September 17th, 2009

Joined-up policy-making

Posted in The Job - General by 200

I sometimes wish the government would just make up its mind & stick to it.

First they announce that anyone who so much as looks at a child must undergo rigorous criminal records checks, then 3 days later say actually, it’s not set in stone & we are getting someone to review whether it goes too far.

OK, so they didn;t actually say they’d enforce CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) checks if you just happened to be in the same street as a child but they did say it would cover anyone who had regular contact with children & cited assisting in transporting children for sports club events or helping at the local browniw pack by giving lifts to outings.

No sooner than the news had been announced than one half  were bemoaning the nanny state & forecasting the large scale closure of football clubs as it would put off potential helpers due to the bureaucratic madness of it all, whilst the other half were ending their proclamations with “…if it saves just one child…”

Of course, being a government thing, the scheme wouldn;t be an enhancement of the current CRB check system just including more people, no, it would be a whole new scheme with a brand new database – probably costing squillions & being completely disfunctional – and furthermore, everyone who has already had CRB checks would be required to register with the new scheme & be checked all over again. Official quotes suggested around 11 million people would be eligible for the new requirements.

It seems the new scheme would add a whole new level of bureaucracy to that already present which already fulfills a very similar need & comments have been so negative that the government have been forced into a re-think; they announced this week that someone important was to review the proposals.

Joined-up-government making policy by wetting a finger & sticking it in the air? 10p tax, Gurkha rights, ID cards, marching people off the the cashpoint, anyone?

You can skip to the end and leave a comment. Pinging is currently not allowed. RSS 2.0

9 comments

  1. john says:

    Nahh. The person reviewing it is the person who be running it.
    In the case of the new vetting and safeguarding scheme the candidate will be assessed on the basis of whether relevant conduct or a risk of harm “on the face of it” seems to have occurred.
    Note this section in the “guidance”:
    “perhaps the acquittal was based on a technicality; and even where a
    jury has found someone not guilty of having done something, you must
    always remember that, at most, this means is that the court did not find that
    someone did something “beyond a reasonable doubt” (the criminal standard
    of proof). The test applied by the ISA in relation to barring considerations is ‘on the balance of probability’ (the civil standard of proof)”
    Since speeding [for instance] is both criminal and antisocial it would be within the remit of the ISA to disqualify a person from carrying [other peoples] children in a vehicle.

    September 18th, 2009 at 00:40

  2. Graham Smith says:

    Oh, if only this Government would use more primary legislation (and allow Parliament sufficient time to afford proper scrutiny to bills), this could have been avoided. :-(

    September 18th, 2009 at 07:12

  3. Ian says:

    God what a novel idea, a government that can make up its mind. Pleas let me know if you ever come across one.
    But I’m not holding my breath. As for our current government. They were all in government in a early life, about the time some one hit on the idea to design a small animal and come up with the Giraffe

    September 18th, 2009 at 15:23

  4. Tony F says:

    Ho hum, I for one will not be volunteering my services. I always thought you were innocent until proven guilty? And on top of that, we know it will not make an Iota of difference. There is legislation out there for things like murder, but just ‘cos the laws there doesn’t stop it happening. Nor does it reduce it happening.To deter Paedophiles, rather than ‘punish’ innocents, cut the paedophiles bollocks off with a rusty hacksaw. Then make them eat them.

    September 18th, 2009 at 16:15

  5. Fee says:

    I have two daughters. It is my job, nay my duty, to protect them as far as possible. This does NOT include a criminal record check on the friendly mum (or dad) who offers to collect my youngest from dance class. If I had doubts about someone, I’d collect the monster myself. Those actually running childrens’ activities are already checked, and that’s fine by me.

    My dad spent most of my childhood ferrying me and my little friends around birthday parties, Girl’s Brigade (until I got expelled), Brownies (ditto expulsion), gymnastics (banned after the “wall-bars incident”), tap dancing (stuck that for 3 whole years) and many other occasions. He’d have cut his own head off before abusing a child, whether his or anyone else’s, but this Government seems to be hell-bent on suggesting that such parents must be up to something dodgy, they just haven’t caught them yet.

    We are running the risk of making children think that no-one, but no-one, is to be trusted. Whereas the majority of adults are absolutely trustworthy, and the rest can be dealt with as Tony F suggests. It’s got to the stage where adults, particularly men, are afraid to smile at a kid on a bus. Protect children from predators, absolutely, but not at the expense of common sense.

    /rant over, and breathe …

    September 18th, 2009 at 18:31

  6. 200 says:

    Harsh, but fair, as always, Tony!

    September 18th, 2009 at 21:22

  7. Tony F says:

    Fee, I have 3 girls….

    200, absolutely. I am getting so fed up with the lack of punishment given out to real scrotes. I know it’s done to death that someone who does 5 MPH over the speed limit gets butt fucked ( unless they are ‘travellers’), and yet someone who assaults a Police person doesn’t even get a telling off.

    Our Niftylift was stolen from a council yard. They broke the locks off the gate, drove in and took the hoist. Yes, we have CCTV, not particularly good though. The break in was reported to the police, and so we have a crime number. However, no one turned up to have a look, there are various ‘dodgy’ locations in the area. We Know that it was stolen around 2100 on the Friday. We know it wasn’t taken onto the main road before 0630 Saturday…

    If someone had had a look around between 0400 and 0600…. Oh fuck what am I thinking?

    I am so fed up with our society.

    September 18th, 2009 at 22:36

  8. Tony F says:

    To quote…”whilst the other half were ending their proclamations with “…if it saves just one child…”” Well execute all paedos, I can guarantee that will save more than one child.

    September 19th, 2009 at 20:14

  9. MarkUK says:

    I do voluntary work where I come into contact with adolescents and vulnerable adults (as well as non-vulnerable ones). I also work part time at three schools. I can see why I need a CRB check (but not why I need four of them).

    What I object to is the kind of “evidence” that will go into the new database. Arrests, cautions, and NG verdicts (and I always thought that “not guilty” meant not guilty). As well as this, there will be innuendo and the “suspicion” of a police officer. (Just think of the payday for a corrupt officer!)

    You can even get a mention for spending time on the wrong type of dodgy website – and I don’t mean a paedophile one. How will anyone know? Will the government be snooping on our internet usage even more?

    I’m not a teacher, I’m “support staff”, and my skills transferred into education; they can just as easily transfer out. What about the poor bl**dy teacher whose career could be blighted, or even terminated, if someone jumps to an erroneous conclusion over an innocent act?

    We have gone a lot too far with this surveillance society. My vote goes to the party that will reverse this.

    September 19th, 2009 at 21:20

Leave a comment