! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Ok, so now we get the picture. He didn't exactly "hop in" .... more a matter of folding himself into the seat (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)