Be Excellent To Each Other

Link.







This is horrible and ridiculous, and I'm glad those authors are taking a stand.

Agreed.

It's a very nasty piece of legislation. If you join an organisaiton and don't agree to be 'subject to monitoring' or allow someone who isn't to join your organisation (either as a volunteer or employee), you run the risk of a heavy fine.

So basically, you need a government licence to belong to avoluntary association now if there's a risk of anyone under 18 being present.

The whole child protection industry has got out of hand in recent years, and I believe it's destryiong natural relationships and bonds of trust within communities.

Full rant to come, I'm sure

There's a scheme already in place though isn't there? "Disclosure" or something. You have to do it, possibly pay a fee, and the cops check you out.

CRB, aye. But, and this is critical, it isn't an offence not to do a check in most cases

Its political correctness gone mad. No, really!

So is this for people who work in those industries? I sometimes go into schools or charities to make videos* but I am never left alone with the kids or vunrable people. Presumably I won't need it?





* Anyone who uses the word "films" is a cunt who I would gladly kick to death for being totally up their own arses. It's a fucking video, not a bloody Titanic remake. You're not even shooting onto film!

Won't somebody please think of the children.

You've got to do it or Maddie will have died in vain.

Never again...

I worked for Games Workshop some years ago in their scenery design department, i had no contact with the public what so ever but i had to be checked for kiddy konvictions. They didn't get the results back until i had been working there for about 5 weeks.

How many kids did you get to molest in those 5 weeks?

A friend of a friend got a text message from their kids school the other day, saying that on school sports day, no attendees will be permitted to take photographs and those with cameras will be asked to leave.

I genuinely thought such stories were exaggerated bollocks by the media.

*fap*fap*fap*

How much is a tiny amount of contact for these purposes? If I spaff over their faces without actually touching them, thats less than a tiny amount of contact.

Best ban kids clothing catalogues, CBBC and Harry Potter movies among other things in case any one is jerking off over them.

Hermione is legal these days, thankfully.

Well he IS the most dangerous man in Britain. (Quoth Daily Mail several years ago)

I used to go to do workshops in schools and had to have a current police check record. I don't know how this differs at all, but nobody ever made much of a deal about it, just accepted it as one of those things you just had to do. I'm surprised that you haven't needed one so far, Chinny.

Six.

Hmmm.


I'm not sure that these aren't reasonable suggestions. There's little doubt that Huntley slipped through a loophole in existing legislation and should never have been allowed to work in a school, and there's two girls dead from that mistake. And this sounds like an expansion on the existing CRB checks, rather than an entirely extra piece of stuff, which is sensible.

The thing is, when someone comes to visit your school, is it really difficult to check they don't leave with a five year old in a rucksack?

As appeared in YS!

Disclosure expert (it's my job) here

The key element is if you are at any point actually responsible for them. If you're never actually left alone with them then you don't legally require one, and it's up to the discretion of the school/charity if they want you to get one.

Ian Huntley actually did have a criminal record check (the old version) done for his job at the school. What he had done was to exploit an old ancient law which still stands to this day (though hardly anyone seems to know of it) that allows you to use legally you mother's maiden name for anything you want without the need to change your name by deed poll. The revamped disclosure system has checks to ensure this sort of thing can't be exploited in the same way anymore.

I understand the need to protect children, but really the whole string of procedures and requirements seems a bit much. Essentially, people are now assumed to be paedophiles until they prove otherwise... is society really that f***ed up that that is a reasonable assumption to make? I used to umpire hockey matches every weekend, but there are quite a few minors play in our league and it has been decided that anybody who umpires "regularly" (hazy word whose definition is still to be defined but will definitely include me) needs CRB clearance, at a cost. It's pretty ridiculous a priori, but even more so when you consider that we don't even have enough umpires to cover the games adequately in the first place... anyhoo, I've rambled off on a tangent but basically the whole thought process behind these rules and regulations is muddied and insulting.

Do you need any checks to be an Ice Cream man? I've always thought that if I wanted to be a pedo, that's how I would do it.

One of my ex's did a case study on this for uni. The theories put forward here are not my own but I think they make sense.

The term paedophillia/pedophillia is the wrong term for people who are attracted to children. I am assuming we all know the phillia phobia difference so we won't go into that. The term should be paedosexual. In her study (which I can't get hold of if you were wondering, not a good break up) there is evidence to suggest up to 1% of the population may be this way inclined. However similar percentage rates of rape are recorded in paedophilles as to heterosexuals and homosexuals. The implication being that most paedophilles know that it is wrong to molest children in the same way I know I can't just go out and force sex upon a woman.

If these paedosexuals have done nothing wrong they can still get jobs in schools etc. unless they have been caught with naughty pictures. Even in if the person had never harmed a living person but was suspected of paedophillia it makes people wary. Her study was frowned upon but it seems to be the undercurrent in society that if you are a slightly older gent and you want to work in a school then watch out 'cos he's a paedo.

Paedophilia only applies to pre-pubescent children, anyway.

If someone is attracted to post-pubescent children, they're an ephebophile.

Amusingly, whenever a topic to do with paedophilia comes up on the Something Awful forums, there's always a bunch of people pointing out this distinction.

This is more wide ranging though. Pullman (snigger) is not the best example. This is not so much a "billy blue hat" thing as a "purple helmet" thing.

I think it should be much more simple than this. If you've committed a sexual crime against a child and been convicted for it, then your name should go on a list. If your name is on that list you can't have a job that in any way involves children. And that's it.

Malc

Throwing a curve ball, will parents need to be on this list? As they will be in contact with other peoples kids?

Here's a more pragmatic argument against the scheme:
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-st ... tives.html

A good article

True story: I was recently contacted by a third-party with an "irresistible" offer for a contract for some Government project. I suspect the ultimate parties were BT, Fujitsu or Siemens who seem to be favourites in the world of Government tendering, but I can't be sure. I also suspect that the project was the ID database; I've worked for both BT and Fujitsu on another Government project called "Connecting for Health" (If you don't know what this is, rest assured it's a waste of your (UK) tax-payers money and is costing billions upon billions more than was estimated - educate yourself about it and write to your MP to complain), and I told the people who contacted me never to offer me anything related to CfH ever again. I can't be sure, but I suspect this new project was to do with this Database project.

I told them to get stuffed. However, should I ever end up working on that project I shall deem it my duty to fuck it up royally.

Again, its entirely missing the point... the child abuse meted out by random strangers is a tiny minority, the vast majority is inflicted by relatives, family friends and aquaintances of the child.

Who of course won't be covered by this, in any way, shape or form.

Exactly...

It is a lets be seen to do something.. then go overboard again!!

Bingo.

It is, although you can never say it in public, much like the mostly previous fear of homosexuals. Apparently just because they're attracted to a different society group they're unable to act like normal people.

Not to say the acts should ever be legal, of course not. But as you say there is, in reality, absolutely nothing to infer they're anymore likely to rape a kid than say, I would be to rape their mid-20s teacher.



I do because it irritates me a lot, especially with american legal ages. Condeming the 22 year old who sleeps with a 17 year old as a paedo only serves to make the whole thing a laughing stock and worse, to cover up the crime of the 55 year old sleeping with say, 8-12 year olds. And that's just unacceptable. It's like classifying using a wasp bomb on a nest and going into a school with hand grenades as the same crime, they're both killing!

--

A much better question is why does it cost £64 for every check? The answer is that of course it fucking doesn't. If we assume the tax payer paid for it (and they should) then you're spending £25 for EVERY british taxpayer for a scheme of, at best, limited usefulness.

Interesting. And the insinuation is that the majority of what is being targetting therefore is (I've never resorted to a 1984 reference on the internet and hate myself for it) 'Thoughtcrime'. I've long thought that there is a seed of an argument for not driving paedophilia underground at the more mild end of the spectrum. This isn't a nice thought, but pictures of kids exist. If you destroy them, more pictures will need to be taken to serve that market, hurting more kids. There is potential to say that letting paedophiles have access to pre-existing materials may sate their need and stop them causing more 'harm'. I wouldnt want to be the kid on the photos though.


I'd dispute the 'mostly previous'. I've heard comments fairly recently where for example someone has said that George Michael shouldn't be left with children because of his cottaging antics.

Depending on just how thorough their background checks are, I can well believe that the time it takes to perform those background checks adds up, and given an hourly rate needed to be "profitable", that £64 would cover it.

Still far too much though, ideally it should be £0. As in, "not fucking needed".

Takes time? I thought the whole point of it was that you stick in someone's name, address, and DOB, then hit the "tenuously link this person to other people with similar details who are rapists" button, and you're done?

There's a caretaker in the school Miss Malabar works at. He's been there years. He has a habit of chatting to the children, asking them worryingly inappropriate questions about their sex lives and what flavoured condoms they like. He's been reported, but the school has never done anything about it. This worries me.

He asked her the same sorts of questions when she was a pupil there, and she reported him. Nothing. It's still going on, and nothing.

Yeah I considered taking it out although my example was going to be the US Army.

I have often thought whether people would consider CGI child porn to be immoral (if we, for arguments sake, remove the argument that it might 'lead on to' actual child porn).

It's recently been made illegal.

Which is silly of course, how do you ask a CGI pornstar for ID?

Got a source on that?

Just draw pubes on them. If there's grass on the pitch etc. etc.

Porn stars with pubes?

Talk about unrealistic...

Actually it appears it may not have crawled through yet but.

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/200 ... stice.html

More specifically, section 49 on

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... ml#j3_100a



Amusingly my reading of the above is that it bans anyone who "looks like they're under 18" from being a pornstar. "Think 25?"

And now I've done a google search including the words Child and porn. At work. That's super.

This differs in the fact that it has less of a blind spot.

CRB checks have to be done once every three years. So (according to the official justification for V&B) a prospective Huntley could get his check and then do whatever he wants for up to three years.* Vetting and barring is apparently constant, which makes it easier for me to get banning peeps when ContactPoint goes live in my area.


* Unless, obviously, he's doing time.

Makes it a thought crime, doesn't it? You thought of children and porn which clearly makes you a danger to society! And this whole web site! My God! I'm a member! I must be and evil kiddy fiddler! Arrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh!